Category:Moral arguments

From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(changed vague and inconsistent references to "a diety", "a god", and "God" to "a deity"; changed some stylistic things for clarification and addes some explanatory notes and a bunch of links)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Morality arguments''' make the case that morality cannot exist without a divine author.
+
'''Morality arguments''' make the case that [[morality]] cannot exist without a divine author.
  
 
This usually follows the lines of:
 
This usually follows the lines of:
  
1. Absolute morality exists
+
# Absolute morality exists
2. This must morality must come from somewhere.
+
# This morality must come from somewhere
3. Therefore, the maker of this absolute morality must be God.
+
# Therefore, the maker of this absolute morality must be a deity
  
==Criticisms==
+
This argument presents a [[false dichotomy]]. The conclusion [[logical fallacy|fallaciously]] implies that morality must either come from a deity or from nowhere. Since it cannot come from nowhere the false dichotomy leaves only one choice, the arguer's chosen deity. The argument itself provides no way of differentiating between one deity and another (e.g. the [[God|Christian God]] vs. [[Allah]]), and this choice is arbitrarily made by the arguer on the basis of personal conviction. The argument fails to explore any alternate hypotheses such as Utilitarianism or Kant's [[categorical imperative]] as possible alternative sources of an absolute morality. Absolute laws are known to exist in fields such as mathematics and logic and as such there are resonable grounds to suppose that an objective morality could be of the same nature.
  
There are several problems with this argument. Firstly, is the assumption that absolute morality exists. There is no one principal that 'ought never be violated'. Most people agree that murder is wrong, but we can come up with many hypothetical situations where murder might be justified, legal and even good. Most rational thinkers agree that it is not the action, but the justification behind the action that matters.
+
This argument also assumes that absolute morality exists yet does not provide any [[evidence]] to support this claim. It may well be that morality is, in fact, subjective; however, a person who attempts to effectively use this argument must first demonstrate that an objective morality actually exists in order to avoid a faulty (or undemonstrated) premise, which renders the argument [[Validity vs. soundness|unsound]].
 
+
Point two is absolutely correct. This morality must come from somewhere, and there are hundreds of explainations for this. Scientific explainations with evidence to back it up, like the '''social contract''' arguement. We can see in nature how morality evolves naturaly, so there is no need for a divine intervention.
+
  
 +
Only once objective morality has been established to be the case and all possible sources other than a deity are [[falsification|falsified]] can this argument be logically sound. Until then, the question of whether morality is subjective or objective, and if indeed objective, whether it comes from God or some other source, remains open.
  
 
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
 
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]

Latest revision as of 22:25, 18 August 2009

Morality arguments make the case that morality cannot exist without a divine author.

This usually follows the lines of:

  1. Absolute morality exists
  2. This morality must come from somewhere
  3. Therefore, the maker of this absolute morality must be a deity

This argument presents a false dichotomy. The conclusion fallaciously implies that morality must either come from a deity or from nowhere. Since it cannot come from nowhere the false dichotomy leaves only one choice, the arguer's chosen deity. The argument itself provides no way of differentiating between one deity and another (e.g. the Christian God vs. Allah), and this choice is arbitrarily made by the arguer on the basis of personal conviction. The argument fails to explore any alternate hypotheses such as Utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperative as possible alternative sources of an absolute morality. Absolute laws are known to exist in fields such as mathematics and logic and as such there are resonable grounds to suppose that an objective morality could be of the same nature.

This argument also assumes that absolute morality exists yet does not provide any evidence to support this claim. It may well be that morality is, in fact, subjective; however, a person who attempts to effectively use this argument must first demonstrate that an objective morality actually exists in order to avoid a faulty (or undemonstrated) premise, which renders the argument unsound.

Only once objective morality has been established to be the case and all possible sources other than a deity are falsified can this argument be logically sound. Until then, the question of whether morality is subjective or objective, and if indeed objective, whether it comes from God or some other source, remains open.

Pages in category "Moral arguments"

The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox