If there is no moral standard, how are we able to judge the actions of Hitler (or any other person) and recognize what he did was evil? His genocidal plan is simply "his truth" without a moral standard. For who are we to judge "his truth?" We have no grounds to judge his actions.
The only possible way to judge anyone's actions is through a moral standard.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ Joshb
Like we can judge the god of the OT for his genocide, infanticide, racism, slavery, and misogyny?
Morality with its handmaidens of ethics and empathy are survival characteristics for a social species. Our morality has evolved over time.
You are not the first to try and argue this, I doubt you will be the last, there are multiple strings in the debate room where the "God inspired objective morality" proponents have been left drowning in their own stupidity.
All morality is human morality. Some people just embellish their human moral standards by saying "God said it".
@JoshB: If there is no moral standard
But there is a moral standard. As social primates, we have innate instincts that are refined through our experiences in our families and society. Hitler, Stalin, Mary Tudor, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., were damaged people who failed to develop these instincts. Hitler was able to dominate a nation and draw millions into his evil process because people were conditioned to obey authority and surrender their consciences to an ideology. I wonder where that came from?
The existence of these monsters doesn't negate humanist morality or affirm theistic morality.
Beware of people who get their moral compass from iron-age yokels engaged in constant tribal and ethnic warfare. The little book of horrors that they left us is full of monstrous immorality and inhumanity.
When you're in doubt about the morality of a situation, look inside yourself, talk to others, think. That's the human, humane way.
@ algebe
I am actually arguing for the existence of a moral law. Where we differ is how we get the moral law. I believe a moral law strongly suggests a moral law giver, outside of human conscience. By formulating a moral law through different cultures and families, it is still subjective by nature because every culture and family is different. If there is no moral law outside of culture, we would not be able to judge other cultures because that would be their own "moral law." Morality must be objective.
@ Joshb
Rubbish. Morality is subject to local custom and religion.
The FACT that morality and ethics evolve with society is well evidenced. I suggest you do ethics 101 and discover how far back the writings on morality go.
The proof is that we now consider slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing and misogyny (all documented in several holy books) as war crimes or as social crimes of varying degrees is evidence for my assertion.
Your "external" moral law giver is conspicuous by its absence and complete lack of evidence.
@Joshb: Where we differ is how we get the moral law.
Since you've mentioned Hitler several times, let's look at someone who opposed Hitler and played an important part in his downfall. His name was Alan Turing. He was one of the greatest geniuses humanity ever produced. And he was gay. The "moral law" of his time and place was based on the Bible. It made the very existence of that heroic genius a crime. Never mind that he'd saved thousands of lives and help to end one of the worst tyrannies in history, he was sentenced to chemical castration. Then he killed himself.
Since then a growing number of countries have recognized that there's no morality in persecuting people not for what they've done, but for what they are. Our morality as social primates has evolved. We've gotten better, more inclusive. If we'd stuck with the "morality" of the Bible, we'd still be stoning and burning homosexuals and enslaving Africans.
In places that are not held back by religion, our morality evolves and improves.
@Joshb: How do you not understand that you just described OBJECTIVE MORALITY and then asserted it must be OBJECTIVE. Do you have any idea at all what in the fuck you are talking about?
"I believe a moral law strongly suggests a moral law giver." THEN IT IS NOT OBJECTIVE. It it subjected to the whims of the law giver. That is how you can have a butchering, murdering maniac in the old testament and a feel good asshole in the new testament. THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVE IN THIS.
Formulating a moral law through different cultures and families is OBJECTIVELY MORAL. There are social norms we can objectively point to. There are societal laws we can OBJECTIVLY point to.
" Every culture and family is different." DOES NOT MEAN the morality for those cultures or families is not OBJECTIVE. You do not understand what the world OBJECTIVE MEANS.
You are not arguing for OBJECTIVE MORALITY. You are arguing for 'ABSOLUTE MORALITY." Absolute morality based on the absolute dictates of a god. Killing witches is moral. Killing homosexuals is moral. Killing any who disagree with your version of God is moral. You are asserting that your god and your religion have cornered the market on ABSOLUTE MORALITY. Essentially your position is "ONE CAN NOT BE MORAL WITHOUT GOD." This is 'ABSOLUTE MORALITY" and has nothing at all to do with being OBJECTIVE. It has no objective basis at all. Only God can determine the rules, and we are obligated to follow every word that applies to us. HORSESHIT!!!
This is simply demonstrating that being Religious, makes you talk like an idiot. How about you take a moment to google the difference and then get back to us.
Hitler was a moral law giver, so was Chairman Mao.
You argument falls apart when we examine examples.
@Joshb
I do not know why anyone would accept any morals handed down from god who has committed terrible atrocities. But we can find other less cruel and sadistic standards of reference to construct a moral platform. And that is what most atheists do, construct a positive moral standard to live by.
For myself, it is "well being". I understand that my personal well being is good thing for me. And since we are a social species and rely on our fellow human beings, promoting their well being assures my own personal well being. From this frame of reference, I can make moral decisions.
What is important is every moral decision must be made carefully and with full consideration of well being for myself and others. Moral decisions are subjective, not a rigid objective set of rules.
@ David
"Moral decisions are subjective, not a rigid objective set of rules."
So, by your definition, Hitler's moral decisions were made for the "well being" of the German people. Therefore, his actions are justified by your definition because he is promoting the "well being" of his people. Does this not worry you?
We have no grounds to judge his actions if he is promoting the "well being" of his people. In order to know his actions are evil, there must be an objective moral law outside of subjective human ideals. Morality cannot be subjective.
That looks like a pretty nasty strawman of David's position. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously after posting something like that?
It does not bother me Nyarlathotep because anyone who begins to justify Hitler's actions IN ANY WAY is obviously desperate and clutching at straws.
Hitler was religious. He thought he was doing god's will.
@Joshb: You really don't have a clue do you? Yes, Hitler's actions were justified. They were objectively moral. The objective was to free the German people of the evil influence of the Jews. (Just like Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism suggested.) That IS objective morality. It can be observed, measured, and determined to either meet the goal or not meet the goal. It is objective. There was nothing subjective in anything Hitler did.
YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT "OBJECTIVE MORALITY." YOU DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORDS. OPTING FOR A MORALITY OUTSIDE OF HITLERS MORALITY MAY STILL BE OBJECTIVE UNLESS YOU ARE ARGUING FOR "ABSOLUTE MORALITY."
IF YOU THINK THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE MORALITY YOU MUST PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE.
@Joshb
"Hitler's moral decisions were made for the "well being" of the German people."
Agreed, that was his justification. But he went about it wrong by trampling on the well being of other peoples outside of Germany (and his culture). His definition of "well being" was narrow and excluded anything non-German. Therefore it was flawed morality.
If you justify going to your neighbor and murdering everyone in their house just to get a cup of sugar, that is what Hitler did.
@Joshb
Regarding Morality ~
Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of 5. Most of these parents believe in God and are praying for their children to be spared and their prayers will not be answered. Any God who would allow children to suffer and die is either immoral or impotent. Either God can do nothing to help these children or doesn't care to. To make matters worse, most of these children will be going to hell because they are praying to the wrong God. Through no fault of their own they were born into the wrong culture and got the wrong theology.
"We have no grounds to judge his (Hitler) actions."
Really? Smells like limp-wristed moral abandonment.
You'd have to be deeply, seriously, impaired not to be able to identify, or challenge, the immorality of genocide, rape, slavery and racism.
But then all these crimes were the Abrahamic god's preferred tools.
All the commands in the Pentateuch expected of the children of Israel, like "Love your neighbour" etc was for the benefit of other "children of Israel". Everyone else was shit in God's eyes.
And you do realise, it is the descendants of the man, Israel, formerly known as Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, that is referred to here? Even the descendants of Midian, son of Abraham, with his second wife, along with all the other tribes living in Canaan, were treated as mere battle fodder; their babies having their heads dashed against rocks; their virgins taken as Hebrew sex slaves; their male survivors, if at all lucky, taken as slaves and all on God's explicit orders.
He even punished them for showing sympathy. Hey wait a minute, I could be talking about Hitler, yeah?
But who are we to judge, right? Mere humans trying to promote their own puny mortal sense of humanity and morality? What would we know? To truly understand evil you need to be that god who created it. (Isaiah 45:7)
"Objective" morality defined in the Bible: Kill without mercy when god commands it. Don't kill when god commands it. Now we just have to discover which of the voices in our head is god's.
@Joshb: RE: "If there is no moral standard?"
What the fuck are you talking about. We all have standards of morality. We judge the morality of Hitler based on our standards of morality. Why would you assume other people have no sense of morality?
His genocidal plan is simply "HIS PURPOSE." based on his perception of reality.
RE: "???without a moral standard." What the fuck are you talking about? Hitler only killed Jews. Did you hear of him killing good Germans? Obviously he had a moral boundary. All you are really saying is that you do not share Hitler's version of Christian morality. I have no problem at all with that.
Here is a thought for you ....
PLEASE POINT TO AN EVIL ACT THAT HITLER DID THAT YOUR GOD HAS NOT ALSO DONE.
We judge moral acts from moral standards. "Agreed." And you choose to follow a murdering asshole while Atheists base their standards on law. personal values, well being. philosophy, etc..... There are probably a million ways to be moral without God and most are more likely MORE MORALLY GROUNDED than following your asshole god and his corrupted moral values.
@Cognostic: PLEASE POINT TO AN EVIL ACT THAT HITLER DID THAT YOUR GOD HAS NOT ALSO DONE.
Mustache plagiarism. Hitler stole Charlie Chaplin's lip rug.
Apart from that I think god's done everything that Hitler did and worse.
@algebe: Ummmmm..... Perhaps you would care to explain .......
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@algebe: Ummmmm..... Perhaps you would care to explain .......
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Cognostic:
Are you attempting to portray Adolf as the second coming? That can't be true, because from what I've heard Hitler couldn't even have a first coming after the tragic goat blow-job incident.
@algebe: My bad! I thought I could put one over on you.
Geez algebe, I almost pissed my pants laughing at that one.
secularism
Ethical system that does not accept the influence of faith or religious devotion, based only on facts or experiences resulting from the present life.
@Josh: YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 'OBJECTIVE MORALITY.' In this forum you are just another ignorant Christian coming in and attempting to explain morality without the ability to do so. You do not even understand the basics of your own belief in morality.
Objective morality is based on whatever you base it on. It is goal directed to meet the "objective." A morality based on well being asserts. "The notion of wellbeing is one of the most fundamental concepts in moral philosophy. When moral philosophers discuss wellbeing, they are interested in what are the most basic elements of good lives. The positive morality of a society is the set of moral norms which the members of that society share." https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/portal/files/19756122/Morality_and_Wel...
A morality based on "Justice" : Justice is about living with other people, while morality is about living with yourself. Justice is about right relation to others as measured against the mores of society, while morality is about right relation to right itself, as measured against your own beliefs.
Morality can be based on reason, religion, avoidance of punishment, and probably a whole lot more. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE BELIEFS CAN LEAD ONE TO 'OBJECTIVE MORALITY" A morality based system with accepted and objectively defined behaviors based on a goal.
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS "OBJECTIVE MORALITY/"
@Josh Re: OP - "The only possible way to judge anyone's actions is through a moral standard."
OR.... Simply do like I do and flip a coin. And if you do not like the outcome of the coin toss, flip it again and again and again until it lands on the side you prefer. Perfectly fair system, if you ask me... *shrugging shoulders*...
I like Kant's view on Universalizability : "For Kant, an act is only permissible if one is willing for the maxim that allows the action to be a universal law by which everyone acts.Maxims fail this test if they produce either a contradiction in conception or a contradiction in the will when universalized. A contradiction in conception happens when, if a maxim were to be universalized, it ceases to make sense because the "...maxim would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law."For example, if the maxim 'It is permissible to break promises' was universalized, no one would trust any promises made, so the idea of a promise would become meaningless; the maxim would be self-contradictory because, when universalized, promises cease to be meaningful. The maxim is not moral because it is logically impossible to universalize—we could not conceive of a world where this maxim was universalized." -Wiki
I have a personal standard that is similar. Act in a way that would produce a better world for my grandchildren if most people acted that way also.
@cHIMP3: re: "I like Kant's view on" Obviously we can rule God and Jesus out when it comes to being the arbitrator of anything universalized. They both fail the test horribly.
Pages