The moral sense argument for the existence of a theistic deity is known as the "axiological" argument stating, "If there is no G, then there can be no ethics." Since theologian Immanuel Kant's (1781) Critique of Pure Reason, it has been accepted by most modern philosophers there are no sound "proofs" for a theistic deity. Kant relegated the beliefs in a deity, immortality, and freewill to faith. Adorno calls this division between experience and thing-in-it-self the "Kantian Block." Hegel believed Mind/Spirit can know the The Absolute (thing-in-itself) as consciousness is shaped by experience (Time/History) and metamorphoses to higher and higher levels of awareness. Hegelian historical teleology is the secular philosophic version of the Christian belief in the eschatological coming of the kingdom of G-d. Wittgenstein puts "ethics" on the same plain as religion, the arts, mysticism, and abstract formal logical propositions (Logic is "non-sense" because they are the pure forms of propositions without content). There is no "proof" for any ethical system which is why Jean Paul Sartre wrote, "Ethics are both impossible and necessary."
I just edited the quote...just a minor change. That is a question that a person who studied ethics would ask. Ethics in the narrowest sense is the study of right and wrong. However, this is too narrow of a definition since ethics covers about seven other questions. Morality, are "mores," (customs) or rules no one bothers to question. These are the rules of socialization in most societies...don't pull your playmates hair, or pick you nose in public, or kill someone because you don't like their tie.
Well stop the presses. Even setting aside that there is no necessary connection between any ethical system and morality, the latter doesn't require belief in God any more than belief in gravity is required to fall off a cliff.
Well. The question was what is the definitions of ethics and morals, not the material implication between the two. Neither morals (customs) nor Christianity require a belief in a personal G-d. The second half of your thesis "the latter doesn't require belief in G-d any more than belief in gravity is required to fall off a cliff" is an argument from analogy which isn't proof or argument at all, but purely rhetorical. In fact, it is the Fallacy of False Analogy. A person's ethical beliefs are purely evaluative concepts (subjective) and non-mechanical, but gravity is physical (objective). However, even customs require legitimization by a significant other, or primary socialization is impossible. Christian Theologian Schleiermacher says, "The being of God can, therefore, be as little apprehended through the moral side of our nature as through the intellectual, as little through ethical knowledge as through physical, or empirical, knowledge.(Schleiermacher: Personal and Speculative, by Robert Munro B.D., Pub. Paisley, Aleander Grardner, 1903, p. 257) Not Copyrighted, [Pdf].
This is nothing new. Paul the apostle wrote of it in the first century. Augustine, Aquinas, and countless others have expounded on it for millennia. But the simplicity of the argument is often muddled in distractions and distortions. My goal here was to present it in simple flow chart progressions. The distinctions between morality, instinct, law, (and we can toss in 'ethics'!), is a fascinating logical exercise. But the demise of logic and philosophical reasoning is clearly seen, in the modern discourse, where dogmatic assertions, indignation, and hostility substitute for 'reason'. It is very simple. We live in either: 1. A God made universe 2. A godless universe Morality, as a sense of the Divine character, can only come from a God made universe. It is absurd to posit 'morality!', in a godless universe, as there is nothing and no One to embed this 'sense'. There is only animal instinct, and human law, in a godless universe, and the implications of that are ignored, while pretensions of 'morality!' are clung to with irrational fervor.
I see them as pretty much synonymous.. it depends more on the context, and the meaning ascribed by the writer, as to anything distinctive between them. Ethics: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation From the OP: Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator.. Merriam's: conformity to ideals of right human conduct Both ethics and morality imply a 'self evident' sense of standards, as opposed to arbitrary, fluid, relative values. They have a deeper basis than a fickle opinion, or a preference. 'My favorite color is blue, and i think murder is bad.' 'I like chocolate, and don't like stealing.' Are all 'values' just subjective choice, or are there absolutes, that humans are expected to follow?
But your argument is simply a bare premise with nothing backing it up, and it is a premise you refuse defend. There is no logical progression. Just a statement of faith.
Not always. Human law reflects the values of those in power, and not always the majority of the people under that power. Human law does not always reflect human morality. They are different concepts. The reformed view, is that there is a Higher Law that supercedes human decree, and that takes precedence. Conscience, not conformity to human mandate, is the higher Law, for human behavior. Stalin, cleansing the USSR in pursuit of the 'New Soviet Man', killed millions of people, which reflected his moral values. Those killed likely did not agree.
Not always, and not universally. Roe v. Wade was a judicial act, legalizing Abortion, in a nation that, at the time, was not in favor of it. The Dred Scott decision similarly reflected a moral bias from the court, in an unsettled dispute regarding slavery and human equality. Ultimately, human Law reflects the values (and whims) of those in power, and are not necessarily reflections of 'morality'.
Not in a democratic republic. Both of those decisions reflected the morality of the time. Are you saying George Washington was a immoral man?
The Sociopath Dictionary definition: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. I probably should define and analyze 'conscience', first, since it is foundational to defining a Sociopath. But, since we have been using the concept of 'conscience', as a moral 'sense' that is universal and self evident, it should be unnecessary. The very existence of the term, 'sociopath' implies a normal human standard.. a 'sense' of right and wrong that the Sociopath lacks. How can anyone condemn a sociopath, if all moral values are arbitrary or relative? He just exhibits his values, and not yours. So the 'science' of psychiatry, the justice system, the media, and all human institutions accept and reflect a belief in a 'normal' human standard, or sense of conscience, that the sociopath does not have. Whether a biological aberration, or a learned condition, sociopathy is a negative condition, in the human collective. That judgement is made by appealing to a self evident standard of acceptable and normal human moral values, as reflected in the conscience.
So when the Israelites stole the land of Israel from people who already lived there, God was commanding the Israelites to do evil? Or is theft suddenly okay when God commands it, making it subjective and situational?
I can condemn him because he exhibits his values not mine. I do not need a god to understand Jack the Ripper was wrong, do you?
I'll leave specific applications and judgements to you. I'm addressing the philosophical basis of morality.. either as a Real Thing, or a human construct. The anecdotal stories from specific religious texts can illustrate the concepts, but that will be up to each poster to apply the texts to their arguments. Are you implying there is no God given moral standard in humanity, because of these passages?
But you are claiming morality is objective and universal, specifically using “Thou shalt not steal” as an example of this supposed universal, objective morality. So when the Israelites stole land from people who owned it, were they acting immorally? And since God commanded them to do so, was God immoral? I don’t know whether a god exists or not and will not unless I am presented with verifiable empirical evidence, but I do know that no such universal moral standard exists among humanity. Morality is subjective and it is situational.
I notice you used a dictionary definition there, but not the definition used by psychiatry, because if you did you would have had to admit that the thing sociopaths lack is EMPATHY, not any kind of moral values or standard. But that definition would have hurt your narrative, so you cherry picked one that would help you.
He has been challenged on numerous occasions to give a universal moral just one, he has never done so.
Then we agree. That is my point exactly. In a godless universe, 'morality' is a human construct. It is not a Real Thing, but a delusion, used to manipulate people. Every choice or action has no moral implications, but are arbitrary choices.
