Godless Morality

Something which appeared on my Facebook Feed: Godless Morality, by Peter Singer

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/godless-morality#DEypma60BqhQmhdd.99


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank space with “obligatory,” “permissible,” or “forbidden.”

1. A runaway boxcar is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the boxcar onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ______.

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond, and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical condition, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital, but there is a healthy person in the hospital’s waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person’s organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person’s organs is

1. permissible
2.obligatory
3.permissible or forbidden depending upon the person's consent...

when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one or more individuals to dissolve the political, social, or religious bands which have connected them another and to assume their own seperate and equal station to which the laws of nature and natures god entitle them, a decent respect for the understanding of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to this seperation.

we hold these truths to be self evident.
that all are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these

LIFE

LIBERTY

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

it is to secure these rights that authoritive institutions are created among humanity, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of authority becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the individual/s to alter or abolish it, and to develop new institutions, laying their foundations on such principles, and organizing their powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

--


i got the same answers

1 is permissable because either choice can be justified and its understood that nither should be imposed

2 he!! no i got these at HOT TOPIC you must be crazy she better learn to swim

3 is forbidden because the way its written implies that the individual is required to submit their life

I put together a sloppy proof a while ago about how God as we think of it defeats the notion of moral absolutism.

1. If God exists, he either does or does not have attributes.
2. If God does not have attributes, then he cannot have knowledge of the attributes good and evil.
3. If one does not have knowledge of the attributes good and evil, then they cannot make judgments about what is good or evil.
4. All things would be objectively inferior to an almighty God.
5. Therefore, if God had no attributes, nothing would have any knowledge of or be able to make judgments about good and evil.
6. Therefore, if God does not have attributes, there is no objective standard of morality.
7. If God had attributes and those attributes were evil, he would have no just authority over what is good and what is evil.
8. Nothing can be superior to God in authority if he exists.
9. Therefore, if God had evil attributes, there would be no basis for judgment over what is good and what is evil.
10. If God had attributes, those attributes must be good in order to give him any moral authority.
11. (Because God is the source of all things) Evil attributes can exist IF AND ONLY IF:
A. God wills things to be evil, or
B. God wills evil things to exist.
12. A supremely good being would neither will things to be evil nor will evil things to exist.
13. Therefore, if God is good, evil things do not exist.
14. Therefore, there are no moral issues as all things are good.

If the person still insists that evil things exist:

15. Evil things exist.
16. Therefore, God is not good (from 13).
17. If objective moral standards exist, then God is not good; God is not evil; God does not lack attributes.
18. Therefore, if objective moral standards exist, then God does not exist (from 1, 17).

Obviously this could use work, but it seemed a relevant place to post and get opinions.

TheDude wrote: 1. If God exists, he either does or does not have attributes.

Correct, pending a definition of 'attribute'.

2. If God does not have attributes, then he cannot have knowledge of the attributes good and evil.

Non sequitur. Unless you define having something or at least knowledge of X as an attribute, something that has no attributes can still have all kinds of other things, including knowledge of attributes. I have not the attribute of being an octopus, but I do have some knowledge of that attribute.

3. If one does not have knowledge of the attributes good and evil, then they cannot make judgments about what is good or evil.

Non sequitur. Ignorance of attributes does not make it impossible to judge by those attributes. Hypotheticals where we assume radically different personality types rely on that possibility, though the resulting judgements are unreliable.

4. All things would be objectively inferior to an almighty God.

Non sequitur. No premise until this point implies this. Only assuming that one of God's attributes is absolute superiority would, yet we have not established that God does have any attributes at all or why superiority over any or all things would need to be one of them.

5. Therefore, if God had no attributes, nothing would have any knowledge of or be able to make judgments about good and evil.

Non sequitur. Even granting all the previous points including #4, it has not been established that knowledge of the attributes good and evil is superior, inferior or equivalent to ignorance thereof. You would not say of two people who are equal in every regard that one of them is a generally superior being for having more or less overall knowledge of things, would you?

6. Therefore, if God does not have attributes, there is no objective standard of morality.

Black Swan fallacy. Even if neither God nor anybody else had knowledge of the attributes good and evil, that knowledge could still be up for discovery. God having no attributes would not imply that there is not an objective standard of morality, even if it implied all the other conclusions drawn until this point.

7. If God had attributes and those attributes were evil, he would have no just authority over what is good and what is evil.

What does 'just authority' mean? Also, without one's own knowledge of good and evil, how would you tell the difference between an evil and a good God, or anything inbetween, and how do you know that would make a difference on the properties of their moral authority?

