Originally posted by ivanhoeWe don't "produce" it, but I'm not sure we "discover" it either. It's part of our nature.
Is objective moral law something we humans produce or is it something we discover ?
From my post on page 12 (from a link):
You may ask how the natural law is known. Through human reason and conscience, answer the natural-law thinkers. The natural-law doctrine usually assumes that man has a specific nature which involves certain natural needs, and the power of reason to recognize what is really good for man in terms of these needs.
Christian thinkers, such as Aquinas and John Locke, think the natural law is of divine origin. God, in creating each thing, implanted in it the law of its nature. The phrase about "the laws of nature and of nature's God" in our Declaration of Independence derives from this type of natural-law doctrine. However, this particular theological viewpoint is not always found in writers who uphold the natural law, for these include such pre-Christian thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, and such modern secular philosophers as Kant and Hegel.
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue , but you do need an objective moral law of some kind and having an objective moral law would mean that the universe is not ammoral anymore , or morally neutral. This would be to suggest that the universe cares somehow or has a moral interest in our actions. This would be a VERY, VERY different kind of universe from the one most Atheists describe.
You don't need a God to have an objective moral law.
It would suggest that there is some kind of moral law running through the universe similar to the law of gravity (or thermodynamics , electromagnetism , mathematics , quantum physics etc etc). It would be to suggest that this law is an objective standard by which we may measure moral actions as being wrong or right. Most Atheists would subscribe to the idea that morals are sociological and cultural concepts fostered by men's opinions and beliefs. But no amount of belief/disbelief can change the law of gravity and a truely objective moral law would have to be the same. Where might this law come from ? Why is it there? Does it care? If it has no compassion or feeling or love how can it judge what's right and wrong accurately?
One may not need a God to have an objective moral law , but you are going to have to come up with quite a dramatic and radical alternative world view to avoid taking the first step to Theism.
Originally posted by SushillSo if everyone on earth who had ever lived had decided that torturing babies at birth was morally right would that make it morally right or would there still be something in the universe whispering that it wasn't?
I presume both. The one doesn't necessarilly precludes the other.
Originally posted by spruce112358"So a theist's objective morality (which may not exist) is not superior to an atheist's subejctive morality (which does exist, but depends on circumstance). Take your pick.
Interesting thread.
For objective morality to exist you have to make additional assumptions. One can show that subjective morality based on who is looking at the situation exists through an evolutionary/genetic framework. Take the train example and ask whether you would kill your own son in order to save those 20 people? No? Neither would I. Too bad ...[text shortened]... cumstance). Take your pick.
The fascinating thing is they seem to converge so often.
The fascinating thing is they seem to converge so often."
You are right , one is not superior necessarily to the other , what I find fascinating is that even though Atheists say morals are only subjective they often unwittingly refer to them as if they were objective (eg - That's just not right!! )
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterDo you ever bother reading other people's posts? By no means does the existence of an objective moral law even suggest that the universe "cares". It's existence is meaningful to humans, but not to the universe as a whole unless the universe itself is sentient (and such a universe might not "care" at all). Moreover, you don't know jack about what most atheists think, so stop posing as an expert on what other people believe.
True , but you do need an objective moral law of some kind and having an objective moral law would mean that the universe is not ammoral anymore , or morally neutral. This would be to suggest that the universe cares somehow or has a moral interest in our actions. This would be a VERY, VERY different kind of universe from the one most Atheists describe quite a dramatic and radical alternative world view to avoid taking the first step to Theism.
Please go back and read my posts on page 12 and hopefully you won't write something as stupid as "If it [the universe] has no compassion or feeling or love how can it judge what's right and wrong accurately?" This is mindless drivel; does the universe "care" that the law of gravity pulls smaller objects toward heavier ones? If not, why should it "care" if human nature leads Man to act in certain ways?
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe thing "whispering in the universe" would be inside us. A species that tortured its offspring at birth wouldn't be around very long.
So if everyone on earth who had ever lived had decided that torturing babies at birth was morally right would that make it morally right or would there still be something in the universe whispering that it wasn't?
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis has nothing to do with creating or discovering a objective moral law. You are describing something we call democracy and democracy isn't objective in any way.
So if everyone on earth who had ever lived had decided that torturing babies at birth was morally right would that make it morally right or would there still be something in the universe whispering that it wasn't?
It would be democratically right if a majority of people decide its okay to kill babies at birth, but morally it still isn't. Killing babies at birth is objectivally morallly wrong. Think about it ... if everybody would start running around killing all just-born babies the world/society would turn into complete and utter chaos, whenever or wherever this would occur ... therefor killing babies at birth can be considered an objective morally wrong ... and there is no need for God to determine that.
Originally posted by SushillI agree that this would happen but why would it be wrong for the world/society to be in utter chaos?
This has nothing to do with creating or discovering a objective moral law. You are describing something we call democracy and democracy isn't objective in any way.
It would be democratically right if a majority of people decide its okay to kill babies at birth, but morally it still isn't. Killing babies at birth is objectivally morallly wrong. Think about ...[text shortened]... n be considered an objective morally wrong ... and there is no need for God to determine that.
I know this sounds ridiculous but you have unconsciously assumed some objective moral "fact".
All you have shown is that if we followed a certain source of action then it has certain consequences , but this is not the same as saying it is "wrong" , you have just moved the argument to another arena.
You might say but that would be bad for humanity , but this would pre suppose that what is bad for humanity must be objectively "wrong" . For all we know humanity might be a parasite on earth that nature is best rid of as soon as possible and you have nothing but your own personal conviction and sociological concepts to hold up against this argument ...you certainly don't have anything "objective".
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am saying that Hitler may have been regarded as a good man , a bad man , or as an efficient man or charismatic man. Without an objective moral law it all depends on your opinion ultimately. Some people might have regarded him as a forward thinking supremesist who took evolutionary natural selection to it's next logical stage.?
Are you saying that no person though Hitler to be a good man?
I don't . I think he was an objectively bad man whose life went against a real objective moral law that exists in the universe independent of what any men might think.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can drop the dismissive tone , I'm pretty immune to it's repetitive nature by now.
Do you ever bother reading other people's posts? By no means does the existence of an objective moral law even suggest that the universe "cares". It's existence is meaningful to humans, but not to the universe as a whole unless the universe itself is sentient (and such a universe might not "care" at all). Moreover, you don't know jack about what most at ...[text shortened]... s? If not, why should it "care" if human nature leads Man to act in certain ways?
I agree that there is such a thing as "natural law" in that men feel generally compelled to act in certain ways and our conscience is endowed with the potential for guilt if we break this law.
The problem with natural law is that it assumes that the law came from nature itself. It suggests that there are certain laws governing human nature that are "objectively" in us. Now these laws have to come from somewhere right? So in natural law they come from nature . This would suggest to me that there are supposed to be evolutionary in nature. In our genes we may have certain behaviours instilled in us to ensure the greater chance of survival of the human race (eg altruism , community , helping others etc ).
This means that nature is in a way playing a trick on us. It causes our minds to come up with abstract notions of "right and wrong" but really it's only because those ancestors who co-operated in our past were more likely to survive and so passed on their altruism genes (for arguments sake). It's Dawkins' selfish gene in reality.
Ultimately , once we start thinking about natural law then we realise that morality isn't really morality but a means to an end for something else (survival of the fittest? , longevity of humanity?). This means that if natural law is derived from the brutal processes of evolution then we must put away the charade of it being something nice and cosy. To say someone is a "good" man is to say that he is (in reality) benfiting the evolutionary future of humanity (or whatever humanity evolves into)
The problem is that once these blind processes "decide" that humanity is no longer sustainable we may find nature working against us in the form of mass extinction or environmental catastrophe. Babies dying may become part of "natural law". In a million years time you may find your "natural law of objective morality" may just turn out to be some genetic mutation. This is why I think you need a God to have true objective morality because natural law is not moral , it's just evolution underneath artificial social constructs.
Of course....I don't think this is the whole story....but do you?
1 edit
Originally posted by SushillWhat I meant was: Where can moral law be found (or discovered). The marauder answers this question in the next post. The natural moral law is "enshrined" in human nature. It is part of our nature. We can "discover" or "produce" or "distill" or "formulate" the natural moral law by studying human nature and using human reason.
Would you call the law of gravity a "moral law"? If no ... why ask? I fail to see the use of a comparison question between laws of physics and "morality, i.e. moral laws"
Originally posted by SushillPlease, allow me to change a few words in your statement:
This has nothing to do with creating or discovering a objective moral law. You are describing something we call democracy and democracy isn't objective in any way.
It would be democratically right if a majority of people decide its okay to kill babies at birth, but morally it still isn't. Killing babies at birth is objectivally morallly wrong. Think about ...[text shortened]... n be considered an objective morally wrong ... and there is no need for God to determine that.
"This has nothing to do with creating or discovering a objective moral law. You are describing something we call democracy and democracy isn't objective in any way.
It would be democratically right if a majority of people decide its okay to kill unborn babies, but morally it still isn't. Killing unborn babies is objectivally morallly wrong. Think about it ... if everybody would start running around killing all unborn babies the world/society would turn into complete and utter chaos, whenever or wherever this would occur ... therefor killing unborn babies can be considered an objective morally wrong ... and there is no need for God to determine that."
Do you still agree with the changed statement ? If not, why not ?