Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

Morality comes from the same place as a god, the subjective consciousness of a life form.

[Belindi]

I agree with your posting, except that by my understanding you're describing Ethical standards, not Moral codes.

Is not The Declaration of Independence legally binding? After all, Empire Loyalists had to flee to Canada after America won the war. I'd have thought the morals as codified in The D of I are moral laws if not national laws too. Not mere ethics that pertain only to specific groups and professions.

My understanding (which I know is not universally accepted) is that Moral codes are what individuals use to make behavioral choices and Ethical standards are how individual behaviors are judged by the community.

Yes, I agree; with the proviso but be careful which 'community' is actually a thing, and which is not. Doctors have specific ethical code, so do teachers, and so do scientists. 'Community' is often said without the aggregate of persons' being a community at all.

[popeye1945]

Morality without God? More rationally stated, where would God be without the compassion of humanity, for religion and the concept of a God are creative biological extensions of the insecure nature of humanity.

[Lagayascienza]

Exactly. Biology is the fundament from which extensions such as morality emerge.

[night912]

My thesis is not IF there is a special moral code passed down by a deity, rather that something like that is the only type of moral code one could rationally be expected to follow.

I agree that it would be confusing to find a difference in morality from a god and morality from nature, however I think that if one were to truly believe that morality only came from "nature" it would be hard to convince someone to follow it. Just that something is natural does not mean it is good...is this not where human reason should say that we must suspend judgement because we cannot decide if nature is "good" ?

What you're doing here is special pleading. You're arguing that it's rational to follow the moral code that was handed down to us by a deity. The thing is, there's no difference between the two. Same arguments can be used for or against both moral codes. You're presuppossing that because something is natural, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is good. By doing this, you're dismissing the possibility that something is natural means that it IS good. This is where the problem lies regarding your argument. If we humans initially don't know what is morality good and require a moral code to guide us, then how can we tell the difference between the moral code of a deity and that of nature? Which system of morality is the one that is morally good and morally bad?

This also plays a part in regards to the problem with Divine Command Theory. Is the moral system given to us by a deity morally good because that deity deemed it so? Or is it because that system is morally good in itself, resulting in requiring the deity to follow that system in order for it to be a morally good deity? If it's because the deity deemed it to be moral, then that system is just a system consisting of the subjectively moral codes of that deity. So then, how is that any different than one's own subjective morality system?