Socrates once asked a question which when considered in the context in which it was presented, was relevant to the capricious gods of ancient Greece but does have its implications on monotheistic religions. The question is: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". Known as the Euthyphro dilemma, it is valid and is controversial. Now the question is, "Is what is morally good allowed by God because it is morally good or it is morally good because it is allowed by God".
Not to leave one stupefied, I will cite as example the incidence of Uzzah stretching forth his arm to touch the ark and he was immediately struck by God. Taking that as point example, is the very act (the killing) right because it was done by God or is it right because it is morally sound to kill?

It shows up how the logic of a morality based on gods turns out to be nothing but hot air.

In the first part if morality is defined by the statements of god then everything the god does is correct so genocide is correct as well as slavery, things we in this day and age outrightly reject. By extension it means our morality is superior to the god's own.

In the second part it simply means the god is superfluous to morality so no need to concern ourselves with what it thinks.

LordReed:
It shows up how the logic of a morality based on gods turns out to be nothing but hot air.

In the first part if morality is defined by the statements of god then everything the god does is correct so genocide is correct as well as slavery, things we in this day and age outrightly reject. By extension it means our morality is superior to the god's own.

In the second part it simply means the god is superfluous to morality so no need to concern ourselves with what it thinks.

How would our morality be superior to this God's morality if he/she actually defines what is moral regardless of how depraved it is?

kingvicky:


How would our morality be superior to this God's morality if he/she actually defines what is moral regardless of how depraved it is?

Do you discard superior things for inferior ones?

LordReed:

Do you discard superior things for inferior ones?

Would our morality be superior if it actually depends on what this God dictates?

kingvicky:

Would our morality be superior if it actually depends on what this God dictates?

Did you read my op? Lemme reiterate for you

LordReed:
It shows up how the logic of a morality based on gods turns out to be nothing but hot air.

In the first part if morality is defined by the statements of god then everything the god does is correct so genocide is correct as well as slavery, things we in this day and age outrightly reject. By extension it means our morality is superior to the god's own.

In the second part it simply means the god is superfluous to morality so no need to concern ourselves with what it thinks.

LordReed:
It shows up how the logic of a morality based on gods turns out to be nothing but hot air.

In the first part if morality is defined by the statements of god then everything the god does is correct so genocide is correct as well as slavery, things we in this day and age outrightly reject. By extension it means our morality is superior to the god's own.

I think this problem affects every basis of morality not just gods.

E.g: If morality is whatever the humans say it is, then genocide can also be correct, slavery can also be correct.

Innit?

johnydon22:


I think this problem affects every basis of morality not just gods.

E.g: If morality is whatever the humans say it is, then genocide can also be correct, slavery can also be correct.

Innit?

No it does not. For instance no humanist will agree that slavery or genocide is correct. If the basis of your morality is wellbeing how can you ever say genocide or slavery is correct?

LordReed:


No it does not. For instance no humanist will agree that slavery or genocide is correct. If the basis of your morality is wellbeing how can you ever say genocide or slavery is correct?

And what if hypothetically they say it is, will it be?

The point is, on what basis is genocide and slavery wrong?

Morality is not about saying what is right or wrong. the basis of morality is "why it is wrong or right"

So, why is slavery or genocide wrong?

By the way, is the so called humanistic moral basis, objective or subjective?

johnydon22:
And what if hypothetically they say it is, will it be?

The point is, on what basis is genocide and slavery wrong?

Morality is not about saying what is right or wrong. the basis of morality is "why it is wrong or right"

So, why is slavery or genocide wrong?

By the way, is the so called humanistic moral basis, objective or subjective?

Exactly. If the basis is wellbeing how can it be correct?

We have had this discussion before, objective morality doesn't exist. All morality is subjective because we are the ones giving value to anything. Not even the so called god issued moral edicts are objective.

What is important is that we find a good basis for evaluating action and consequence. I choose well being as my basis and I dare say that so far there is little to fault with such a basis.

LordReed:


Exactly. If the basis is wellbeing how can it be correct?

We have had this discussion before, objective morality doesn't exist. All morality is subjective because we are the ones giving value to anything. Not even the so called god issued moral edicts are objective.

Therefore, if we say genocide is good then it is right? If we say slavery is good then it is right?

Doesn't the subjectivity of morality rid the basis to judge ancient societies based on the moral depositions of today's? On what ground exactly can you say slavery in the ancient times is wrong if as you said, morality is subjective, requires just human validation to be?

What is important is that we find a good basis for evaluating action and consequence. I choose well being as my basis and I dare say that so far there is little to fault with such a basis.

Why is well being good?

johnydon22:


Therefore, if we say genocide is good then it is right? If we say slavery is good then it is right?

Doesn't the subjectivity of morality rid the basis to judge ancient societies based on the moral depositions of today's? On what ground exactly can you say slavery in the ancient times is wrong if as you said, morality is subjective, requires just human validation to be?

Is it that you don't understand what I wrote or what? I have given the basis for why genocide and slavery are wrong and you ask me the same question again and again.

How about you tell me how we should judge these matters, I have said my piece.

Why is well being good?

It is not good, it is well being, if you don't want well being that's fine.

LordReed:


Is it that you don't understand what I wrote or what? I have given the basis for why genocide and slavery are wrong and you ask me the same question again and again.

LOL. You said wellbeing. So why is well being good to warrant lack of it to be bad?

Don't forget we are talking of morality here.

You said a humanist will never say slavery or genocide is good.

The question is, on what ground are they bad then?

How about you tell me how we should judge these matters, I have said my piece.

Oh it is quite simple. if morality is subjective in time then it is isolated. Nothing is inherently good or bad, it only depends on the pravailing belief attainable.

Therefore, slavery can only be said to be wrong now, not then.

The only way someone can suggest slavery is always wrong no matter if the prevailing belief of the time say otherwise is, if you think morality is objective which you don't.

It is not good, it is well being,

We are talking of morality therefore goodness or bad.

What do you mean your basis for morality is not good but well being.

Are you sure you grasp these concepts?

if you don't want well being that's fine.

This is not the question; why is something that causes well being good? And why is lack of it bad?

johnydon22:
LOL. You said wellbeing. So why is well being good to warrant lack of it to be bad?

Don't forget we are talking of morality here.

You said a humanist will never say slavery or genocide is good.

The question is, on what ground are they bad then?

Well being is the "goal" of almost all biological organisms. It is neither good nor bad, it just is. No humanist will say those things are good because for one they impede the goal of achieving well being.

Oh it is quite simple. if morality is subjective in time then it is isolated. Nothing is inherently good or bad, it only depends on the pravailing belief attainable.

Therefore, slavery can only be said to be wrong now, not then.

The only way someone can suggest slavery is always wrong no matter if the prevailing belief of the time say otherwise is, if you think morality is objective which you don't.

So 4000years ago impeding the well being of people was good? Does the time when a thing happened matter? Couple that with them saying an all knowing god instructed them to continue to impede the well being of others and I am pretty sure those people were talking out their arse.

We are talking of morality therefore goodness or bad.

What do you mean your basis for morality is not good but well being.

Are you sure you grasp these concepts?

I throw the question back at you. You seem to be contradicting yourself. This you:

johnydon22:

The point is, on what basis is genocide and slavery wrong?

Morality is not about saying what is right or wrong. the basis of morality is "why it is wrong or right"

So maybe you should be clear about what you mean by morality.

This is not the question; why is something that causes well being good? And why is lack of it bad?

If you apportion positive value to the things that aid well being then that thing is good and vice-versa.

LordReed:


Well being is the "goal" of almost all biological organisms.

Personal not global.

It is neither good nor bad, it just is. No humanist will say those things are good because for one they impede the goal of achieving well being.

The wellbeing of whom?

So 4000years ago impeding the well being of people was good?

Yes. As long as the society largely agrees and believes it so.

Remember, morality is subjective, subject to human belief.

Does the time when a thing happened matter?

Yes. It matters the pravailing belief of the time. If morality is subjective.

Unless you want to agree that it is objective?

Couple that with them saying an all knowing god instructed them to continue to impede the well being of others and I am pretty sure those people were talking out their arse.

No. You are not sure. You have not shown how impeding on other people's wellbeing is inherently bad.

You only think it is bad because you believe so.

Therefore, since It is subject to subjective belief, it can be good if they subjectively say it is good.

You can only make a valid counter of their stance if you think morality is objective and doesn't matter whether we believe otherwise.

I throw the question back at you. You seem to be contradicting yourself. This you:



So maybe you should be clear about what you mean by morality.

It is not good, it is well being,

This is a question?

Point out 1 contradiction here. Yes. Morality is not about reeling out what is wrong or right. It is about showing "why"

Which is why I have been asking you why what you say is good is good.

You seem to not fully know the implication of a concept being subjective.

If you apportion positive value to the things that aid well being then that thing is good and vice-versa.

Why is positive values good?

johnydon22:
Personal not global.

You mean survival and procreate are not the "goal" of almost every biological organism?

The wellbeing of whom?

Of the all the participants.

Yes. As long as the society largely agrees and believes it so.

Remember, morality is subjective, subject to human belief.

