I've been watching some youtube video debates lately and came across some with Jordan Peterson in them. I didn't watch a great many of the videos with Jordan Peterson because I actually got put off by his cretinous asseverations that morality is impossible without religion which quite frankly, is imbecilic.
Most people know the difference between right and wrong, and they don't act badly because of some fear of God; they don't act badly because it's part of their neurobiological makeup not to be malicious people.
What is going on within someone's neurobiological makeup is what determines a person's morality or lack thereof; absolutely nothing to do with religion or God.
What are your views?
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: objective morality    people   Peterson   religion  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Most religious anyway totally ignore what the Bible actually requests of them and pick and choose the parts that suit their particular lifestyle choices, an example would be the hilarious way most American Christians will actually argue that Jesus would agree with carrying a gun , denying universal health care and denying social welfare people reimagine their gods as they are collectively. In the U S at the moment it seems non religious individuals are the ones who actually state that there should be decent universal health care , welfare and agree Jesus would certainly be against carrying a gun yet the Atheists are ones claimed to be immoral , hows that for a turnabout?
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: universal health care    societal changes   god of Christianity murders   U S  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is Petersen’s reasoning regarding objective morality how does he make a case for it?
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Petersen’s reasoning    case   objective morality   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just as being non religious, is voluntary.
Just as a human, being moral, or immoral, is voluntary as well.
Humans mindfully frame themselves, by their individual choices, whether religion has been ingrained into their lives or not.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: voluntary.Just    individual choices   religion   lives  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
His reasoning is long and tortuous but in the end, it can be somewhat summed up as this: For morality to be truly objective we need a god otherwise it can only be subjective...
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: reasoning    end   morality   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thank you for sparing me he does go on a bit at times , his contention is absurd to say the least
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bit    times   contention   absurd  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
To be honest, he's a very good debater, he's very good with words and is really knowledgeable, but he often use his very own definitions of certain terms without informing his audience and when cornered about it he goes into linguistic and philosophical gymnastics, he's a professional athlete in this regard... I sometime find myself agreeing with him on some issues, but I still find him to be, disingenuous most of the time...
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: good debater    own definitions of certain terms   professional athlete   issues  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes in fairness I’ve seen him recently debating with Sam Harris and intellectually he’s no slouch and would hold his own in most company , you’re assessment is spot on as that’s exactly the tactics he used with Harris , thanks you for your piece
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Sam Harris    fairness   company   assessment  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Peterson    point   times    
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what's right. I don't know who said that but it is so often right.
I DO know who said this: "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." H.G. Wells
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
Aside from that, a common argument among a lot of people with liberal views is the following: morality should have a solid, immovable, unquestionable source in order for freedom in the society to be possible. They will often point out at communist regimes that denounced the concept of "god" and say that it is that that allowed them to justify suppression of freedoms and violation of basic human rights: people no longer feared god, so their behavior became unhinged.
I have three main issues with this argument.
1. Fearing "god" does not compel one to any particular set of behaviors, as what that "god" wants one to do is somewhat subjective. The notion of god did not prevent crusaders from slaughtering millions, and does not prevent modern Islamic leaders from turning half of their people into sexual slaves.
2. Religion is also not necessary for the society to be freedom-loving and mutually respectful. The most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth, such as Japan, Switzerland or Norway, tend to be heavily secular, and even the US, where religion is a fairly big deal, has long been done with it heavily influencing enacted policies.
3. The argument assumes that, in the lack of certain centralised authority, there will be absolute moral chaos. But morals are dictated by practical considerations as much, if not more, than by philosophical ones. Even in the lack of centralised authority, certain general moral stances, such as "It is good to treat others well", are going to be naturally established: we all have to live in one society, and there are certain limitations imposed on our mainstream morals by that fact.
If we really consider where morals come from and why they are needed, we will see that religion is merely one possible source of morals, not special in any regard. People can see it as more authoritative than most other sources, but such a view does not have objective basis behind it, and people can be convinced just as well to see any other source as most authoritative.