8. Nothing can be superior to God in authority if he exists.

Non sequitur. God's existence does not imply his superiority in matters of authority. There could easily be a God who has authority equivalent or inferior to someone else's unless you make superiority part of the definition of God in which case point #8 would be a tautology.

9. Therefore, if God had evil attributes, there would be no basis for judgment over what is good and what is evil.

Non sequitur. The existence of a line and the identifiability of individual points included therein does not depend on the position of the base point. If the basis for judgement over good and evil vanishes with God being evil, it must also vanish with God being something other than evil, including good.

10. If God had attributes, those attributes must be good in order to give him any moral authority.

See above. It is neither necessary that God have moral authority nor are attributes of any sort necessary or sufficient for that authority unless you define the terms in such a way as to fill in the logical gaps and render the entire argument obsolete in that it'd be tautologous.

11. (Because God is the source of all things) Evil attributes can exist IF AND ONLY IF:
A. God wills things to be evil, or
B. God wills evil things to exist.

The premise that God be the source of all things has not been established. There have been gods conceived of who were not creator-gods or only creators of certain things. There can easily be a God who is not the source of all things. Granting that premise however, the concluded equivalence does still not follow. It would follow that evil things could only exist if God willed evil to be or to become, i.e. God would, as the source of all things, be a necessary condition for evil; he would not however be a sufficient one. You have yet to establish that God willing evil to become or to be is enough for it to be so. It could easily be the case that God wants evil but does not make it happen or that he has not the power to make it happen. It is also thinkable that God wills no evil but that it comes about through him or that he is incapable of willing it for some reason and that it still could come about as a direct or indirect consequence of his doing.

12. A supremely good being would neither will things to be evil nor will evil things to exist.

How do you know that? How can you even know that? I cannot speak for a supremely good being so I have no way of accepting this premise and consequently anything that follows from it.

13. Therefore, if God is good, evil things do not exist.

You have not established that God is incapable of mistakes or that he could identify and eliminate evil if it arises. Nothing about goodness makes it impossible to spawn evil things with the best of intentions.

14. Therefore, there are no moral issues as all things are good.

What if God isn't good? You can't draw a conclusion from a conditioned premise. Indeed, if all things are good, how would we know? All things including God might as well be evil and the picture would look no different to us mortals. I could now also make a fallacious appeal to consequences, but I'll refrain from that for now. Even if all things fell on one side of the issue, that would not mean the issue did not exist. And of course there is a plethora of logical gaps all over the argument until now...

If the person still insists that evil things exist:

Which they couldn't, if the argument was valid, let alone sound.

15. Evil things exist.
16. Therefore, God is not good (from 13).

Correct. Provided the truth of #13, that would follow. Since, however, #13 is already on shaky grounds as a conclusion of an invalid and unsound argument... moving on.

17. If objective moral standards exist, then God is not good; God is not evil; God does not lack attributes.

Why is it not perfectly conceivable that there be a good God or an evil God and objective moral standards that are completely independant of it? How do you know morality cannot transcend God?

18. Therefore, if objective moral standards exist, then God does not exist (from 1, 17).

Non sequitur. Since #17 ignores the possibility of morality-God independence, it is perfectly conceivable that God be good, evil, neither or both with no consequence to the state of morality. If God is neither, he can be completely without attributes or have wholly different attributes from these without a violation of #1.

Obviously this could use work, but it seemed a relevant place to post and get opinions.

Quite. Thank you for sharing.

Sort of goes back to the Carnism thread for me, and how I see the most logical 'morality' to be about compassion v evil as absolute concepts, relegating good and bad to subjective assessments. In that regard evil certainly does exist as a consequence of intent, as does compassion.

I draw the moral imperative into a network of causal chains, to affix responsibility more directly into that causal chain. So from that view (specifially for example, and using the options prescribed) I'd have;

1. A runaway boxcar is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the boxcar onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is forbidden.

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond, and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is obligatory.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical condition, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital, but there is a healthy person in the hospital’s waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person’s organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person’s organs is forbidden.

Though I'm not suggesting that would be my actual response, the first one is tricky because both parties have found themselves stuck on the track for some unknown reason, and one person might be easier to extricate then the group!! It would depend, and I think the persons intent and capabilities would have to lead in the decision making in the actual circumstances - otherwise the circumstances are already somebodies fault!?

That view sort of removes any association with 'God' having anything to do with morality, but it does seem to perhaps be compatible with 'karma'. It's a bit cold as a concept, so I don't claim it as a rule but I do use it as a basis for a moral code. It links back to the Carnism thread because compassion versus evil then defines how material/plants/animals are assessed as suitable for use as food - and why a measure of its nervous system complexity/potential is used as a measure of potential suffering.

Gisteron wrote: Non sequitur. Unless you define having something or at least knowledge of X as an attribute, something that has no attributes can still have all kinds of other things, including knowledge of attributes. I have not the attribute of being an octopus, but I do have some knowledge of that attribute.

I can't address all of these points given the sloppiness of the argument, but I can address this. This is helpful, though, thanks.
Having knowledge and the potential to comprehend or process information are things which I categorize as attributes; a being lacking any and all attributes would not have these attributes, and if this is the case, then the point stands. In addition, I would say that the ability to judge has, as a prerequisite, the ability to comprehend, making the next point fair as well. But, these things being attributes were not in my argument as posted.
I will take some time to refine my points and present more concrete definitions, and that may take me a while, but I do believe that it is possible to make the argument more presentable and valid given enough time.

Why is it not perfectly conceivable that there be a good God or an evil God and objective moral standards that are completely independant of it? How do you know morality cannot transcend God?

I often hear God used as the basis for morality and the ultimate in terms of moral authority, and it was likely with this in mind that I originally put together the argument. I am of the opinion that IF there are objective moral standards, then they do transcend God, but I don't have anything written about that and so I can only present it as an opinion.

Thanks for your help.

Ironically, if God were the ultimate moral authority, morality would be subject to its dictates or nature or something else about it, and would therefore not be objective. Indeed, if there is any basis for it, it is technically a spawn of that basis and subject to it. But not knowing the attributes of God we cannot conclude anything about either it or about morality based on the respectively other, since we know not that there is anything connecting them in the first place.
Being for the most part (though not entirely) a consequentionalist, I don't believe there is an objective morality in the sense that it is completely absolute from all things. Whether there in fact is, I do not know but it also doesn't really matter. Objectivity of a moral system is neither required nor sufficient to either build that system or for it to work. God's existence and its attributes are a completely different question at this point though. The existence of absolute morality would not imply anything about any gods nor would the lack thereof. It is usually the religious or 'spiritual' intellectuals who would tie these two topics together and I for once have yet to hear a reason why. Only one branch of moral realism mentions the explicitly supernatural as a prerequisite for morality, while the rest of moral philosophy in general is rather unconcerned with gods.

Also, I would say that the ability to judge fairly needs comprehension. Again, whenever for a hypothetical we assume the role of, say, a racist, or a fictional hero and consider how they would judge, we lack most of the attributes they have and thus do not comprehend the full situation. We are still able to judge it, even though our judgement, as stated above, will remain unreliable.

Morality is too often subjective, defined to cater to the emotive. Requiring fear of a God's wrath to abide by a code may be effective, but is not the best reason. We may just choose to believe in a God which suits our lifestyle and aims, or redefine their words to the same effect. True morality comes from within, based on our understanding of the forces that guide universe as a result of the experiences we've endured and given honest contemplation. If the foundation is truth, even when uncomfortable personally, reliance on external mythology personified is not required.

my personal interpretation of morality is that it has more to do with overal health and the relationships between individuals within a closed system

the first step to health is determining what health means
in some instances thats easy
in others there is room for interpretation

so my basic current definition of psychological health is the ability to proccess and adapt to new information and the ability to follow through with ones decisions

if one has these characteristics to a functional degree then for the majority of people all of the rest of the characteristics of health can be attained

in a closed system everything affects everything else and imo the single biggest fallacy of modern man is our assumption that we have - or even can - transcend the closed system model

until we can use our minds to create new dimensions and our bodies have the ability to navigate space-time without technological assistance we will remain in the closed system model

from this view morality becomes an issue of the balance between personal freedom and the consequences our actions have on others - not in the "good" or "evil" sense but in the sense of functionality and physiological and psychological health of ourselves and our peers

our actions in a closed system always return to us -not because of some kind of metaphysical karmic mystery but as a simple result of the inherent nature of systems

from this perspective "what goes around comes around" has a whole new level of personal implication and the idea of BEING moral towards the world and society has nothing to do with living up to the demands or expectations of other peoples absurdities - in fact being moral is more often than not something we do in spite of them - and more to do with holism and integration and support of the empowerment of society through the empowerment of the individual and vice versa - an empowered society produces empowered individuals

personal development, social morality, and community service are all individual slices of the same pie


if god does or does not fit into that paradigm is moot point to me - gods existence is not altered by our understandingof it but OUR existence is very much altered by our understanding and that is my first priority