Why There Is No Morality Without God
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- This video challenges the idea that there can be moral obligation without the existence of God. Making use of the arguments and framework Anscombe introduces, I argue that while atheists can be moral and have moral beliefs, they cannot justify moral prescriptions (moral obligations or moral oughts) without the existence of God. I look at two possible broad views outside of saying that God is the justification of morality and demonstrate that those two views do not work.
Shoutouts to all of my Financiers:
Korlius
Nazarius
Marcus
Matthew
Carter
The Gooz Father
Dejan
Marko
Vander
Sean
Larry
Andy
Payton
Giga Chad
Nektarios
Shaun
Bryan
Marko
Diet Sodalite
Eddie
Maximus
Cary
Nektarios
Dave
Norbert
All of my Links: linktr.ee/ther...
Check out Patristic Faith: www.patristicf...
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
CZcams Membership / @therealmedwhite
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealme...
My Discord: / discord
BTC wallet if you want to donate in BTC: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
My Substack if you want to read my articles: therealmedwhit...
Rokfin: www.rokfin.com...
Odysee: odysee.com/@th...
![attacking ideas | my changing view of Islam [cc]](/img/n.gif)
Good topic, one of my favorites to discuss.
0:01 Why God is Necessary for Morality.
0:26 This Argument is NOT About:
- Not about moral perfection
- Not about whether only theists/Christians can be moral
1:14 - Even If ALL Christians in the world are morally reprehensible, this would NOT do any damage to the argument about Moral Obligation
- Not about whether atheists can be moral at all.
+ Moral Obligation exists *if and only if* God exists as a Moral lawgiver.
1:04 We DON'T CLAIM "all Christians in the world are perfect."
1:45 Moral Obligation exists if and only if God Exists.
*The Is/Ought Distinction, The Descriptive/Prescriptive Distinction*
1:55
Descriptive: X is moral (or X is immoral or X is evil)
Prescriptive: X ought to be moral.
2:23 "Murder is Evil." Atheists and Christians can agree about this.
2:51 Although when an atheist perscribes that we "Ought Not Murder" it is lacking in justification for why it ought not be done, on their own atheist worldview.
3:03 The Perscriptiveness is what Moral Obligation is.
3:25 From Anscombe,
"If there is a moral law, there is a moral lawgiver."
"The Moral Lawgiver is God"
"Therefore, to have moral law, you have to have God, The Moral Lawgiver."
- "A lawgiver cannot be judged unless they are judged by another lawgiver (or by their own law)"
4:01 *This is NOT an exhaustive list*
3 Possible Views
4:14
1. Moral Obligation is Sourced in God.
2. Moral Obligation is a Human Convention
3. Moral Obligation is based on Rationality, on rational principles.
5:25 "A lawgiver cannot be judged unless they are judged by another lawgiver (or by their own law)"
5:34 If Moral Obligation is based on View 2 (Human Convention) then it is going to be relative (relational) to what each human being thinks is moral or not moral. At the same time, this suggests that moral obligation doesn't really exist outside the minds people have.
6:13 Moral Judgement answers "How do we judge what is moral and what is not?"
IF the individual is The Moral Lawgiver, this takes what is Moral and makes it into "Rule to Power" aka each person has the ability to perscribe right and wrong, but only those with power will get to be the Perscriber/The Lawgiver over others by Power.
IF we have Society be The Moral Lawgiver, we make it impossible to judge societies and thus allow societal atrocities, because
- People disagree about morality
Personal Moral Law --> personal decisions which could be good or bad, (but hey you're just doing what you do, I'm just doing what I do.)
Societal Moral Law --> Norms which could be good or bad,( but hey they're just doing what they're doing, we're just doing what we're doing.)
If the Perscriptive-faculty comes from the individual or the society of people, it allows for the justification of evil because if the individual or society holds authority,
7:15 "We made up Morality to advance as a species." Jail time
- Lying --> bad consequences
21:19 "Nothing happens." Then this is not moral obligation.
How does a Secular Paradigm deal with Transgression of moral obligation?
22:30 "I don't believe in Moral Obligation."
Very detailed timestamps. Thanks
The only consistent atheistic view is that everyrhing is permissable and nothing is forbidden.
The only thing at all with atheistic view is there are no gods, that's it. We get our morals from secular values. In other words we humans can figure out right and wrong on our own. Unlike theist who don't know right from wrong and that;s why they have to be told what to think and believe.
@@SalemK-ty4ti”secular values”
So society. You get your values from society….
Because society has never not been moral whatsoever!
@@iangregory9763 Unlike you I am able to figure out right from wrong. You have to be told.
For example take slavery(as in one human being owning another human being as property for life) is always immoral regardless of what any society in any time period says. Unlike your Bible and god who condones the immoral practice of slavery(Leviticus 25:44-46- just one of many examples in the Bible condoning slavery).
@@SalemK-ty4ti And why is slavery wrong?
@@SalemK-ty4tioh don’t flatter yourself, you haven’t decided anything.
But if God exists and makes morality, why bad thing happen? Checkmate theists
Ah snap. He got it bros. The science is settled.
If God doesn't exist? Why good thing habben? Check mate atheists
Because human chose to sin.
Holy crap dude you just utterly destroyed 2000 years of theological discourse how could nobody have thought of that!!!🤯🤯🤯
Bad things happen because sin corrupts humanity. God gave us and angels Free will and humans and fallen angels use the free will to spread evil. Without free will there will be no love and we will be just a bunch of robots. So how can you blame God for that?
Welcome back David. Don’t disappear too long, I’m learning from you a lot ☦️🙏🏼
Counterpoint: Nuh uh
Counter-counterpoint- yuh Uh
Could you ever make a video refuting lutheranism?
Video için teşekkürler ❤
David, could you make a video on why Divine Command Theory doesn't work?
One of my favorite concepts to discuss
Erhan kardeşim türkçe videolar çeksen senin hakkında bilgilensek Bilgili gençlerin sayısını çoğaltsak hemde seni tanımış oluruz.
Do masters fear God as in the least among them?
What is fear in the context of morality? Hard work? Pragmatism? Self relating negativity?
How is your justification for morality different from the divine command theory?
Wondering if moral obligation could be based on empathy as well?
Hi, Orthodox here. Could you please explain to me this st Maximus quote from quastiones ad Thallasium, LXii, where he says that the holy spirit derives existence from the father through the song, and also the 1285 council of Blachernae, Tomus against Bekkos, canon 4 where the idea that the holy spirit can derive existence through the son is condemned? Appreciate your help!
How can we know what god thinks about what is moral or not?
Easy: Devine revelation.
I would include creation in that category, though with less authority than scripture on theological and moral issues.
@xyztogrutamamenchi7894 so you're saying, without a vacuum cleaner, you can't make a sandwich?
The thumbnail of this video, I assume, is jesus. I noticed it looks like the World Tarot card. Where there is what usually is a lady standing on the world with an angel, hawk, lion, bull in the same placement. I guess I am curious to the history behind the image and what it means and why the imagery is similar on both.
The questions posed in the video are perfectly fair, but the argument itself is very weak -- if god's nature is such that it's only compatible with certain things or behaviors (from which we can derive certain moral obligations) then it invariably follows that things have inherent, substantial differences (since otherwise god's nature would simply encompass everything, as all things would be morally equivalent to one another). This means that, for example, murder is immoral because of what it *is*, not because it has simply been declared to be immoral. But if things are morally either good or bad based on their own nature, then god is not actually required for morality -- his nature is simply in alignment with the "moral properties" inherent in things, but if he were to cease to be, nothing about morality would change. In this case, god can be considered to be a teacher, but not a law-giver, or the source of moral values.
In other words, the problem of morality is just as real for theists as it is for secularists.
So let me try to answer those questions in a way that works for either worldview:
What is the justification for moral obligation?
The source of moral values is the individual subject -- this is simply a fact that we need to accept and use as our starting point for further deliberation. Only individuals can hold values and pursue them. Individuals can be informed about their values from other sources (such as other people, or books, or simply by observing and interacting with the world). But insofar as moral values "exist", they do so only as concepts within our minds. That being said, moral values can be observed and verified objectively, because they manifest in people's behavior. A polite person manifests the value of politeness in the real world, and this can be objectively ascertained just as any other real-world phenomenon. Fundamentally, a moral value is simply a personal conviction that is held strongly enough as to affect our behavior. But why do we even hold moral values? To better understand this, let me explain the concept of "value-signals". All living things that have the capability to interact with other living things rely on value-signals to communicate their needs, desires and expectations. A bear marking its territory sends out the value-signal: "This is my private space. If you enter it, I will kill you." Similarly, humans also rely on value-signals to communicate what they want and how they expect others to behave relative to them. For the most part, we rely on language, which is a much more precise and sophisticated way to communicate value-signals. However, another way to communicate value-signals is through moral values. For example, when a person calls themself a free-speech absolutist, the idea here is to send out the strongest-possible form of a value-signal. Not only does this inform others what they can and should expect from this person, but it also creates an *obligation* in them, relative to that person -- *if* they desire their approval and respect. But how do we come up with moral values? Well, for pragmatic reasons. For example, a person can observe the world and conclude that things would be way better if free speech was treated as an absolute moral value by everyone. Other people with similar observations will then send out value-signals in support of that position. By adhering to the obligations required by this value, they can then manifest it in reality, and make it objectively "real".
How do you determine what is moral and what is not?
The sources of moral values are individual subjects, and philosophically, it is not a problem for a subject to formulate a moral principle. The real question is: how well does a principle correspond to reality once it's applied (i.e. does it realize the goals determined by our values)? Some principles lead to desirable results to the extent they're applied. Others only lead to desirable results when they applied with certain constraints. And others almost never lead to desirable results. The "performance" of a moral principle is what determines its "truthfulness". If a moral principle is supposed to lead to the maximizing of a particular value, but in actuality minimizes it, then that principle can be considered wrong or false to that degree. You might ask: what is the foundation behind the values that serve as the basis for moral principles. And the answer lies in our needs and desires. We value things only to the extent that they satisfy some of our needs or desires. To value something that has no relationship to our needs and desires whatsoever is impossible. It is fair to then ask: is something legitimate simply because it is a real need or desire? But I'll explore this in more detail in the final question.
Morality is not something physical, so what is it?
From an evolutionary-biological point of view, one might conclude that morality is just made up of hard-wired best practices in our brains. But a more correct way to view this is to consider those instincts and intuitions as manifestations of "real" moral laws, rather than as their source. Moral laws of course do not exist in a physical form, but they can be represented conceptually, in the same way as other "real" immaterial things such as distance, shape, amount, etc.
In a secular paradigm, what happens when you transgress moral obligations?
This is the most interesting question in my opinion. First, it's important to note that in a theistic context, this question does not have a proper answer. To transgress moral obligations simply means not to act in accordance with god's nature (or god's values). But what does this imply? What new information can we gain from this? What are we supposed to do when we transgress, or witness someone else doing it? What options do we have to make things right? A purely theistic worldview does not automatically answer any of these questions. Sure, specific religious beliefs have their own answers, but they're all different, and none of them provide a complete framework that can be applied universally to yield consistent answers. If such a thing existed, we would have integrated it into our law making processes a long time ago, since there is a real need for this (to clarify: there are of course religiously inspired principles that have made it into law, but what I'm talking about is a complete framework, not bits and pieces). My point here is not to criticize religion, but to point out that both theists and secularists have the same challenge, and simply invoking god does not automatically solve it. With that being said, I would argue that morality begins with the (subjective) acceptance of the existence of morality -- but not necessarily in an intellectual sense, but rather implicitly. Morality is one of those things that are really hard not to accept and rely on. Even something as basic as the acceptance of rules of logic requires the acceptance of morality (i.e. "you ought to accept that A and something that is not A can't be A"). To accept the existence of morality is simply to acknowledge the validity and necessity of certain normative propositions. That being said, it is always possible to deny anything, including the rules of basic logic or language. But doing so makes it impossible to reason and discuss these questions, so doing so is self-defeating. Once we accept some moral prescriptions, it automatically follows that accepting valid, legitimate normative propositions *is* moral, i.e. we have a moral obligation to do so. However, there is a problem: some normative propositions are logically necessary and unavoidable, which means that there are objective reasons as to why we should accept them. But this is not true for everything. For example, there is no easily discernible objective reason to be polite. To resolve this problem, I would argue that the only way is to accept that we can't know whether these principles are objectively true or false, and simply refer to each individual subject as the *objective* source of that principle. In other words, if a person values politeness, then it is morally correct to be polite relative to that person. If they don't value politeness, then you *can* be polite to them (if you value politeness yourself), but otherwise you have no obligation to do so. This approach is different from the golden and silver rules in a crucial aspect: because we don't (primarily) refer to our own values to determine what is moral, it becomes possible to derive new, objective knowledge. For example, if a person does not value property rights, what this tells us is that valuing property rights relative to that person is optional. In other words, we can conclude that people who otherwise value property rights have no moral obligation to do so relative to a thief. This is significant, because it actually tells us *exactly* why something like theft is immoral: it's immoral because denying the property rights of other people negates the legitimacy of your own claim to property rights by others. In other words, by stealing you are emitting a value-signal that you don't value people's rights to their property. As a result, you create an incentive or an obligation for those people who do value the property rights of others to restrict your behavior, such that you can no longer practice your values. It also informs us how a process of restitution would look like: ultimately, you would have to convincingly demonstrate that you have changed your ways and do in fact value all peoples property rights, to restore the legitimacy of your own claim for property rights. This paradigm fully explains why certain things are moral or immoral, to what extent and in what sense, under which circumstances, what constitutes legitimate exceptions and so on and so forth. And the degree to which it's correctly applied is the degree to which it yields the same results, no matter what your personal worldview may be.
"If things are morally either good or bad based on their own nature, then god is not actually required for morality."
1. Immaterial categories cannot exist without an immaterial mind.
2. Humans would need divine revelation to know what is good and bad
If the Ten Commandments stands as the ultimate representation of the objective morality of the God of the OT, I have no idea how Christians don't feel ashamed. Three commandments that govern His own worship, one to say be lazy on the seventh day, one about respecting your parents, two decent ones about not murdering or stealing but nothing particularly revolutionary, one about not committing adultery that is kinda vague because it's probably ignored more by God's chosen than any other commandment. One against bearing false witness - again, certainly of some value but not exactly inspired stuff.
Oh yes, and then one which goes into great detail about not committing thought crimes?
This is the apex of object morality?
Oh wait, my apologies. Are we asserting the Ethical or Ritual decalogues here, since Mr Magoo Moses couldn't seem to keep the holy word of God intact for longer than a few hours.
Dude, stop. This is peak reddit atheism.
@@Commentary173 Wow, replying to a month old comment with a 7 word sentence that offers zero criticism is quite the bold move.
David: what happened to Fenerbahce....(Rhetorical question)
I agree for the most part, but I wouldn't take the fact-value distinction as a given.
Abi lütfen 2-3 tane de türkçe video gelsin.
If no God, why good thing happen?
same reason for bad things, by chance.
If there is God why bad thing happen?
Morality with in what context?
The least among us as in slave morality.. or the elect or chosen in master morality?
Jews and Protestants belive them selves to be chosen or elect..
Master morality
i am a Christian but i don't like the moral argument. its defeated easily by just accepting the psychopathic worldview, thinking in terms of reward and consequence. i don't see why morality needs to exist in any special sense. why shouldn't i accept the pure calculated self interested view? being immoral makes you feel guilty, your spirit will know, so there are consequences to being a psychopath that usually makes it not worth it. as Christians it is totally in our self interest to be good. honestly its nice being good. good for the soul. people intuitively know and like it.
i do want to say i think in moral terms, and its how you should think, but i don't think it can be used as a formal argument.
edit: pls dont misunderstand when i say it doesn't need to be special. Morality IS a special thing in the way that it is and ought to be respected and studied, there is something mysterious about it. i just don't think that prevents the underlying fundamentals from being true.
based
You see this debate usually has to objectives when it’s made by Christians usually.
1. To show the absurdity of liberal and secular ideology and worldview. Showing that inside of itself it collapses on its own reasoning fairly easily. That the legitimacy the liberal world has somehow claimed and attained is basically nonsensical, delegitimizing it in the process. And if this conclusion is accepted by any onlookers that’s one less secular liberal. Or one new nihilist
Or 2. Convincing people who already believe in god and are already devout Christians to be more self assured in their own morality, given them the confidence and emotional tools to actively resist the liberal ideology and its growth. To keep strong in the ever changing winds of social change, to give them a reason to remain traditional. Because if you know god is real, then you know the morals he laid out are mandatory. And this argument kinda brings that into focus.
I’ve found that this argument drives atheists up the wall, they’ll respond with something evolution and often use the line that Christians needed someone to tell them to be good ppl (yes actually), but ultimately the arguments aid in objective 1. They either realize we should be allowed to do whatever and I mean whatever, and everything is arbitrary, or that hey, those Christians might be on to something. Rarely the latter I’m afraid. So objective 2 is really the only good one, unless you like politics
@@mmmhmm6865 thanks for the response, i enjoyed reading it.
@@mmmhmm6865 I have no idea what your first point claims to assert. How does the debate around objective morality exist show that liberal and secular ideology is absurd? Firstly, liberal ideology has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, so that's your first error. Secondly, how do you support your assertion that secular ideology is absurd?
You would first need to identify what you mean by the term 'secular ideology' and exhibit an understanding of the reasoning underpinning it before you can claim that it collapses on itself. You also keep using the term 'liberal' as if liberal and secular are interchangeable - they are not.
The only argument that exists for objective morality, is whether there is a God or not. No assessment of morality itself, no manner in which morality can change or adapt, no sense of the level of punishment that should exist for breaking your moral obligation. Christianity teaches that murder is wrong, but provides no basis upon which we can assess murder on a case by case basis, nor even a framework for assessing such. If you commit murder, you have broken a commandment and if you repent and accept Jesus, you go to heaven.
Do you think our penal system is built upon objective morality? No of course not, it is entirely subjective. Whilst generally murder is seen as punishable, what those punishments are differs amongst even nations that are governed by Christians. The word typically used in the OT is 'rasah' which means murder or manslayer, but there is no distinction between premeditated and involuntary killing. What of theft? Fraud? And that's not even dealing with the more complex legal predicaments.
Are there values that exist independent of bias and prejudice? One answer would be God, but there are other answers. Every time we choose to do something to keep ourselves alive, like eating, it shows that we value our own existence. So, if there are things we consider valuable, it's because our ability to choose and value makes them so. This means that the very ability to choose and value things is itself valuable, and it's something we all inherently have. So, according to this perspective, every living being values its own existence, making it a universal and fundamental value that comes before anything else. This idea is objective, but not in the same way that religious beliefs might be.
Is there a means of achieving such values independent of bias and prejudice? In our world, things usually happen for a reason. When we make decisions based on our values, the results will either match those values or not. Some actions won't help us achieve our values, no matter what we think, while others will, regardless of our opinions.
Determining the rules of behavior that truly fulfill these values isn't easy. However, it's important to understand that the discussion about what's morally right (ontology) is different from figuring out how we know what's morally right (epistemology)
@@tenmilesfm I wanna preface this with that I only claimed what the intention of people who make this argument was, those were my points, for the sake of the discussion tho I’ll just assume this position. And I do enjoy the discussion, sorry for replying late. Busy with life and such.
To answer your first question. When I say absurd I mean having no justification for its existence, illogical, and wouldn’t hold under scrutiny since it doesn’t reflect reality. I combined the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘secular’ to appropriately characterize the many ideologies of governments that exist in the west. America is a great example. “Secular” in the way that there is a complete total separation between matters of the church and faith and the laws of the land. And “Liberal” referring to many western government's beliefs in individual liberty, and inalienable rights. Providing the laws that have been filtered from faith based reasoning. These aspects together characterize almost every western government, including America where I reside. Separating the two terms like you have would miss the point of this characterization. Therefore I’m not using them interchangeably.
You see, you’re right. “liberal ideology has nothing to do with whether God exists or not” But this is the problem. Liberalism makes no assertion of an objective morality yet still acts as though there is one. Punitive actions taken by liberal governments when codes of individual liberties and rights are infringed upon are in turn indictments of wrongdoing, after all they don’t punish you for nothing. But how can they assert wrongdoing without asserting what’s wrong and what’s right. Secular governments don’t do this because it will align with religion. But you have to or there is no initial justification of the punitive action. Punishing murder is deeming it worthy of punishment. Within its own understanding no legitimate actions can be taken by a Liberal government. Before you say liberal governments never claim they are even in accordance with morality and only according to consensus, again the punitive action suggests a reason for punishment. And even violation of this consensus is seen as morally bad, and worthy of punitive action in return, yet still no objective moral assertion is made. It is cyclical and nonsensical, absurd, if you will. How can a state govern without justification for its own actions? Hence the delegitimization.
To address your second objection. We both agree that the only argument for objective morality is whether God exists. Depending on which god exists gives us the morals that are objective no matter what. There would be no further need to assess the individual moral rules because its objectivity would make any disagreement absurd. In Christianity, these rules exist and consequences for violation are clear as well. Your statement “Christianity teaches that murder is wrong, but provides no basis upon which we can assess murder on a case by case basis, nor even a framework for assessing such” is putting the cart ahead of the horse. Murder is only deemed murder after a court examines the events that transpired, and if you are found guilty of “murder” then and only then does the judgment happen, depending on if ‘murder’ is bad or not, and to what degree it warrants punishment, according to moral standards. And this examination process is based on English Common Law. You confuse this as something exclusive to liberal secular governments. In fact it was instated well before Liberalism was thought up by enlightened philosophers. And to say Christianity offers no framework is a misrepresentation of the gospel. We are told to judge the accused impartially and based on truth and evidence.
Now to question your assertions. If our penal system should be built upon subjectivity, what gives the power structure the authority to act against the guilty? Who's to say the verdict would be worth punishment? And the mention of complex legal predicaments and nuance is unnecessary because we are discussing from a point of crime you’ve already been tried for. Since the judgment is really what we’re talking about here. Also regarding value, how can you distinguish putting value on the universal aspect of survival from other values of other people, or living things? One may value the value of existence but another prob doesn’t. Why not violate the fundamental value of living, it's done everyday? Ultimately there’s no answer rather than it's just wrong to do so because God said so, or it is okay because something somewhere thinks it's okay and who’s to say what’s right or wrong. Like I said before, either you move on from liberalism or you become a nihilist.
Lastly, god bless, I love the conversation, I hope I didn’t offend you in anyway, don't tldr lol
Very good, thanks ☦️🙏
I won't argue that the laws of logic don't exist absent human minds, but the only record we have of the realization of the laws of logic came from people who believed in many gods.
Plato was a monotheist
How does this disprove monotheism
@@kajadaw4313 ok, but do you believe in Plato's god? my guess is that you do not, the unmoved mover, which was really Aristotle's idea, was not a personal god. @mistyhaney5565 is wrong, Aristotle created the logic that we used in the West. there are schools of Buddhist logic in Tibet but the Tibetans do believe in many gods but one can argue that they are more 'furniture of the mind' than gods. given your handle is a scramble of jackdaw, a bird that often lives in church bell towers, I would guess you are Christian. that said, even if you are a monotheist, how do you arrive at the Christian God? The Christian God is triune in my understanding, not a mono, but let's say for argument's sake that it is mono. What that God and not Ahura Mazda? Allah? YHWH? (the hebrew god was a mono). answer, because you were born in the West, often into a family of Christians. or living around them. the zip code where you were born or where you live is a better predictor than anything else in your life. if you were born in Bali or Saudi Arabia your chances of being a Christian are slimmer than skinny jeans. so Plato was a monotheist, but do we know for certain that he was not a pantheist? Hindus are technically, all of those gods are just manifestations of the one true Brahma. even if Misty did not disprove monotheism and all of its rough edges, she did bring up the fact, tangentially, that there are a lot of religions out there and the reason that you are what you are typically is more based on where you come from. being from Japan would typically mean that you are an atheist, based on the polling data. Scandinavians too. the reality is that you dismiss all of the other gods out there. Misty just takes your idea one step further.
Bro, find God☦
Very consice and informative. Will be sure to share this video.
great TAG argument
Morality is subjective. Still exists. Still, general agreements can exist. But in a way it's fake yes.
ye
Why represent god in a christian worldview at all? Why not view god in a hindu worldview. Its not even. Christian vs atheist. Its hindu vs christian vs Buddhism vs Jainsm vs Mormonism vs scientology vs heavens gates vs islam and so on. Even if morality comes from god, there's still the question of which god? And which interpretation of god?
It's Jesus Christ
You have to take things one step at a time man. If you are not convinced the Christian God is the true God then look into resources specifically targeting that. If he has to prove that the Christian concept of God is the most philosophically sound compared to every other religion then the video would be so much longer.
@@picklerick1948 have you heard of confirmation bias?
@@jesterc.6763 what does that have to do with what I said? Did you not read what I wrote? If he had to give a full defense of Christianity compared to every other religion in order to make one philosophical argument he could never make a reasonably short video on any topic.
theists - 'God is good, and god is the definition of good' - Socrates 'hold my beer'
Soyphist
@@BrodyAleksander-YOB more like sophie-ist.
@@LouieSankey wow
@@BrodyAleksander-YOB you do know that philosophy is the love of wisdom. Sorry that it comes down from the Pegan Greeks and you're Judeo-Christian.
@@LouieSankey Louie, I would disagree. most cultures have philosophy. The Indians, the Chinese all had very complex philosophies. Kung Fu Tzu, whom we often call by the Latinised Confucius, was the one who first wrote the Golden Rule. some people even think that's in the Bible. the word philosophy is certainly Greek in derivation. I would encourage you to check out some of the Indian philosophy or Buddhism, this stuff was written thousands of years before the Tanakh, what Christians call the Old Testament. Buddhism has no god in its original interpretation, the Chinese merged Buddhism with some branch of Taoism that had embraced Chinese mythology, but in the Hinayana tradition, the idea of there being a god or not is seen as irrelevant to how you are going to escape suffering and reincarnation. where I am forced to agree with you is that the Hebrews had no real philosophy that we know of. they had a god with an anger problem that they tried to avoid. Christianity's dislike of philosophy stems from when St Paul tried to teach the Gospel of Jesus in Athens and they mocked him for such stupid ideas. that burn hurt deeply. hence his words that Christianity is foolishness to the philosophers. what I think most posters on this channel are missing is that, they are assuming their worldview is correct and the absence of their worldview would be what their worldview teaches, raw unadulterated horror. well I think you and I agree that, without a god, it's not so bad out there. I think we need to push harder the idea about that assumption as well as where you were born has a huge impact on what you believe. peace man.
Algorithm boost.
Love it.
First I just wanted to offer a correction to your title, it would be more accurate to say moral obligation, but I do get that it is a bit more clunky and less clickbaity.
The first weakness in your Weltanschaung, I think the English translation has been hijacked by Dennis Prager types so I refuse to use it, is that you have not tried to make the argument for the fact that moral obligations exist. Certainly I will admit that we have the feeling that they do, but I think both of us will agree that we have a lot of feelings that are not reflective of reality or can be inaccurate.
One thing that you said caught my attention, a lawgiver cannot be judged unless it is by another lawgiver or by their own law. You had mentioned resurrection in your talk so I am guessing that you are arguing for the Christian god here, while inaccurate I will just be referring to the Christian god as God even though there are many gods who claim to be the One. I am curious as to why you mention this. You said it was important but it was kind of a throwaway sentence, you never mentioned why it was important. What struck me as interesting here is that you said that you thought divine command theory was “foolish”. But I would be remiss not to point out that God provided no Hadith (sorry for the borrowing of terms from a competing religion, but you have no equivalent) for the Commandments or even the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, Jesus as recorded in the Bible spoke in parables and while those were the didactic method of the time, are open to wildly divergent interpretation. Often in these stories the throngs of listeners are left to try and figure it out themselves while the disciples are given an explanation, creating a culture of those in the know and those on the outside. So we don’t have great commentary on the morality provided by God until St Paul comes along, but again, that is not God and we have to wonder if one man knew the mind of God so well that he could be the sole interpreter.
Again assuming that you are a Christian, I would also assume that you do not believe in any other gods, so there is no other lawgiver to judge God. Maybe I am wrong on this but I have come to understand this as the typical Christian view. The only way to judge God then would be by his own law. But the Ten Commandments say thou shalt not kill. It does not say killing is wrong or murder is wrong. (For the observant reader, I would like to point out that murder is a legal term which is merely equivalent to manslaughter (killing) with the component of premeditation.) To the careful reader of the Bible it then seems that God is not subject to the same moral obligation, the use of thou is pointing to us. Not only did he say thou but there are countless times when he strikes someone dead. Annais and Sephira, the first recorded white collar criminals were struck dead by God for lying about sharing all of their money with the Church. Maybe they were proto-Republicans who did not like the Socialist direction the Church seemed to be taking, but they certainly did not die just by lying alone, otherwise we would all be dead. Joel Osteen would be dead many times over but his teeth would still be an unnatural white that outshines the robes of the returning Christ at the end of time.
God even encourages the Israelites to kill them all and let him sort it out. Where? Deuteronomy 20: 16-18 and 1 Samuel 15:3. (Thanks to the North American Mission Board for helping a brother out there and not making me dig through the online Bible.) What would certainly be considered war crimes now were de reguer back then. While your strawman version of the United Nations getting together, two old men I think you painted it, and just making stuff up about human rights is understandable given what you are arguing for, if you were just to ask a person on the street were they down with the My Lai massacre or Russia’s bombing of hospitals and just targeting non-combatants in general, how do you think they would respond? Most people would find this morally reprehensible. They might try to dismiss some as collateral damage, a point that might draw a smirk even out of the calloused Putin in thanks. But where do we get this sentiment from? When you watch the video of a young and naked Vietnamese girl running down a road because all of the clothes had been burned off of her by napalm and you think to yourself, my God, the horrors of war, you clearly don’t get this ought from Christianity because the God of the Tanakh is the God of the New Testament, it’s just that the hippy Jesus is less scary.
The Bible is fine with slavery and no matter what caveats you append, well only for 6 years, or the Ron Desantis argument of slavery was more like a work-training program, you are still owning another person and now days we just feel that this is not cool. How did we develop the moral sentiment that owning another human being is not ok? Not from Biblical morality. In one video that I watched about how to explain slavery in the Bible to your kids, the host says that everyone used to do it, but now we realized that slavery was wrong because of the idea that we are created in the image of God. I would refer you to the Bible verses I just mentioned where God, the one who gives us morality, tells the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child of other tribes who lived in the Promised Land, who were not made in the image of God?
From polling I have seen, most Christians are onboard with the death penalty, but is someone who has committed a crime, however heinous, freed from being the image of God? Why is it that everyone used to turn up for a hanging in the 1800s to see justice done but we now exact the death penalty behind closed doors? The HBO original God Save Texas hits this pretty hard. Even the people involved in exacting the death penalty suffer from the stress of killing or playing a role in killing another human being. Texans gone soft? Not at all.
So while you might be fine with Biblical morality, I think most people are not keen to embrace the ethics that we have moved past. I also want to drive home the point that Christianity does not teach objective morality. If killing is wrong, it is wrong period. God cannot do it either. But as we have seen in this short response, God kills and God has historically encouraged killing. A subjective morality is what Christianity teaches. Whatever God does is moral because God does it. Flooding “the Earth” to wipe out the horrible people he created and only save Noah (and his daughters who had sex when him when he was drunk), those are the people worth saving. But God did give us the rainbow, promise that he never would flood the earth again. Well there are other methods, no? Can this God be trusted?
In conclusion, I agree with you, there must be a god for there to be an ought. Where our views diverge is on the existence of a god. I think Jonathan Haidt is correct in his idea of moral foundation theory, that morality evolved with us as we evolved as a species. Research done by Frans de Waal points to chimpanzees and bonobos having empathy and given that we have a larger pre-frontal cortex, where the more abstract thinking and planning and theory of mind speculation is centered, it should be expected that we have a greater ability for empathy, but we are not alone in the ability. You certainly make a good argument for the idea that if there is a god, it makes sense that there would be the possibility of getting an ought out of that god. I think this argument assumes the orthodox interpretation of the Christian god and I sincerely wish you well in making an argument for that, many great minds have tried and failed. My final point is that if we get our moral sentiments from our religions, given how varied the theologies or soteriological ideas are or even what the fundamental issue is (let’s not forget that most of the religions from India see the fundamental problem as epistemological in nature), one thing we agree on is that killing another human being is bad, that is not debated generally. Some religions urge practitioners to damage the genitalia of the very young, something that more and more people are no longer doing. Exceptions to our human moral urges are generally to solve a spiritual problem or please the gods, like sacrificing a virgin to please the gods. I think this is the fundamental point. Religion creates the problem that religion claims it alone can solve and here it claims the moral authority in its ability to solve the problem. It is here where we need to call religion’s bluff and say that, there is not the problem that you are positing and we are fine without your “moral authority”. Humans created religions and we created gods. It is time for us to turn them loose so we can handle our own problems and recognize that we can do so and quite well allowing empathy to guide us while we look out for the weak and the infirm in a universe that we continue to develop a deeper understanding of.
No one cares.
@@Benjamin-bq7tc that's odd coming from a philosophy channel.
@@Benjamin-bq7tc I suspect you just disagree. if so, challenge. dismissal does not reflect well.
One can look around and observe the nature of the universe and recognizes that the universe prefers certain behavior from living beings. No religion or prerequisite reading or magical thinking needed. It's obvious that the universe prefers and rewards certain behavior.
With in the context of master or slave morality?..
Jews and Protestants are of master morality believing them selves to be chosen and or elect
You seem to be making a reification mistake.
@@evangelium5376 I was simply using "the universe" as a shorthand for natural laws or systems that govern behavior and outcomes. So I think it is you who is mistaken.
@@iCanSeeWhatMostCant i look around & observe the nature and find out that animal eat their own kind for survival. Shall human be canibalistic too?
@@kevinbimariga3895 you don't understand what I mean and I don't think there's much I can do to change that.
♡
Typical Christian strawman argument be like:
Where does god's morality come from?
it comes from God's god. 😉
@@LouieSankey lol hahaha.
God's morality comes from His nature.
@Benjamin-bq7tc who made god? and who determined god's nature?
If moral obligation is sourced in human biology, it does not require a god.
and yet it was already made clear that there is moral obligation outside of society or before the existence of earth. Just like logic. Watch the video again
@@sebastianjohannesen8863 Societal morals and biological morals are vastly different. One is objective to human nature, the other is not and changes along with culture. The claim that morality or logic had to exist before the Earth is unfounded. Logic is suitably explained as descriptive abstract principles observed within physical reality.
@@Chidds legit the guy explains this. before a conscience mind on earth existed to witness logic, it still existed. Dinosaurs cannot exist but also not exist at the same time because that would be illogical.
you're basically saying that any principal has never existed all up until someone was able to witness it or think it up.
@@Chidds the claim that biological morality exist is the same as saying that you believe in moral relativism, the principle that you apply is that your mind gave you some morals through the process of evolution, guess what not everyone has the same morals
@@asetr3w45 Nor does everyone have the same genetic structure or biological development. The fact that some humans develop abnormally does not negate that humans generally have certain characteristics. Also morality is not required to either be one thing or another. It shouldn't be surprising if morality is a combination of biological and sociological factors. If that was the case, moral obligation can still be grounded in an objective biological source.
Morality is about fairness in society. The reason we value fairness is an aesthetic one. Fairness is the smell of roses whereas unfairness is the stench of poop. Following the scent of roses leads to eternal rebirth of civilization. Getting bogged down in the stench of poop leads to society's suffocation and eventual death.
Penalty for breaking laws as they 1st appeared in the Bible before God changed his laws.
Penalty for breaking Gods laws as they 1st appeared in the Bible before God changed his mind..
Punishment for Blasphemy- Death (Lev.24:10-16)
Punishment for Prophesying falsely - Death (Zech13:3)
Punishment for Homosexuality - Death Lev 20:13
Punishment for working on the Sabbath - Death (Ex 31:12-15)
Punishment for Fortune telling - Death (Lev 20:27)
Punishment for hitting a parent - Death (Ex 21:15)
Punishment for cursing a parent - Death (Lev 20:9)
Punishment for not listening to a priest - Death (Deut 17:12)
Punishment for fornication - Death (21:9)
Not seeking the Lord god of Israel - Death (2 Chron 15:12-13)
Following another religion - Death (Ex 22:20)
Having a few people in your town worshipping another god - Death to the whole town including death to all the livestock & torch the entire town down so it is ruined forever. (Deut 13:13-16)
And given your worldview, why is any of that bad? And why is slavery wrong? These are only opinions caused by the electrochemical activity of your brain.
That's Judaism not Christianity
@@Hoe-numan5 So the Old Testament isn’t part of Christianity? What about the 10 commandments?
You must be one of those pick and choose Christian?
Or are you saying God changed his mind?
@@SalemK-ty4ti Hebrews 8:6 : "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs [the Old Testament priesthood] as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises."
@@SalemK-ty4ti 10 commandments is moral law it's timeless
I dont think God or morality exists.
I guess there's no morality then
Even if you accept the premise that morality is only possible through a god, you have no way to communicate with absolute certainty to your god, and thus all you have is the same arbitrary biologically acquired information that any atheist has, as all your knowledge has to be processed through your body and brain.
Morality itself is nothing more than an interpretation of how something feels to a brain, and it's rather telling that all the moral obligations any religion presents are always of the flesh. There is never any profound ordination, only the same things you'd expect any human being to care about, because as it's extremely likely, all religions are just a set of rules made by humans and then claimed to be divine.
What a way to say a whole lot of nothing.
@@OrthoHoppean If you're too stupid to understand what's being said, do not waste your time typing a useless response.
Have you heard of the Bible?
Two replies, none of which contain any counterpoint to what I said. Typical mindless religiosity.
Reddit moment
If God is so moral why are there children being born with wide varieties of health and financial conditions?? Morality comes from a God who is not partial to anybody. So the God of Bible cannot be true God.
Because of other people?
@@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger, So a child gets cancer due to other people??
Technically cancer is a man made illness due o increased use of / exposure to chemicals all throughout our lives from the minute we are born.
That's a result of the fall but he has willed to restore us by the crucifixion and resurrection. In the kingdom of Heaven that will never pass away, all suffering from this life will be forgotten. He is a loving God but is also a just God which is why things are done the way they are. In this life we may suffer but we had best be able to love in spite of this. God's love needs to live in us if we are to live in God.
Your argument hinges on there not being secondary causes for things and that God picks everyone's circumstances and fates beforehand. So you must deny freewill as well. God is impartial and judges fairly.
@@MultiSpeedMetal, Whose Fall?? Adam and Eve were sent to earth bcz they disobeyed God's words. When did all these billions of people that came after them disobeyed God's word?? God is the most cruel being you can think of, even worse than worst criminals in history.
heres one: morality is a product of evolution
then it wouldn't be objective
Terrible argument.
@@Commentary173 he is saying this as to be one of the options at the beginning of the video...
@@randomgames4089 I know but it’s just not a good argument.
Then why do we as humans typically have such strong repugnance towards things like grape and adult-teen relations when these things clearly meet our ultimate evolutionary goal, reproduction.