When Soviet Union collapsed and the ideas of freedoms and liberties were central in the Russian philosophy for several years, those ideas did not come from religion or any other totalitarian ideology. Those ideas came from the simple fact that nations that valued these principles did really well, and other nations did really poorly. It was a purely practical consideration, and no god's word can ever be more authoritative, than the individual desire to live a happy life.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 73%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: evolutinary survival tool    morality   relgion   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra
Morals and government have no business together. Morals are individual and based on a person's raising, their tribe, their religion or any number of other personal standards. While you can question someone else's morals, you can only accuse them of immorality using your own personal beliefs. We don't all share the same. For instance, there are some people who believe that it is immoral to personally judge others, there fore you would be morally corrupt in their eyes. And yes, there are morals in the White House. Every person has their own belief as to what is wrong and what is right.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say .......
My reply .....Yet his supporters mostly identify themselves as all American Christians and see Trump as their savior and would see the other side as deeply immoral unpatriotic Americans
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Trump has his own set of morals, and you have your own set of morals. You assume that your morals are superior; he assumes that his morals are superior. There is no higher moral ground here, as morals are inherently subjective, religious or not.
Every person who voted for Trump had their own morals, and acted according to them. You may think that there is absolutely no consistent moral system that would allow one to vote for Trump, but that is because your vision is limited by your own set of morals. You should expand your vision and realise that it is just your vision and nothing more.
It seems to be that your hatred towards the guy clouds your judgement. Why do you assume that your morals are superior, say, to Lauren Southern's (a big Trump supporter) morals? What makes one's morals superior to someone else's morals?
Morals are not equivalent, and some moral sets obviously lead to worse societal consequences than some other moral sets. But that does not make those moral sets immoral, nor does it make them inferior. They would be inferior under the assumption that "quality" of a moral set must be judged according to the consequences it leads to, but that assumption itself is inherently subjective.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say ......
Trump has his own set of morals, and you have your own set of morals. You assume that your morals are superior;
My reply ..... I certainly don’t and I’ve never stated that
You say ......he assumes that his morals are superior. There is no higher moral ground here, as morals are inherently subjective, religious or not.
My reply .....I agree
You say ......Every person who voted for Trump had their own morals, and acted according to them. You may think that there is absolutely no consistent moral system that would allow one to vote for Trump, but that is because your vision is limited by your own set of morals.
My reply .....I stated exactly my understanding of what sort of people are supporters of Trump mostly as in patriotic Christians is this incorrect?
You say ......You should expand your vision and realise that it is just your vision and nothing more.
My reply .....I honestly do not comprehend this unwarranted attack you’re making , I replied honestly to Brandy who calls Trump deeply immoral and thus by implication anyone who voted for him , I made no such charge
You say ......It seems to be that your hatred towards the guy clouds your judgement.
My reply ......Where am I saying I hate him?
You say .....Why do you assume that your morals are superior, say, to Lauren Southern's (a big Trump supporter) morals? What makes one's morals superior to someone else's morals?
My reply ......I never said I was superior to anyone , wow! you really have it in for me for some reason why’s that?
You say ......Morals are not equivalent, and some moral sets obviously lead to worse societal consequences than some other moral sets. But that does not make those moral sets immoral, nor does it make them inferior. They would be inferior under the assumption that "quality" of a moral set must be judged according to the consequences it leads to, but that assumption itself is inherently subjective.
My reply .....Listen I will leave it there , I don’t want to offend you as I’m sick and tired of mostly aggressive Americans constantly attacking me on here and claiming I said things I didn’t say .
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say .....Being religious is voluntary
My reply ......It’s not , children are introduced to religion at mostly a very early stage there is nothing voluntary about it
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: voluntaryMy reply    early stage   children   religion  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh, my deep apologies. I was confused by your reply style and read the "You say..." part as something you meant to say.
I was not planning to make a personal attack, just making an argument. But I see now that my argument was really intended for @BrandyKnight.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It’s all good and all forgotten now , a simple mistake and I’ve made them myself , have a good day/evening
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: good day    simple mistake   evening   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
Morality is not and does not need to be bounded by or ingrained in religion........... to be what?
Dispute all the atheist echo's in here, there is a question they can never answer.
Without a standard, what makes any morality better than another?
Christians are not saying you need God to have a morality. Even hyenas have a morality.
Christians say you need a standard in order to have an objective morality. A subjective morality has no reason it ought be followed.
Why can't atheists see this simple truth? So your morality says killing an unborn child is moral. Abdul's morality says the opposite. Who is moral?
