Objective Morality, God and Circular Reasoning

Basics:

 

Morality depends on you being responsible for what you do. To say that morality depends on free will is saying we need morality therefore we have free will for free will is only for morality. That is circular reasoning and makes no sense. Free will would be no good to us if we cannot be reasonable in believing it. Also we cannot ask a secular state to adopt a view that is a religious or spiritual or philosophical guess. If we cannot be sensible to believe it then there is no free will to be sensible and that not free will at all.  A cosmetic free will is useless.

You need to prove not that morality exists but that free will exists. That makes it possible for morality if there is such a thing. You also need more than possible. If free will is not meant for morality then there is no morality. You need to prove or satisfactorily demonstrate that it is meant for it. This cannot be done. The evidence needs to be solid and it is not. It is a matter of interpretation. Morality is too serious to base on a guess or opinion for that makes it contradict itself. It becomes tyranny in the cloak of virtue.  For example, should we moralise about murderers and judge and condemn and jail them on the basis that we guess they are morally accountable? Obviously not!

Analysis

 

Argument: "There is no morality if there is no God. There can be no way to value compassion, love, justice, gratitude and kindness unless there is a God who values these things. Morality is grounded in God's character."

The religious use that argument to show that morality is facts not opinions. For example, stealing a child's doll is a wrong as in factually wrong.

But it does not follow that the argument helps them become moral. They still seem to care more that instinct says certain things are wrong or right. Many care only about that.

It is obvious that truth does not depend on God. It is obvious that the religious belief that ALL truth comes from God is rubbish. If there were nothing and no God it would be true that there is nothing. Objective morality is more about truth than anything else. It says it is true that you cannot use a baby as a football. Clearly if truth is truth regardless of what God thinks or wants, then so is morality.

The argument that God creates morality therefore morality is true is a circular argument and thus a lie. Using God in that way ruins objective morality.

We think we know by instinct what is right and wrong. Believers say that God gave us that instinct and we can trust it for we can trust him. But that is an argument from ignorance. The argument goes, "I don’t know how I got the instinct therefore it was probably God."

Obviously the instinct is more important than God. To say that instinct tells you that right is right and wrong is wrong is to say the instinct matters more than the cause. If you see you don't care what causes you to see. And the cause is not as important as seeing.

To say that real moral values exist because I somehow know they do is immoral for you cannot really know unless you know how you know. Saying you "just know" something is a cheat.

It is a moral value that a circular argument is no good and a cheat.

Bringing God in makes the circular problems hundreds of times worse.

 

CIRCULAR DEFINITION

 

Those who say objective morality is God's nature of justice and love and so forth are guilty of saying, "God is morality.  God is real so morality is real."  God is turned into a definition of morality and morality is turned into a definition of God.

 

The moral argument for God says that right is right and moral is moral no matter what you think or anybody believes or thinks they know. That independence of morality from what anybody or everybody thinks of it or believes is NOT a definition of what objective morality is. It is a consequence.

 

 The definition is that objective morality means that the rightness and goodness of three things justice, mercy and love is a fact. Stepping over a cliff edge objectively means you will fall. You would not say that it is objectively true that you will fall simply because you will fall even if you swear and are convinced that you would not. While the independence of objective facts from what we think is a good help in seeing what is objective fact or not, it is a tool and is not the definition.

 

FINALLY

God [or more accurately, the one who says he is real] is the enemy of objective morality.