Examples Of Objective Moral Truths

Therefore, the only reason one has to behave ‘morally’ is because god, the bible or Jesus says you should. Moreover, the consequences of behaving in contradiction to Christian values or behaving ‘immorally’ involve punishment by god whether it be in this life or the after-life. This philosophy sheds some light on why atheism is feared, despised and misunderstood as well as why atheists are persecuted in America. If there is no god to answer to or no consequences for ‘bad behavior’, why then, would anyone behave in a good moral fashion? What is to prevent deviant behavior, if there is no god? These questions are the main basis for the Christian argument which maintains that atheists are untrustworthy, immoral or amoral, social deviants and therefore lesser human beings. Some have gone as far to say that atheists are unpatriotic, un-American and do not even have the right to be acknowledged as citizens of the United States.

Someone who would believe a statement such as this one would most likely be in agreement with the Divine Command Theory---the reason being that the main claim in this theory is, all that is morally right, is right because God commands it so. Therefore in order to believe in the Divine Command Theory, one would need to be a strong believer in God---and would truly believe that if there were no God, morality would be absent. With this in mind, if God is the creator of all that is morally right, and there turns out to be no god at all, then nothing is morally wrong or can be capable of being morally wrong---would be a statement that non-believers of the Divine Command Theory would believe, and believe that morality can exist on its own, with or without a God. In this paper I will focus on the Divine Command Theory in relation to the statement above, and those who would oppose this statement. In doing so, I will attempt to show why I believe that those opposing this statement have a more plausible view.

“In saying that things are not good by virtue of any rule of goodness but solely by virtue of the will of God, it seems to me that we unknowingly destroy all of God 's love and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the exact contrary?”(1)Therefore there must be some moral standards independent of God that would be right or wrong regardless of his being. This conclusion creates another problem, it could mean that God has no freewill as he can not then act outside of the presupposed good morals and therefore can not make his own decisions. If there are moral standards independent of God and his will then that would limit God 's sovereignty. It binds God to something that makes him not independent. Instead of the good being established by him he is established by what is good and in essence a new “god” is created. This is used as a common argument for atheism, For if morality can exist without God there is no need to answer for the inherent sense of morale that humanity has in some context no matter what culture they are raised in.

His opening paragraph describes the universe to be “made up of all things, and one God who pervades all things” or more simply everything is connected together and monitored by god. Everything in the world in our world works together to form a well-functioning society and that’s what he appears to be pertaining to. However, he adds to that by giving key things people must do in order to form a great society. Things like “[l]ov[ing] mankind”, “follow[ing] god”, and “remember[ing] laws rule all”, are a few simple things we must teach one another to create a better atmosphere for people to live in. Whoever goes against these is “fighting against the nature of the world” and harms everyone around them by in a sense not being a team player.

According to this theory, there are no moral standards that exist without God's will, and without his commands, nothing would be right or wrong. God is omnipotent, and therefore, morality itself is derived from God's nature. Without God, there is no basis for our moral structure and under this, what is moral is so because God has decreed it as such.

He compares current human actions and philosophy to how the Nazis ruled Germany and believed that the Aryan race deserved to rule the world. Humans believe that they are the most evolved and intelligent creature and therefore the Earth was made for man. Humans hold this belief despite the fact that evolution continues to happen around them. This leads humans to believe that they can do whatever they want to the world and that they do not have to take responsibility for any of their problems because it is the fault of the gods, for they are the ones who made world for man. If the world were made for man, then evolution would stop with man.

This information must come in the form of empirical support. Since there is inadequate empirical support for moral claims, there is no moral knowledge. A problem arises because there is no determinative empirical evidence that would verify if the previous statements on empirical support were true. This argument proceeds to the comparison of philosophical and moral claims. If we were to explore these claims fully, such as the existence of God and free will, we will run into controversies.

He rejects the notion of "good" people are supposed to pretend that religions are all pretty much the same because we get along by acknowledging, understanding and respecting our differences and not by pretending we are all the same.

He said evil was not necessarily a bad thing, it was just the “absence of good.” He continued his counter argument by explaining evil may only be an allusion, but it does not make up for the suffering and cruelty in the world. An all loving God would not allow humans to experience heart ache and

Unless there exists a divine law-giver, without the presence of God there can be no objective standard of what is right and wrong. The absence of significant interaction with superior command ethics by Sam Harris demonstrates that his book ‘The Moral Landscape’ is another atheist ideological view against Christian doctrines. Hence, Green demonstrates that the overall project of Harris is not convincing, incoherent and

We often feel for other people, when they're sad we’re sad when they get hurt we’re worried. People usually blame themselves when they really had nothing to do with it. We care for people but that doesn't give us the right to blame and torture ourselves.

When people hear the term “ethics,” most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the

This sort of attitude ensues when beings of equal rank differ in their opinions of what is right and what is wrong, with no overarching authority. It is this problem in particular that leads philosophers to despair; if there is no God, there is no steady ethical or legal system that can be put into place. There is nothing more correct or more flawed than anything else. There will never be progress, as you cannot progress from something you cannot deem to be less suitable. If there is no such higher being, we are all that is left to decide for

Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)

In the beginning of the essay writers Isabelle and Meaghan Miller point out two different moralities, one being secular morality, which they define as “human logic or reasoning rather than religion”. And Religious morality “which is based on aspects of religion such as fear of God of the desire to do God’s will”. These moralities suggested, define ways the world views the options given or taught to them in life. Further into the presentation, they state that “moralities lie within biology, not only human but all animals. [Implying that] animals have three basic instincts [such as] kin selection, attachment to mate, and sympathy; morality helps us survive and thrive”. In this case, they 're not only voicing