The hypocritical thing is, atheist can see the need for a standard in everything except morality. We have a standard for hours, GMT. A standard for location, GPS. A standard for distance, miles. A standard for time, light years. A standard for energy, for light, even for volume.
But for morality, the atheist suddenly cannot see the need, the value, of an objective standard.
"God isn't that standard" they will cry. Never seeing it doesn't matter. No matter whether we settle on inches, feet, yards, meters, or miles, we have to settle on something if we are going to talk to each other about distance.
First admit that we need a standard. Forget your fear and hatred of God. Morality needs a standard, or we are just a bunch of idiots each claiming his morality is better than the other.
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
@MayCaesar What were you directing to me?
I think you both have me confused with @AlofRI
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 69%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp         
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
Brandy now it’s my turn to apologise , I never really paid attention to the AL logo and honestly wondered what had happened as in out last debate after we cleared up some misunderstandings I enjoyed our further exchanges , please accept my sincere apologies and I hope me and you have some more what for me anyway were enjoyable exchanges @MayCaesar and I had a similar mix up earlier but thankfully all is resolved now.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: AL logo    further exchanges   last debate   Brandy  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
I can't worship a "god" (any god), that would kill everyone on Earth, and all but two of each animal on Earth because S/HE/IT's … upset. Kills the innocent "first born" of any who don't follow the rules. Allows crazies to walk into a "house of worship" and kill many, if not all. (That's ANY religion). Allows diseases to kill thousands of innocents … including babies, allows hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. to kill babies …. and somehow gets the praises of love for "a "miracle" that saved ONE. As I said, I have no hate for anyone's religion, or religious morals. They just don't fit my "standards" of humanity OR morals, which some, apparently, don't think are up to religious "standards".
That's OK. I don't feel bad that I feel society's "standards" seem more humane to me than many religious ones. I sleep well as an atheist. I think we should take better care of this planet (God's creation, if you must), work to cure illnesses, work to prevent wars or hatred between religions, work to see that health care isn't only for those who can afford it. I don't have to be a Christian to have morals.
Gandhi said: "There are people in the world so hungry, that GOD can only appear to them in the form of bread." Gandhi was not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew. Yet he had morals. He also said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (I'm sure he didn't mean that collectively. It wasn't his way). It's not mine either. However, I'll hold his morals (and mine) up against many of the religious morals of today.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has believed in, Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has believed in, Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
For a person to be and/or behave morally.
What truth? Please elaborate.
Could you please elaborate on this point so I don't assume what you're implying.
The hypocrisy of people is irrelevant to an argument being presented. Furthermore, there are lots of atheists in the world and no one can argue what all atheists hold as being immoral albeit we can form opinions and beliefs about atheists.Please refer to my previous responses as one or more of them are applicable here too.
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes all morality must be based on some assumption; Jordan Peterson might call this a "god" though this is a perverted definition of the term. Without such an assumption nothing can really be immoral. Just think of something you deem morally abhorrent and keep asking yourself a series of "why" questions as to why it is wrong. For example: Why is murder bad? Murder is bad because it kills someone. Why is killing someone bad? Killing someone is bad in part because it makes their family and friends sad. Why is making their loved ones sad bad? Because it makes people unhappy. And there we have found our axiom again. One can't prove making people unhappy is bad, but one must take it "on faith".
The "moral axiom" of those who are religious is a god. Basically, one assumes that a god exists, and then whatever morality comes forth from that god is the objective moral code. This moral code often tends to be complicated and fluid though. If morality was really exactly and only what god said, we would still have slavery (it is endorsed in the bible). Furthermore, deriving morality from a god requires a slew of other assumptions and beliefs. For example, if I choose Christian morality and a Christian god, then I must now also believe in Christ, the holy spirit, and, if the bible is to be taken literally, creationism. This isn't really the ideal framework is it? It's overly complicated, vague, open to societal interpretation, and requires a lot of assumptions.
There are alternatives though, thanks to philosophy. Utilitarianism is a great example. All you have to take on faith can be condensed into one simple sentence: "The most good to the most people, and the least harm to the least people." Naturally this is open to interpretation: What are "people"? What constitutes "good"? How can we measure this? Even so, a simple moral code like this one requires many fewer assumtions, and is much clearer. By Occam's razor, the simpler morality wins. Why individually rule rape, murder, and theft immoral if one can simply say that harming others is immoral, and all three acts constitute harm.
