Forums → WEPR → What makes something "good" or "bad"?
| 63 | 35967 |
Perhaps another topic should be started on that exact point?
-Quote from Mage that gots me to do this.
So, in the thread "Why do we do what we do?", the topic began to revolve a bit around the idea of why something is necessarily "good" or "bad". Even better with this idea..is it can be asked to both theists and atheists alike!
So..to theists..most of the time the answer tends to revolve around the idea that something is good or not-good because of the deity's decision. It decides what is seen as good or bad..but my question is, why? Or..to go more in depth..is something seen as good (or pious) by the deity because it favors the idea, or does it favor the idea because it is good (or pious)?
To atheists (or apatheists..if we ever get one)..why is it we see something as good or bad? Of course..it could be because of a natural drive for what is best for our species..but what of certain beliefs of good or bad that would go against this idea? (this, of course, would begin the topic of certain groups that have a different inherent set of beliefs than others..example: cannibals.)
Feel free to delve into this topic in anyway you see fit.
[Side note: Read Euthyphro for further thoughts on the subject]
- 63 Replies
Without a deity or high power there can be no natural or universal moral code due to the diverse human cultures. Killing may be "wrong" in one culture yet allowed in another. At a secular level, it is purely the culture that determines right or wrong through a set of social contracts. If you are saying a Right and Wrong that is universal, there must be a high being that set it in place.
This is either simply a descriptive feature of the world or it's intended as a thesis about the foundations of morality. If it's the latter, then we end up with cultural relativism. While descriptively accurate, it fails as a theory as it's unable to answer what one ought to do or refrain from doing.
While a god could certainly be a viable foundation for morality, it seems quite clear that this isn't the case. What we end up with a theological discussion, rather than an ethical one, about which god(s) have provided us with the correct moral standards. And, of course, it can't come down to which set of morals is 'better' since this line of thought wouldn't be available.
But there are plenty of other areas in which to search for justification for moral decisions. This is precisely why there are so many ethical theories on the market - some better than others. But if there is an objective matter-of-fact about what is moral/immoral (and I think there is) it's not difficult at all to justify in the absence of a deity. The difficulty comes in trying to get the tough cases right, but whatever response given would at the very least be justified.
This is either simply a descriptive feature of the world or it's intended as a thesis about the foundations of morality. If it's the latter, then we end up with cultural relativism. While descriptively accurate, it fails as a theory as it's unable to answer what one ought to do or refrain from doing.
Well, if you accept cultural relativism, that is when you must dig deeper to discover what "one ought or ought not do". It does fail in that regard because I am not using it as an explanation of "what is right or wrong" but rather I wanted to start with a "could there be right or wrong". If you accept that there is a right or wrong, you have to understand where it came from to understand the why behind what is right or wrong.
But if there is an objective matter-of-fact about what is moral/immoral (and I think there is) it's not difficult at all to justify in the absence of a deity.
Please justify, I want to see what that looks like.
Of course we do have a number of biological reasons to not do tings like kill others within our own group. The killing of our own species is often done when we don't view those people as "one of us" but of a different group.
I could argue biological reasons for killing inside a group.
I would like to again pose the issue of a God based morality. Is it moral because this God says it is or is this God saying it because it's moral? Again, if it moral because this God says it is why would this God say killing is wrong instead of right? It would seem in such a case we have just moved the subjective nature up a level from groups of people to a single entity.
I could argue biological reasons for killing inside a group.
Now back to the secular look.
Let's say you need to function within a group to survive. Do you have better chances in a group where you feel you need to constantly watch your back because someone else in that group might kill you or do you function better in the group that watches out and protects each other?
Another example, you wish to propagate you genes. Now with in a family group your genes are also shared by your relatives. So do you stand a better chance to propagate if you're just in it for your self or do you stand a better chance by protecting those around you who share those genes?
In both of these cases we are biologically "rogramed" to demonstrate altruistic behavior.
Is it moral because this God says it is or is this God saying it because it's moral?
IF the latter where true, where would this sense of morality come from? Yes, if God created morality, the big question is why He made some things moral and others not. Well, that is where faith and religion come in. It is their purpose to learn the will of God and try and learn why.
Fides Et Ratio
Well, that is where faith and religion come in. It is their purpose to learn the will of God and try and learn why.
Accepting a claim out of gullibility without and even in spite of facts has nothing to do with learning. Faith does nothing to teach us anything, it's just accepting something blindly. As for religion being a teacher, at least here we can learn of the claims being made. But if we were to assume a God of some sort exists this is a very poor teacher. You feel your religion is correct, someone else feels their religion is correct. You can't both be right. But let's say you did get the right religion you could still be getting the details wrong of that religion. It's like requiring certain courses for a class but not knowing which courses those are and just taking a shot based on what feels like the right course to take.
In short faith an religion is a non answer to the question. But since this thread had started from arguing morality from the Abrahamic God I guess we could keep it narrowed down to that That only leaves us with 34-36+ thousand versions to work with of what this God wants and considers moral.
So let's make it real easy and say your particular brand. What does your religion say as to why God would say one thing is moral and another thing not?
What does your religion say as to why God would say one thing is moral and another thing not?
I would've answered something like "because He's perfectly good and loving and kind and wants us to live in the best way possible by following His perfect, loving rules, which prevent us from harmful paths. Things are immoral if they go against them".
Without a deity or high power there can be no natural or universal moral code due to the diverse human cultures.
The crux of Cow's statement, and that's just what it is. A statement. It seems like because he made a statement with conviction, concerning "God", you've set out to try and dissect it, but really it has more to do with social behavior than religion. What universal code of morals could there be without a deity? That's the focus, not whether we're programmed to kill each other or not.
Please justify, I want to see what [the justification of an ethical theory in the absence of a god] looks like.
What universal code of morals could there be without a deity?
I'll address the second point first, because there are literally dozens of robust ethical theories out there that don't hinge on the existence of a deity. Consequentialism (broadly construed), act and rule utilitarianism, deontology (broadly construed), Kantian ethics, contractarianism, contractualism, virtue ethics (broadly construed). The list goes on. And also within each of these ethical theories there are a number of variants that are individually compelling. To be fair, every single one of these theories faces serious worries - some more serious than others. But they all represent a genuine feature of 'the good' that has been identified, whether or not the theory is successful.
So how are these individual theories justified (this is cowmaster1's point). To be clear, a theist would view the justification for these theories to be a bit ... circuitous. After all, a moral theory that derives directly from God has as its foundation the fount of goodness. But I don't think this is a serious problem for these other theories.
We can put the question of justification a bit more simply by asking why action A is moral or immoral. In other words, what features of A make it 'good' or 'bad'. (This isn't quite right, but it will do for our purposes.)
Any ethical theory is going to have 2 parts: (1) a theory of value, and (2) some story that relates actions to those things we value. To see this in action, let's consider act utilitarianism (it's one of the easier theories to understand). The only thing of value in this theory is pleasure/happiness. It then states that the consequences of an action are what matter, so the right action is the one that maximises overall happiness.
The justification here is easy to see because most people find it intuitively obvious that happiness is valuable. The story is similar for the other theories. These theories are justified by an appeal to something of value.
Of course, as with most things in philosophy, the story is far more complicated than this. Also note that these theories don't have to be true - the question is about whether (and how) they are justified. We can have a justified theory that is false the same way we can have a justified belief that is false (well, sort of).
tl;dr: Ethical theories are justified to the extent that they help us acquire states/things that are valuable.
Let's say you need to function within a group to survive. Do you have better chances in a group where you feel you need to constantly watch your back because someone else in that group might kill you or do you function better in the group that watches out and protects each other?
Star Trek people thinks its possible (Mirror Universe, Klingons)
@EmpPal
Romans 3:22-28 indicates that saying "I do works which means I have faith" is wrong, but the verse I cited already says "I have faith so there fore I do works"
Well, not quite. He got 2nd for the presidency and was later appointed chancellor. After detaining some political opponents, he got the most public votes, but not the needed absolute majority in parliament. After restricting more political opponents, he and his cabinet gained full legislative power, then merged the positions of chancellor and presidency into the new position of Fuhrer.
It still didn't take that long (and what you posted is why I said "not literally"
He was appointed chancellor because the president was a wuss, and then had his goals furthered by Chamberlain.
~~~Darth Caedus
Romans 3:22-28 indicates that saying "I do works which means I have faith" is wrong, but the verse I cited already says "I have faith so there fore I do works"
No, it states that all believers with faith are declared righteous and "justified freely", regardless of their actions. 4:5 specifies that if they do nothing at all but believe, they're still righteous.
Lets not bring our religions into this discussion.
To relate it to the topic, the particular point we're on deals with canonically justifying the maxim of being laborious and the extent that is required, if any. I suppose it could be expanded beyond the scope of this particular argument.
Is laziness itself good or bad, and to what degree? How hard ought one work?
Laziness is bad especially if your getting fat lol
Should physical activity/work take precedent over mental activity/work?
You must be logged in to post a reply!