Yes. It matters the pravailing belief of the time. If morality is subjective.

Unless you want to agree that it is objective?

So what is the basis for change.

No. You are not sure. You have not shown how impeding on other people's wellbeing is inherently bad.

You only think it is bad because you believe so.

Therefore, since It is subject to subjective belief, it can be good if they subjectively say it is good.

You can only make a valid counter of their stance if you think morality is objective and doesn't matter whether we believe otherwise.

Don't put words in my mouth I never mentioned inherent anywhere. And I if you don't want to use well being as the basis that is fine. You can tell us what your own basis is.

It is not good, it is well being,

This is a question?

Point out 1 contradiction here. Yes. Morality is not about reeling out what is wrong or right. It is about showing "why"

Which is why I have been asking you why what you say is good is good.

You seem to not fully know the implication of a concept being subjective.

I already pointed out the contradiction. In one place you say morality is about good and bad in another you its not about wrong or right. Maybe you should define morality so we are clear what it is we are discussing.

Why is positive values good?

It is good because we assigned value to it. Again you can choose to say it is no good but you'll have to show me how impeding your well being is a value we should want or if you reject well being tell us the alternative.

LordReed:


You mean survival and procreate are not the "goal" of almost every biological organism?

No. I mean these are individually inclined.

Of the all the participants.

why is this general well being good?

So what is the basis for change.

Culture, philosophy, religion and other evolving ideas.

Don't put words in my mouth I never mentioned inherent anywhere. And I if you don't want to use well being as the basis that is fine. You can tell us what your own basis is.

I never said you did. You may read it slowly.

Inherent connotes objectivity, you on the other hand is arguing for a subjective moral basis while applying objective principles which is just up side down.

I already pointed out the contradiction. In one place you say morality is about good and bad in another you its not about wrong or right. Maybe you should define morality so we are clear what it is we are discussing.

Oh god.

What?

This argument is not on "What is morality" it is on "the basis of morality"

Don't lose track of the premise on the OP.

It is good because we assigned value to it.

Positive value is good bacause we assign value to it. Lol..

Ok. why is our assigned value good?

Again you can choose to say it is no good but you'll have to show me how impeding your well being is a value we should want or if you reject well being tell us the alternative.

I have never said whether it is good or not. You are not understanding the argument here. Let me break it down for you.

As you said, morality is subjective. Which means, humans get to decide what is moral or not.

If this is so, then as long as humans say "slavery is good" it is good.

As long as they say "it is bad" it is bad.

Slavery on its own has no inherent moral nature. So, you cannot judge people 4000 years ago for having slaves based on the beliefs of today. That is inherently unfair and flawed.

Two things can be true: 4000 years ago, slavery was morally permissible. Today, it is not.

This doesn't mean morality of today is anymore superior, both are subject to belief.

Just like today, killing animal for food is morally permissible, maybe in 200 years to come it won't be. We already have those arguing that it isn't.

Can someone born 200 years from now when killing animals for food is morally abhorred judge and say that we are wrong? It is a flawed argument to do that.


The basis of morality is not whether it brings forth wellbeing or not, the basis is simple "we believe it is"

I have been trying to bring you to this level of profound realization by using incessant questions on things you ascribe good.

Example: B is good.
Why is B good?
Because B helps us survive
Why is us surviving good?
Because we continue to live and procreate
Why is us continuing to live and procreate good?

See? These ideas are never the final basis of "good" because we can always go further and ask "why"

Goodness is a belief not a nature of thing.

The only validity for goodness is human belief.

Honor, goodness, morality, government, evil, only makes sense because we believe them. These concepts are contingent on our belief.

So, since you think morality is subjective, it is flawed to imagine that slavery is wrong as practised 4000 years ago or that God is wrong for not condemning slavery because it is not, you are only applying today's standards to a different time with different belief.

The only way it can work to argue that slavery is wrong and is always wrong no matter which period it is practised is to think that it is objectively wrong therefore not subject to belief.

But, I think we both agree that there is not such thing as objective morality.

The premise of the OP is something I have explored before, I have asked theists this question before but got no satisfactory answer: https://www.nairaland.com/4613259/theists-objective-morality-why-something


On the other hand, I would argue that morality is neither objective nor subjective. It is an in between point referred to as "intersubjective.

johnydon22:
No. I mean these are individually inclined.


why is this general well being good?


Culture, philosophy, religion and other evolving ideas.

I never said you did. You may read it slowly.

Inherent connotes objectivity, you on the other hand is arguing for a subjective moral basis while applying objective principles which is just up side down.


Oh god.

What?

This argument is not on "What is morality" it is on "the basis of morality"

Don't lose track of the premise on the OP.

