Moral Argument for God

Ok, let's lay out my proposition, because as someone pointed out I think we all agree on some level and it's getting muddled in the back and fourth.I am saying that objective morality exists within human culture without the necessity of god. The premises are as follows:1)Morality is a human construct, it has no relevance outside of the human experience.
2)Morality has certain objective premises that allow us to deem an action 'good' or 'bad'.
3)These premises classify 'good' as: a) The minimization of harm b) that which benefits the many over the fewNow, what I have presented as argument for this case is not fallacious as I will demonstrate.Naturalistic Fallacy:There are two uses of this fallacy, the first illustrated in the article is Moor's which states that certain terms such as 'pleasure', 'good', etc. Are irreducibly simple and therefore indefinable. I believe this usage deals more with semantics and therefore not as usefull for our argument since we have already defined our terms, (above point 3. I define 'good').The second usage, which is more relevant to our discussion, deals with making a claim about what things should be based on how they currently are. i.e. My argument is not saying this. Remember, morality is a human construct, It is not defined by nature. It is defined by human need. It just so happens that this coincides with our natural social instincts. I am not saying that those social instincts define morality (though they do lend clues as to how morality potentially evolved in our species).My argument establishes a definition of 'good' as that which minimizes harm and benefits the many. Now, is this 'good' on a cosmic scale? No. It is only good in so far as humans go. Remember, I am not talking about Moor's indefinable 'good', I am establishing a definition of 'good' based on human needs, drives, and social progress. That which conflicts with those goals are 'bad'.So, I am not saying This behavior hurts our species, thus it is bad (using Moors indefinable 'bad'), I am saying that it is 'bad' based on the suffering it causes. I define suffering as 'bad', it has nothing to do with some sort of moral ideal in this case.Begging The Question:(an example from the wiki): I am not begging the question because I have provided support for my premises and defined my terms, as stated at the beginning of this post. I don't believe morality exists outside of human beings. I believe morality is a human construct used to improve our lives.I have supported this by showing that those societies that do less harm to their citizens have happier/healthier citizens. I cite history and progress as the example, ancient man was savage, brutal, and warlike. The average age was thirty and you were lucky to get to twenty with all your teeth. As time went on our societies have grown more stable and peaceful and thus the quality of life for all has improved. We are not perfect, there is still much suffering in the world, but in a lot of ways we are better off than we once were.Ad Hominem: I said that behavior which seeks to harm others and/or destroy society is 'sociopthic' and 'psychopathic'. I don't see how this is Ad Hominem. The definition of those words fit the behavior the poster was describing. Further, I qualified my statements by illustrating the result of such behavior.Appeal to the Majority: This is outright wrong. I am not appealing to the majority because my claims aren't dependent on what the majority thinks. If the majority thinks eating babies is 'good', by my definition of 'good' eating babies is still bad because it is a maximization of harm.Bandwagon Fallacy I am saying that which benefits the many is 'good'. I am not saying that which the many THINK benefits them is 'good'.Appeal To Emotion: It is not an appeal to emotion when the argument does not rest on an emotionally based premises. I don't give a rats ass ( well I do, but not for this discussion )what people feel about 'good' and 'bad', the fact is if people aren't good working toward the minimization of harm and the benefit of the many, we will likely not be around for much longer.Is this 'good' and 'bad' in a Cosmic sense? Of course not. But on a human scale, as I have already defined the terms, OF COURSE IT IS.I think thats all of em. How'd I do?This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-27-2005 07:53 PM

First, Im not going to justify every statment made in these last 100 posts, since there are too many. I conceed that I dug a few holes for myself here and there , so I would rather just stick to my clarified premisies. Again, I am saying that within human society, these are objective standards that can be used to achive the greatest good. That is, good for human beings, and therfor moral. Yes I did, I also provided examples where harm has been detrimental to society. I call this wrong.This is objective. If everyone shot each other we would kill ourselves off. Those are objective consequences of actions. Why is it bad? Because it's bad for humans. That simple.Another statement: They are not subjective, they are based on observation. Murder is an objective thing, death is objective. It is an objective fact that lots of murder means lots of dead people. It is an objective fact that lots of dead folks isn't too good for a species.That's what those premesies are based on. That's where my definitions of 'good' and 'bad' come from.Now, if you have a better definition of good and bad, I would like to hear it. Again, I would venture that the ideals do not change. Societies generaly attempt to attain the ideal of minimum harm, some are more succesful than others.It's like technology, people knew they wanted to make a plane. There was an ideal of a flying machine. As time went on planes became more sophisticated to fit the ideal. I would say the same is true for morality.The goal does not change simply because the people fail to meet it. Again, if these people are harming themselves, and/or their society, they are doing wrong. This is objective. People who hurt themselves are unhealthy and likely unable to function in their daily lives, if everyone was like this, society would crumble. Thats an objective fact.This is not an apeal to the majority, because the definition includes this: "If you caused harm to others and compromised social order fullfiling your need, you are being imoral."This is objective because it does not depend on the majorities opinion. It is a fact that if everyone was a depressed non-functional person, then society would suffer, and likely the species. This is wrong.Again, I am intrigued, how would you define wrong? Yes, but I can objectively state war will cause lots of death and destruction. I can also objectibely state that war (most of them anyway) are not good for society because of that destruction. Further, continual destruction on that level can objectively be said to be detrimental to the species.How is this wrong? Again, define wrong. I have already provided a definition.

I don't understand what you mean?

Eureeka! I now understand your position alot clearer. Now, my question is, can't we make deductions from the concequences of our actions, as to what actions are benificial to us for survival and happiness?If so, we can say objectively, that they are good for us. That is good as in: "good for the species." Like: "oil is good for my cars engine."I think you agree to this, that using these deductions we can establish principals that create societies more conducive to living better lives.And I think you would also agree that these principals in and of themselves are objective. The disagreement lies in wheather we can call these things "good" or not. The naming is subjective.And to be honest, I would have to agree that what we call these principals is subjective. But it does not deny the existance of these principals, nor does it deny the human drive to atain them.I would venture that human ideas about what good is, is derived from these principals. But like you said, the word, its meaning, tho related to objective principals, are subjective.I suppose an analogy would be, music. The stimulus, principals, etc. of music are Objectively real (i.e. sounds in modulated tones). But what the listener decides to call "music" is subjective. i.e.I would say that this is how I view morality then. I am not an athiest who denys god exists, I simply ask "which GOD?". I'm open to a God, if proof could be given to support that god. Further, I don't see how objective morality would have a god as the only conclusion, let alone the christian god.

Websters: Harm is physical or psychological injury. Also, note that the premiss does not say NO harm, it says MINIMIZING harm. That which does less "Physical or psychological injury or damage." is better for humans, and therefore benifits the whole. This is a fact.People can't eat syanide for breakfast, no matter how much they belived it was good for you. There are things/actions/beliefs in this world which cause "Physical or psychological injury or damage.". No, because they caused more harm in the name of an ideology that seeks to maximize harm.Again, when I say 'good' I mean it as in "oil is good for my cars engine." 'harm' as in "Physical or psychological injury or damage." You could make this argument, but it makes no difference who THINKS they are right. In the end, the group that does/promotes less harm "Physical or psychological injury or damage." is closer to being 'good'. Again, "Oil is good for my cars engine."This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 07:28 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 07:30 PM

I disagree, it's pretty clear that everyone deciding to eat syanide, no matter how good the intention, would never be good for society. There are clearly things wich cause "Physical or psychological injury or damage."I can see where you get this however, at times it may seem subjective due to the extream difficulty of forseeing all the ramifications of a given/action choice. I am not saying that it is allways easy to decide which cource of action will lead to less harm, I am only saying that cources of actions that are 'good' do exist. LOL, ya I kinda saw that defficiency. Any analogy stretched too far is bound to break. Perhapse it would be better to phrase it as "The proper amount of oil for my car (that amount which the oil tank can hold), is good for my car." Or something along those lines.Probably still has flaws, but I think you understand my meaning. In your example, "too much good" would no longer be good I agree. And as I said before, history will bear witness as to who infact caused less harm The point was that it's irrelevant what the doers of the deed think of their actions, the actions which ultimately cause less harm are the 'good' ones.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 08:15 PM

Agreed, sometimes impossible. But hopefully people are making the best guesses they can I mean, it may be impossible to predict every road situation that may come up. I can't guarantee I will never have an accident, however this doesn't make it wise for me to drive wrecklessly. I still have a chance of minimizing my odds.Likewise, ya, it's impossible to know all the outcomes. But I think you can make a good, thoughtfull, decision based on experience. Hmmm... well, assuming enugh survived to salvage society They would have to learn from their mistake. They would have to say "gee, cyanide was not a good idea. I won't eat that any more", then they persue a more benifical cource of action. In this case, to learn from their mistakes would be doing a 'good', persuing their detrimental ways would be 'bad'/harmfull.This does bring up an issue I haven't thought about tho. Imediatly after the survivers wake up, there is alot of harm. Society has been badly damaged. In a sense it's almost like karma, they have to work off those 'harm' points to get back to their 'good' status again Given enugh time, assuming they continue to make better decisions, their good choices will outweight the bad choices. Then, you could say, if that bad choice wasn't made, then the good that is manifest in the present wouldn't have ever happend. At this point you could say that the cyanide incident was indeed good Again tho, if the inciden't never happend, and the society continued to make benificial choices, then there would be no need to pay off those harm ponts. No, there is no such thing as the 'proper amount of good'. The oil is not what is inherantly good for the car, the lubrication of the engine is what is good for the car. Getting the engine lubricated is the good thing. Not to let it dry out and also not to satturate it. Well, it matters in as far as their thoughts determin actions. The results of the actions is what bears out as good or bad not the thoughts behind them. This is not what I am saying. Actions have an ultimate 'good' or 'bad' with relation to a species'/societies survival. Obviously our survival is only going to be important to one creature, US.It dosn't need a god. Fish need water to live, if you take away all the water they will die. Same concept for humans, just a bit more complex.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 08:57 PM

I will say that I now understand what is meant by absolute moral right and wrong, and I cetainly do not agree with that definition. However, I still don't see why the christian god is the ultimate conclusion of absolute morals. Exactly what I have been trying to say. I agree. Yep. Yes. But I would also stress, that just because these are logical/instinctual reactions, does not somehow belittle them. The outcome of these reactions have real effects on our lives, and our human experience. Outside of the huaman experience, society, and the individual will for suvival, no. Yep. But again, just because they have no necessary spiritual significance, does not make them any 'less'. Again, we are prisoners of our experience here on earth and each individual does feel pain and hurt. For the most part.

Assuming you conclusion is valid, that there is no reason to be moral, why belive in god?You seem to be saying that the only reason to belive in god is to provide justification for your moral code. This is as arbitrary as all athiests justification for their moral code."I am moral cuz it makes me feel good."
"I am moral for the sake of those I love."
"I am moral cuz it allows me to live a better life."
"I am moral because I don't want to go to jail"
"I am moral because I belive in Zeus"
"I am moral because I belive in pink unicorns"OR"I am moral because I belivce in the christian god"See what I mean? In the end you are choosing emotion as well.

Yes, the one based on our inborn social/survival instincts. Your system of harm and destruction is not compatible with that and would ultimately be to the detriment of society and the species.The majority of people would not tolerate your system, and thus it is not likely to find a foothold in socitey (at least not very long). Most people like to be happy, and they recoil from pain. Your system dosn't apeal to this and therefore will largely be regarded as unacceptable.Remember, 'bad' is like 'cyanide is bad for my health'. 'good' is like 'oil is good for my car'.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-29-2005 04:06 PM

In this case its not. Im not saying it's intrinsicaly better, just that it wouldnt work. i.e. your system is impractical and unhealthy. I have already explained in previous posts that I don't subscribe to an idea of a transcendent 'undefinable' good. Its not trancendantly bad, but it is bad for humans and generaly disagreable to them. Cyanide will never make a good breakfast.My system is only better in the sense that it is conducive to the continuation of the species and yours is not.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-29-2005 04:54 PM

Well, objectively I can say its better for survivle, subjectively I can say it's good in a moral sense. Morals relate to my personal emotional reactions to the system. What's better for me and my family, makes me 'feel' (in a broad sense) good and thus makes me want to continue those conditions. So in a subjective sense, I can say it's moral. You could do that, but you would also be applying a subjective reason for declaring the system moral.I'll paste a quote:

Well, I don't think they are empty arbitrary illusions. After all they do matter to us, and they do have implications for our lives. Let me put it to you this way, pain is not an empty arbitray illusion, as such I like to avoid it I think what I'm getting at, is that simply because the world dosn't have a god, does not necisseraly make things empty and arbitrary. As living concious beings we are capable of giving the world and our lives purpose. In a sense it's the same attribute you give to the god you belive in. Zeus is the source of all reality, life, and truth. Vishnu is the source of all reality, life, and truth.Really, I don't see a difference. Do you have proof that your god is the source of reality, life, and truth? Why isn't it that I could say: "Your emotions move you to choose god in a desire not to view the world as ultimately arbitrary?"This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-30-2005 01:12 AM

I suppose. But then wouldn't those standards be just as arbitrary/subjective as mine? After all, God is just pulling them out of a hat like everything else. There dosn't have to be any reason he chooses one rule over another.It would be like a mideival kingdom where in a sense the kings view of morality was final. The king could declare "right" whatever he wanted and impose it on everyone else. Same thing with god.It seems to me that it's just as arbitrary as anything else. At least my system, as far as I can tell, will lead to happier lives even if it has no trancendentaly 'good' value.PaulK said this earlier in the thread:"Is an act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good ?"This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-30-2005 09:55 AM

Crash and PailK had good responses, I would also like to comment on the immutable character of god.If God can change his mind, be swayd by human actions, be called upon in prayer, how can his character be immutable?Further, it makes no difference if the morality is rooted in gods "immutable character" putting it there still makes the standard subjective, that is, subjective to gods character.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-31-2005 02:27 PM