In conclusion: Some sort of axiom is necessary, though it may not need to be tied to any sort of religion or worship. In fact, a moral code without religious ties is often better because it is simpler, easier to follow, less susceptible to societal reinterpretation, and requires only one assumption as opposed to a host of assumtions. Sure, all morality must be based upon something we take on faith, but why make that a god?
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
>For a person to be and/or behave morally.
But what is "behaving morally"? What makes your behavior moral? How do you designate a behavior moral? For example, how do you decide how far away a city is, if everyone has their own measuring standard? It would make sense to you, but you could not communicate that distance to anyone else.
So no, morality does need to be bounded by something. It needs a standard.
(More on Standards later)
Yet my experience has been that atheists will not answer questions or debate honestly.
I did not dispute that. But not just any standard will do, some standards are better than others.
You don't have to. The point is that Christians are not saying you need a religion in order to behave morally. It is obvious that everyone has a morality.
>What truth? Please elaborate.
The one you're already having difficulty with. We are not arguing that no one can have a morality without God, but that no one can have an authoritative morality without God.
Atheists have difficulty seeing the difference.
>Could you please elaborate on this point so I don't assume what you're implying.
I am not implying anything, I am asking a simple question. When you and Abdul disagree on the morality of an action, how do we tell whether the action is moral or immoral?
>The hypocrisy of people is irrelevant to an argument being presented.It is relevant to the atheist accepting his inconsistency.
>Furthermore, there are lots of atheists in the world and no one can argue what all atheists hold as being immoral albeit we can form opinions and beliefs about atheists.
But we must be intellectually honest. If I said, "Humans are born with 2 legs." An objection saying some people are born cripple is intellectually dishonest.
>Please refer to my previous responses as one or more of them are applicable here too.
I saw them. They did not address my point.
Standards.
To be useful, a standard must be unchanging. That is why science uses an atomic clock instead of a Timex, and why the speed of light is called the constant and used as a standard of distance and time.
A standard must be objective, it cannot be changeable by people who may dislike it or simply come to prefer another standard. For example, like the volt, It is based on an objective value that is independent of what people think.
Finally, a standard must be authoritative. That is, it must not emanate from the mind of any man, and cannot be unilaterally changed by any man.
Authority is the right to exercise power,
In government, authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is the ability to order or accomplish a goal or to influence others, authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.
For example, while a mob may have the power to punish a criminal by beating or lynching, the rule of law indicates that only a court of law has the authority to determine and refer a criminal for punishment. In this sense, authority is a matter of not only the ability or power to make decisions, but the right to make these decisions and execute them with commensurate power.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yours was an excellent post.
>Morality is of course something which must inherently be based upon some sort of assumption, just as all mathematics is grounded on some basic fundamentals which are unprovable (Euclid's axioms: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry/Euclid%27s_axioms#quiz0).
>For this reason, something must be believed based upon faith. No action can be inherently negative unless we have some sort of moral axiom to judge it against. The question is not if we need an axiom, but rather what axiom one chooses.
Exactly.
>Yes all morality must be based on some assumption; Jordan Peterson might call this a "god" though this is a perverted definition of the term. Without such an assumption nothing can really be immoral. Just think of something you deem morally abhorrent and keep asking yourself a series of "why" questions as to why it is wrong. For example: Why is murder bad? Murder is bad because it kills someone. Why is killing someone bad? Killing someone is bad in part because it makes their family and friends sad. Why is making their loved ones sad bad? Because it makes people unhappy. And there we have found our axiom again. One can't prove making people unhappy is bad, but one must take it "on faith".
Exactly.
>The "moral axiom" of those who are religious is a god. Basically, one assumes that a god exists, and then whatever morality comes forth from that god is the objective moral code. This moral code often tends to be complicated and fluid though. If morality was really exactly and only what god said, we would still have slavery (it is endorsed in the bible).
This is untrue, but I will focus on your main point for now.
>Furthermore, deriving morality from a god requires a slew of other assumptions and beliefs. For example, if I choose Christian morality and a Christian god, then I must now also believe in Christ, the holy spirit, and, if the bible is to be taken literally, creationism.
Not quite, but to your main point, this slew of other assumptions is true fro ANY axiom chosen. The condition is not as unique or as problematic to Christianity as you seem to want to imply.
>This isn't really the ideal framework is it?
Not if we take your spin on it as fact no. But that framework, without the liberal progressive slant, has been workable for centuries.
>It's overly complicated, vague, open to societal interpretation, and requires a lot of assumptions.
These are all your opinion based on your preexisting bias.
>There are alternatives though, thanks to philosophy. Utilitarianism is a great example. All you have to take on faith can be condensed into one simple sentence: "The most good to the most people, and the least harm to the least people."
The vagueness of this standard becomes clear as soon as you try to put it into real life. Like communism, it is nice in theory but totally unworkable in reality.
>Naturally this is open to interpretation: What are "people"? What constitutes "good"? How can we measure this? Even so, a simple moral code like this one requires many fewer assumtions, and is much clearer.
I can challenge that. It only appears simpler. But it has another problem, and that problem is fatal. "Good and Harm" are based on what men like or dislike at a certain time. That changes. Can you imagine a yardstick that changed length with time? It would be useless as a standard.
>By Occam's razor, the simpler morality wins.
No it does not. Occam's razor is logical nonsense, but is off topic right now, but there is no reason to assume a simpler morality is better.
We aren't trying to find out what morality is easier, but which morality is TRUE. We aren't building a morality, we are finding one.
>Why individually rule rape, murder, and theft immoral if one can simply say that harming others is immoral, and all three acts constitute harm.
True, but your example is limited. Most things are not as morally clear as rape, murder, and theft. And sometimes, even those things are morally unclear.
>In conclusion: Some sort of axiom is necessary, though it may not need to be tied to any sort of religion or worship.
It doesn't need to have a standard to exist, true, but it does need a standard to be authoritative. Otherwise, it is just an opinion that is only as valid as any other opinion.
>In fact, a moral code without religious ties is often better because it is simpler, easier to follow, less susceptible to societal reinterpretation, and requires only one assumption as opposed to a host of assumtions.
This is demonstrably untrue. Give me an example of such a moral code and I'll show you.
>Sure, all morality must be based upon something we take on faith, but why make that a god?
Because considering the three criteria that make for the best standard, nothing is logically better than God.
And it has the added value of being workable even if the participants do not believe the God exists.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say ......Sure, all morality must be based upon something we take on faith, but why make that a god?
My reply ......Faith is based on spiritual conviction nothing else , a god is unnecessary for individuals to be moral as can be witnessed by those who live perfectly in harmony and peace without the need of god , in truth the belief in an authoritative source of morality has led to slavery , persecution and demonization of millions worldwide .
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: spiritual conviction    need of god   authoritative source of morality   faith  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: apology    opinions   Things   debates  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hi Brandy , thanks a lot for that and it’s a pleasure to debate with a kind intelligent person like yourself who’s opinions are always interesting and challenging
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Hi Brandy    kind intelligent person   thanks   lot  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
If your model requires millions assumptions in order to work, while another model explains everything with three simple basic claims, then it is reasonable to say that your model is hogwash that does not really get to the bottom of any issue and simply describes the observations, without making any predictions.
We can write down a list of claims:
1+1=2
1+2=3
2+2=4
...
Or we can simply define the rule of summation, and then all of these relations will be derived from it naturally.
What do you think is a more valid model: one that gives you a method of calculating the sum of two numbers, or one that forces you to memorise an infinite number of relations, not establishing any patterns or rules?
Similarly, if your morality features thousands disjointed directives to be memorised, then that morality is ridiculous. On the other hand, if you have several basic principles from which you derive the rest of your morals, then your moral system is worth something. That is the Occam's Razor in a nutshell.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Occam's razor    simple basic claims   smallest set of generalisations   rule of summation  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Good questions. The empathy that is inherent in most human beings is what dictates the morality of a person and this does not rest on religion, God or any particular standards for that matter; it's part of most human beings biological makeup at the very root.
This actually can be answered mathematically and would make sense to anyone that understands basic math. However, it's irrelevant to the current topic.
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
Typical. My experience with atheists is vindicated.
Simple yes or no questions.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
Isn't the moral standards of Christians subjective also? By the way, when you are talking about moral objectivity are you referring to moral absolutism?
Ok, let's assume then in your case that there is a God that is the authority on morality. Now, answer me this: Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?
Yes, I do agree some standards are better than others. I find the following response from Richard Dawkins a very agreeable standard of morality:The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra