God + Ethics = Human nature??

In a different thread someone (I forgot who.. sorry) said God is dead, create new ethics, now! Initially I thought how bloody arrogant, but that was my misinterpretation of the statement.

My question is are ethics something we create, or are they something within each of us pre determined (either by God or not as the case may be)? I dont intentionally want to start a discussion about whether it was God who put the ethics there, just are they there or do we create our own.

I have painstakingly typed out a extract from CS Lewis book ~Mere Christianity (pg 5-6). This may or may not give some thought starters...

"I know that some would say the idea of a law of nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different people of different ages had different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but they have never amounted to anything like a total difference (...) Think of a country where people were admired for running away in a battle, or where a man felt proud double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might aswell try to imagine a country where 2+2=5. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to, but they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one on him, he will be complaining 'its not fair.' (...) Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?"


​

 

p

 

And you proof? You have stated your opinion, but can you prove that morality is subjective? What logical arguments do you have to support your case?

How is it a "subjective deduction"?

Here's a thought. If there is no right and wrong, then when I say "Stealing is wrong," what I am really saying is "It is my opinion that stealing is wrong." If you say "Stealing is right (or morally acceptable or whatever)" then you are really saying "My OPINION is that Stealing is right." So, whenever we talk about ANYTHING with a moral context, then all we are stating is our opinons. Where does that leave us? Well, it means we cannot discuss whether stealing is wrong at all. All we can discuss is our opinions. But that leads to a logical contridiction. If I say that stealing is wrong and you say that stealing is right, then we disagree. But, if those statements simply state our own opinions, then I have to agree with both my statement AND yours. I have to agree that my opinion and your opinion are BOTH TRUE AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME RESPECT. This violates the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, the idea that saying "Stealing is wrong" is simply a statement of opinion is incorrect and illogical.

 

I think it is correct to say that to kill or steal may be justified in certain situations, however it is the situation which forces you to do something you wouldnt normall y think to be acceptable...

Killing in self defence is regarded as ok, but killing with no reason is seen as unacceptable... this surely means without the reason to kill, the ETHIC or human nature tells you it is wrong... no?

 

sf

 

When you say the burden of proof is on the believer in God, that is only because you do not believe. Equally, a believer can say to you - prove He does not exist. And so the pointless round goes on - because the existence or non existence of God cannot be proven either way by argument or philosophy on the rational level.

What seems ridiculous is the notion that God existed 'a couple of thousand years ago' but has forgotten about those who believe. God by definition is eternal in His existence, and is not subject to human frailties such as forgetfulness. If He existed then, He must still exist now.

 

rtyu

 

I could say -The proof of God's existence is all around you.

The existence of pain and suffering and chaos does not prove that God does not exist.

On free will, I really don't see at all what you are trying to say. I accept I have free will, I can use it as I choose, and I can assure you I am doing what I like. But why should that make me disbelieve in God? If God had wanted a race of automata, he would have created one.


I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else about the existence of God. I have already said that in my opinion such arguments are a waste of time. If you choose not to believe in God, the Spirit, whatever name, that is a matter for yourself. I am not seeking to convince you to believe, and certainly not to prove God's existence by means of any argument.

But I don't accept that any proof exists at all on any level which disproves God's existence.

 

rt

 

Thumontico, you still have not responded to my post. My argument had nothing to do with God. It showed that holding the position that there are no absolute morals led to a logical contradiction. Therefore, there must be absolute morals.

What do you think about that?

 

Themontico, with all due respect I did not ask anything about proving the existence of God or if it was Him that put ethics within us... you have steered the debate away from my question.

If you want to debate the existence of God start a new thread... dont bring your hang ups in here, it really gets me when people randomly state 'god doesnt exist' if you think that, then start a new thread or at least be a bit more humble when arguing your case. We all deserve each others respect (you certainly have mine), as we dont know each other (i think)I am not slating you for saying there is not god, i respect your view.. but dont misdirect the debate away from the original question... otherwise this debate will become just another 'prove it' thread!!

Thanks for your understanding

 

ijh

 

If the point of life is to achieve happiness (the Christian may say that is life in communion with God, or someone else may say to find enlightenment, another may say it is to find peace etc...im sure even postmodern thinkers would think this) then surely there are ethics which transcend cultural boundaries...

Look at Iraq for example, when operation 'shock and awe' was over, large scale looting was rampant. The reaction of many Iraqui's was disgust and pleas for help to protect their houses and properties... The human nature to not steal was predominant and yet this is a massively different culture to my western UK one.

Of course the people who stole stuff were taking stuff because the situation allowed them to break the law and were opportunistic, however the situation remains that without a law or a force to stop the looting, the general feeling was for it to stop because it was damaging to the country and put peoples lives in danger even though their happiness was being met (through gaining new stuff). Surely this means then even in our respective countries if no law existed (yes we may not pay taxes, we may speed etc.. but) we would still have something within (community wise) us which would cry out against the injustice... and this would be justified because our happiness (collectively) is being put in jeapordy through the actions of the few.

Look at fair trade... its fine to take advantage of farmers in developing countries becauese they dont have a voice, however there is still something inheriently wrong with doing so.

What is it that speaks to us on these issues, if not an inbuilt ethical standpoint...? ?

 

rty

 

however, if people all went round killing each other (for example) then their happpiness may be met, but if society determines ethics then ultimately their actions would result in their happiness being threatened (by their own actions) because ethically killing would become acceptable and they too would be in fear of their own life.

The happiness of every single person would be in jeapordy as no one would be happy living in constand fear of death... therefore the ethic cannot be a man made thing as this applies o every single person wherever they may be.

And on the terrorist issue, I doubt that the terrorists think it is ok to kill (in general) they justify their killings as fighting for a cause (whatever that may be). They have a justification for their killing. I killed A because A first killed C...

If terrorists thought killing was ethically ok then when their mother, or whoever was killed by a bomb planted by Terrorist group 1, they would seek no revenge... there is an inherrent belief that murder is wrong, otherwise revenge would not be sought.

no?

 

ert

 

i would argue that in serving God, people find a purpose, gaining a sense of peace, finding fulfillment etc... ultimately it brings happpiness in that respect.

People rarely do not do anything which will bring them uncontentment (sp) or somethingthey cannot see purpose in. If there is a purpose and that purpose is to serve God, then in serving God they are working towards happiness (even if to you and me it seems absurd)

And not all terrorists are relgious, anyway it doesnt change the fact that even if their God does allow it, it is only in specific circumstances which JUSTIFY it, and even then that is percieved through interpretation. in everyday life, killing is not permitted in every major religion in the world.

 

Perhaps though the 'religious' terrorist thinks that he too is working ultimately to establish 'happiness' for all, in a world governed solely by one religion, and its code of ethics. If, for example, you believed that X was the one and true god with Y as his representative, and that only by adherence to the moral commandments of X & Y can humans be 'truly happy', then causing some unhappiness to a relative few through acts of terror may seem a morally acceptable course.

In short, they believe this is what God wants, even requires.
If all who proffessed to believe in a God had the same moral codes and ethical standards, probably much bloodshed and destruction could have been avoided in the past. As it is, there is no agreement even amongst, for example, different branches of Christianity, as shown by the 'gay bishop' controversy.
One person looks at the Bible and derives one set of ethics, a different person a different set.
I suggest that an external moral code is a limited device. The thing is to have a moral attitude, derived from experience, even spiritual experience. I think this equates, to an extent with St. Pauls saying that Grace and not law is what saves.

 

interesting point! certainly has given more meat to this debate...