Why Do We Need God for Morality?

3 Comments

1. ChatGPT 4:

   From the perspective of a moral non-realist, the analogy and conclusions drawn about moral obligations requiring a divine authority (such as God) to make sense present several philosophical misunderstandings and areas for critique. Here's how a moral non-realist might respond to the arguments presented:

   ### 1. *Fallacy of False Analogy:*

   The analogy used by the speaker—comparing the authority of a fortune cookie, a fellow diner, and an FBI agent to the moral authority of God—commits a fallacy of false analogy. It assumes that because in some situations (like law enforcement), authority yields obligation, the same must apply universally to moral obligations. This analogy is problematic because it simplifies the complex nature of moral reasoning and obligations, which many non-realists argue can be grounded in social contracts, evolutionary biology, or rational agreements, none of which require an "appropriate authority" akin to a deity.

   ### 2. *Misunderstanding Moral Obligations:*

   The speaker asserts that moral obligations must originate from an authority figure, specifically a divine one. However, moral non-realists would contend that moral obligations are not analogous to commands given by authority figures in practical scenarios (like an FBI operation). Instead, moral obligations can emerge from mutual understandings, societal norms, or collective human reasoning, which are developed to promote social cohesion and individual well-being.

   ### 3. *Oversimplification of Authority:*

   In the scenarios presented, the obligation to obey stems from the perceived legitimacy and practical authority of the FBI agent, a context-specific role recognized and agreed upon within societal frameworks. To extend this concept and claim that moral obligations universally require a similar form of authority fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of authority and the concept of moral obligations. Moral non-realists would argue that moral authority does not need to be externalized in a person or deity but can be inherent in the empathetic and rational capacities of humans themselves.

   ### 4. *Authority Does Not Imply Morality:*

   The speaker's assumption that an appropriate authority automatically grants moral correctness to commands is critically flawed. History is replete with examples where authoritative figures have issued morally reprehensible commands. Moral non-realists would argue that morality should be assessed independently of authority, often through the lenses of harm, consent, and the well-being of affected individuals.

   ### 5. *The Assumption of God as Necessary for Morality:*

   The conclusion that God is the best explanation for moral obligations presupposes that morality must be dictated by an omnipotent authority. This is a significant leap that non-realists reject. They would argue that moral systems are human constructs, developed through evolutionary processes or social exigencies, and do not require a divine lawgiver. The naturalistic origins of moral behavior, demonstrated in other social animals, underscore that complex moral systems can develop without any belief in or reference to a deity.

   ### 6. *Alternative Explanations for Moral Obligations:*

   Moral non-realists advocate for explanations of moral obligations that do not rely on divine command but instead on secular, humanistic values. These include utilitarian principles (the greatest good for the greatest number), Kantian ethics (duty and the categorical imperative), or virtue ethics (character and well-being). Each of these frameworks provides a robust foundation for moral obligations that is fully independent of religious belief.

   ### Conclusion:

   The argument presented by the speaker, while aiming to link moral obligations to the existence of a divine authority, fails to address more complex, nuanced understandings of morality that do not require a god. Moral non-realists would encourage a broader exploration of ethical theories that appreciate the depth of human moral reasoning and the potential for morality to arise naturally within the human condition. This perspective fosters a morality based on empathy, social cooperation, and rational dialogue rather than divine decree.

   Log in to Reply

2. The authority is not the reason you would get up and leave, the reason for the command is why you would get up and leave which only means morals are moral before God speaks upon them, this makes him the middle man and not needed.

   Why do people cherry pick through their holy books? ( Everyone does it so just be grown enough to admit it ) the reason is morals are moral on their own independent of a god, there is reason people decide not to stone their children to death or burn witches, or kill women who was raped but didn't scream for help, the bible tells you to do these things but you ignore it because despite wether God said it or not you your self know these aren't the right things to do

   Log in to Reply

3. The very example that Kunkle uses here betrays his conclusion. The difference maker between the command to "get up and leave now" is the apparent arbitrariness and therefore the irrationality of the command based upon the context. The fortune cookie is most likely not custom tailored to you, the random customer seems to have no compelling motivation for her suggestion, but the officer, and only the officer, provided a sound reason for obeying the command, namely that she was about to "bust the owner of the restaurant". The examples Kunkle provides are at least as plausibly linked to reason as to authority, thus failing to establish the necessity of God for morality.

   Log in to Reply