Positive value is good bacause we assign value to it. Lol..

Ok. why is our assigned value good?



I have never said whether it is good or not. You are not understanding the argument here. Let me break it down for you.

As you said, morality is subjective. Which means, humans get to decide what is moral or not.

If this is so, then as long as humans say "slavery is good" it is good.

As long as they say "it is bad" it is bad.

Slavery on its own has no inherent moral nature. So, you cannot judge people 4000 years ago for having slaves based on the beliefs of today. That is inherently unfair and flawed.

Two things can be true: 4000 years ago, slavery was morally permissible. Today, it is not.

This doesn't mean morality of today is anymore superior, both are subject to belief.

Just like today, killing animal for food is morally permissible, maybe in 200 years to come it won't be. We already have those arguing that it isn't.

Can someone born 200 years from now when killing animals for food is morally abhorred judge and say that we are wrong? It is a flawed argument to do that.


The basis of morality is not whether it brings forth wellbeing or not, the basis is simple "we believe it is"

I have been trying to bring you to this level of profound realization by using incessant questions on things you ascribe good.

Example: B is good.
Why is B good?
Because B helps us survive
Why is us surviving good?
Because we continue to live and procreate
Why is us continuing to live and procreate good?

See? These ideas are never the final basis of "good" because we can always go further and ask "why"

Goodness is a belief not a nature of thing.

The only validity for goodness is human belief.

Honor, goodness, morality, government, evil, only makes sense because we believe them. These concepts are contingent on our belief.

So, since you think morality is subjective, it is flawed to imagine that slavery is wrong as practised 4000 years ago or that God is wrong for not condemning slavery because it is not, you are only applying today's standards to a different time with different belief.

The only way it can work to argue that slavery is wrong and is always wrong no matter which period it is practised is to think that it is objectively wrong therefore not subject to belief.

But, I think we both agree that there is not such thing as objective morality.

The premise of the OP is something I have explored before, I have asked theists this question before but got no satisfactory answer: https://www.nairaland.com/4613259/theists-objective-morality-why-something


On the other hand, I would argue that morality is neither objective nor subjective. It is an in between point referred to as "intersubjective.

We are largely agreed.

Let's boil this down a bit. There is no objective basis of morality. There are no objective values. We assign value to things. When we assign value to something we consider positive we call it good. Good is not an inherent property, it is a result of the value we assigned.

Now unto where we differ. You think because we assigned value that it remains good because one frame of reference is as good as the other.

Am I correct so far?

LordReed:


We are largely agreed.

Let's boil this down a bit. There is no objective basis of morality. There are no objective values. We assign value to things. When we assign value to something we consider positive we call it good. Good is not an inherent property, it is a result of the value we assigned.

Now unto where we differ. You think because we assigned value that it remains good because one frame of reference is as good as the other.

Am I correct so far?

I think more correctly put. Where we differ is judging a subjective concept with objective principles.

kingvicky:
■ Socrates once asked a question which when considered in the context in which it was presented, was relevant to the capricious gods of ancient Greece but does have its implications on monotheistic religions. The question is: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". Known as the Euthyphro dilemma, it is valid and is controversial. Now the question is, "Is what is morally good allowed by God because it is morally good or it is morally good because it is allowed by God".
Not to leave one stupefied, I will cite as example the incidence of Uzzah stretching forth his arm to touch the ark and he was immediately struck by God. Taking that as point example, is the very act (the killing) right because it was done by God or is it right because it is morally sound to kill?

God's standard of righteousness — His Law— is separate and different from man's many ideas regarding morality. To answer your question, God's Law is instead a contract/Covenant between God and those chosen by Him for such an agreement. In the Biblical Nation of Israel for instance, while the people could and did have their own set of ideas regarding morality, they were expected by God to put that aside to instead live in direct obedience to the terms and conditions of the agreement they have with Him.

Uzzah must have believed it was morally right for him to make every attempt to save the falling ark. However, in asserting his own moral belief over that commanded by God, Uzzah directly violated God's Law and commandment which forbids any man not of the Kohath family from carrying the Holy things of the temple.

15 “Aaron and his sons must finish covering all the holy things in the Holy Place. Then the men from the Kohath family can go in and begin carrying these things. In this way they will not touch the holy things and die. - Numbers 4 vs 15

Morality(or Ethics) is of the will and minds of men — the doctrines and traditions of men —and is entirely separate and different from that which is God's Law.

johnydon22:
■ I think this problem affects every basis of morality not just gods. E.g: If morality is whatever the humans say it is, then genocide can also be correct, slavery can also be correct. Innit?

Interesting point!

Philosophers justifying slavery
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml