Interesting Video On Morality

[Damien the Leper]

I watched the video a few times. I agree with the logic and sincere questions proposed in the video. What do others think?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yeah, the word 'morality' is not found a single time in the Bible, and it certainly doesn't teach it in quite a few places, what with all those pesky genocides. We don't need Gods to be good; we have to have an internal sense of right and wrong in order to judge whether a God is good in the first place. If a God breaks the laws of Justice, they cease to be worth worshipping as a 'God' at all.

The problems mentioned in this video come from the premises the believer was starting from. (As if the Euthyphro Dilemma is some new insight! And yes, the teacher was right, the second possibility is absurd.) As is usual for these types of videos, he is arguing against the First Cause kind of God who Created all things from nothing, gave his Word in perfect sufficient scriptures, etc.. Mormonism sidesteps these problems entirely.

(By the way, the teacher was clearly not "objective". No one is. We can try to be fair and accurate about positions we disagree with, but that's not "objectivity". It's a natural human trait to think that all "intelligent", "ethical", "open-minded" people agree with us, but I've heard the same surprise from atheists when they realized that not all religious people are unintelligent and closed-minded. It's a matter of actually knowing people who disagree with you can be intelligent and sincere, rather than mere dupes or liars.)

Nibley on the Atonement:

"Some of the Ten Commandments are for a barbaric people. Do you have to be reminded every morning not to kill anyone during the day, or to steal, or to bear false witness, or to commit adultery? Even so we observe even these commandments only halfway today, applying them only to our friends - it is now acceptable or even commendable to kill, lie, or steal, as long as the victims are the bad people. The Lord summed up "all the law and the prophets" in the two great commandments; if you keep them you can forget all about "the law," for would anyone who loves the Lord with all his heart, might, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself ever be capable of committing any of the awful things forbidden in the Decalogue?"

Brigham Young:

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied [...] Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"Those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

Morality is not whatever God says; God says things that are moral (in some scriptures, anyway). He has no "authority" except meekness and kindness and love unfeigned, same as us. Truth will cut its own way; having the "authority" of a mere Priesthood is not enough to be Good. We can't just be doing things because we want to get to a perfect Heaven; if we go to a Hell, we should make it into a Heaven by being good people to each other.

Edited October 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[TAO]

[media=]

I watched the video a few times. I agree with the logic and sincere questions proposed in the video. What do others think?

I was fine up until he used the word 'objectivity'... there is no such thing as moral objectivity, in the sense that it is unquestionable. There is the sense of moral objectivity, if you believe in God, in the sense that you will be judged according to moral rules A, B, and C. But other than that, morality, and ethics is a completely subjective issue.

In particular I disagree with the person's perspective on the Euthypro dilemma, because I tend to take the second path. Things aren't inherently moral. There isn't some invisible property which makes them 'right'. That's an issue of disagreement between people.

He cites the issue that God could command 'rape, murder, and child molestation' as his source, however, the difficulty with that argument is that it's appealing to our pre-accepted moral comapss to try and change our views on a moral statement. That's circular though; it does not create a solid statement, instead it creates a solid worldview, by eliminating contradictions. But they ignore that there is the entirely opposite possiblity; where someone instead classifies rape, murder, and child molestation as not necessarily wrong in certain circumstances. The teacher fails to explore this possibility.

In particular, he gets to the meat of the argument when he talks about making the word 'good' meaningless. However, I think that's not a bad thing, when you compare it to the opposite; good being dictated by majority opinion. I'd rather have a 'meaningless' good word, than have 'good' be of sway by opinions and social contra. He sums it up by saying there would be no ultimate values, and I'd agree with that statement; there is no problem with that in my mind.

So yeah... ultimately, I end up disagreeing with the video. Sorry =(. I'd guess I'd disagree with both of ya then =/. Morality is what God says, and it's right because God says it and he will judge us in the end. We can disagree with it but then we must realize it will come with the consequences we have accepted. It is our choice, I think.

But I don't think I'll be the majority opinion here =p.

Edited October 30, 2012 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

Honestly?

These questions have been re-hashed a million times over the last few thousand years and there are many ways of seeing this.

I agree with what has been said so far by Jeremy and Tao-

This entire problem is side-stepped by Mormonism because God does not make the rules - he has given us rules which have existed for eternities because God follows what we call "natural law". He has given us the law which works for all civilized societies- essentially the Golden Rule

If you think about it, civilization itself could not exist without something like the Golden Rule- a rule which dictates that one should act toward others as they would like others to act toward themselves. It is the principle of reciprocity.

Without such a rule, chaos would ensue and civilization itself would not be possible.

So we do what's right, not because God gave us that rule, but because the rule itself allows our very existence. The rule is a meme which has survival value- without it the human race could not exist. It defines what being human is.

So the bottom line is that Euthyphro is just a tad out of date, and even if he wasn't, Mormonism would skirt the problem with an alternate view.

And morality is in no way "objective"- if it were, it would be possible to discover moral principles in the way we always discover what is "objective"- and that is through science. And it is not possible to determine moral principles scientifically.

So I would not be too concerned with the video- it really misses the mark in my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, the word 'morality' is not found a single time in the Bible, and it certainly doesn't teach it in quite a few places, what with all those pesky genocides. We don't need Gods to be good; we have to have an internal sense of right and wrong in order to judge whether a God is good in the first place. If a God breaks the laws of Justice, they cease to be worth worshipping as a 'God' at all.

The problems mentioned in this video come from the premises the believer was starting from. (As if the Euthyphro Dilemma is some new insight! And yes, the teacher was right, the second possibility is absurd.) As is usual for these types of videos, he is arguing against the First Cause kind of God who Created all things from nothing, gave his Word in perfect sufficient scriptures, etc.. Mormonism sidesteps these problems entirely.

(By the way, the teacher was clearly not "objective". No one is. We can try to be fair and accurate about positions we disagree with, but that's not "objectivity". It's a natural human trait to think that all "intelligent", "ethical", "open-minded" people agree with us, but I've heard the same surprise from atheists when they realized that not all religious people are unintelligent and closed-minded. It's a matter of actually knowing people who disagree with you can be intelligent and sincere, rather than mere dupes or liars.)

Nibley on the Atonement:

Brigham Young:

Morality is not whatever God says; God says things that are moral (in some scriptures, anyway). He has no "authority" except meekness and kindness and love unfeigned, same as us. Truth will cut its own way; having the "authority" of a mere Priesthood is not enough to be Good. We can't just be doing things because we want to get to a perfect Heaven; if we go to a Hell, we should make it into a Heaven by being good people to each other.

And why does all this happen? Because we as humans could not exist if we are not moral.

We cannot survive without our culture- an infant who is not cared for will not survive. If we look at societies without law- as exist for example in war-torn areas, where troops rape and murder without law or consequences, society cannot survive. If we all acted that way, the race would die out in a few years. It is that simple.

To survive, humanity must be moral and essentially follow the golden rule or something like it. We all want peace, we all want to be left alone to find our own ways in the world, and do the best we can with our lives without compulsion or constant worry about being preyed upon by criminals and others with agendas which are not ours.

In other words, we need to treat others in the way we want to be treated or eventually humankind would cease to exist.

God has taught us these principles because they work. They are the minimum possible requirements for a peaceful society to exist and where mankind can grow and flourish.

Edited October 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

So we do what's right, not because God gave us that rule, but because the rule itself allows our very existence. The rule is a meme which has survival value- without it the human race could not exist. It defines what being human is.

Hehe, mfb, I think that'd be where we disagree. I think we do it because God gave us that rule (although I'd agree it also allows our existance).

Alas, that isn't all too different =).

Edited October 30, 2012 by TAO

[changed]

Alma 42 (If so, God would cease to be God...) is used to answer Euthyphro with #1 although you cannot separate goodness from God as: "there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord" (Book of Mormon | Omni 1:25)

.... We don't need Gods to be good; we have to have an internal sense of right and wrong in order to judge whether a God is good in the first place.

Our inner sense of right and wrong come from Jesus:

(Guide to the Scriptures | C Conscience.:Entry)

CONSCIENCE. See also Light, Light of Christ

The inner sense of right and wrong, coming from the Light of Christ in all men (Moro. 7:16). We are born with a natural capacity to distinguish between right and wrong because of the Light of Christ that is given to every person (D&C 84:46). This faculty is called conscience. The possession of it makes us responsible beings. Like other faculties, our consciences may be deadened through sin or misuse.

It's almost a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of a question - did goodness come before God so that God is learning and following what was first good? or did goodness come after God - was goodness invented by God? Which came first? which caused the other? God is eternal, and so is goodness - neither came first. God is a physical manifestation of an ideal - just as the ultimate love did not exist before the ultimate sacrifice made it into a physical reality, I think goodness and God are dependent and inseparable - God makes goodness a physical reality.

God gave us that rule, but because the rule itself allows our very existence.

I agree... although, for some reason, this scripture is now coming to mind

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11)

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

13...And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

existence requires both good and bad, up and down, left and right - theory of relativity or something.

Edited October 30, 2012 by changed

[mfbukowski]

Hehe, mfb, I think that'd be where we disagree. I think we do it because God gave us that rule (although I'd agree it also allows our existance).

Alas, that isn't all too different =).

A=A

It doesn't matter which A goes first. I suppose we could argue about the chicken and the egg if you like....

[TAO]

A=A

It doesn't matter which A goes first. I suppose we could argue about the chicken and the egg if you like....

Lol, true. Chicken! No, egg! =D

[mfbukowski]

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11)

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

13...And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

existence requires both good and bad, up and down, left and right - theory of relativity or something.

Thanks and you are absolutely right.

This points directly to the absolute brilliance of the Book of Mormon. You will never find anything this profound in the Bible. Thanks for quoting this!

[treeface]

I really like the idea of a class on "helping good people make good decisions when the best decision isn't always clear."

The best sunday school class I ever attended was on the topic of making good decisions when the best decision isn't clear. It was in a Presbyterian church, and the teacher was brave enough to not offer neat answers at the end of the lesson (which I'm sure he could have, having taught the same lesson once a year for many years). Instead he left us to sort out the tough questions raised on our own, and I've spent decades doing so.

Anyway, I give the video and its message two thumbs up.

[Rivers]

We can't just be doing things because we want to get to a perfect Heaven; if we go to a Hell, we should make it into a Heaven by being good people to each other.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_long_spoons#section_1

[mfbukowski]

http://en.m.wikipedi...poons#section_1

What a great story!! Thanks!

[Ahab]

I really like the idea of a class on "helping good people make good decisions when the best decision isn't always clear."

A Dave Ramsey class came to my mind, maybe because I've recently watched a video of a class a friend recently gave to me.

It's amazing how people can be so stupid when they think they're being smart by following the ways of the world, economically.

An economy based on having debt is one of the stupidest things going on in this world... and there is a much better way.

The best sunday school class I ever attended was on the topic of making good decisions when the best decision isn't clear. It was in a Presbyterian church, and the teacher was brave enough to not offer neat answers at the end of the lesson (which I'm sure he could have, having taught the same lesson once a year for many years). Instead he left us to sort out the tough questions raised on our own, and I've spent decades doing so.

I've done a bit of research on what happens when I make stupid (or lets call them bad) decisions, economically and morally.

It feels a lot better to be smart than stupid.

Anyway, I give the video and its message two thumbs up.

I give Dave Ramsey videos two thumbs up, too, even though he is simply regurgitating all that God has been teaching for millenia.

[Rivers]

Is there really such thing as objective moral values?

[Ahab]

Is there really such thing as objective moral values?

I think it depends on what you think objective means.

I think of the objective as the overall view, and the subjective as the individual view.

Example:

Objectively, the world has all kinds of ideas regarding moral values, including the idea that there is no morality except for what a person considers to be a "moral value". By collecting enough data you could compare and graph most if not all the different ideas on morality while seeing which seem to be the most popular ideas, and the more rare idea, but that wouldn't necessarily give you an idea of a subjective moral value. Moving toward the subjective you could get more and more details on a particular idea, and one of those subjective moral values would be one of your own choosing.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Is there really such thing as objective moral values?

Depends on what you mean by "objective".

Science deals with what is objective- and science does not deal with morality or moral values. But that does not mean they are not "true" or "real"- they are based on what God knows always works to make people happy. That's why we have what is called the "Plan of Happiness".

In morality, what is "true" is what makes us "truly happy" as opposed to counterfeit happiness.

You can get drunk and experience counterfeit happiness, then go out and kill yourself or some innocent family while driving home on the freeway. So was getting drunk "true happiness"? Of course not.

True happiness is a happy family loving each other through eternity and that is exactly what the gospel provides: instructions on how to reach true happiness.

Is this scientifically discoverable? Perhaps in principle, but from an academic, philosophical point of view, no there is no "objective morality" because it is not discoverable scientifically.

But I disagree with that- I think it is "objective" in the sense that it is what makes all humans truly happy. The problem still remains though- now we have just moved the definition to "true happiness" instead of "true morality".

Edited October 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

... there is no "objective morality" because it is not discoverable scientifically.

I think it depends on what you mean by objective morality.

The scientific approach would be to make a list of everything all people think of as "moral". That would be objective morality.

To go further you could then do some research to see the results of people having each of those moral values, to see which led to true happiness, or to some other result.

[mfbukowski]

I think it depends on what you mean by objective morality.

The scientific approach would be to make a list of everything all people think of as "moral". That would be objective morality.

To go further you could then do some research to see the results of people having each of those moral values, to see which led to true happiness, or to some other result.

That of course would be a study of what people consider moral. Perhaps cheating on taxes just a little bit as long as you don't get caught, would be among those things, or having an abortion in the first trimester. Or second. Or third.

So does that make it "objective morality"?

The point is that science does not define morality, the best it can do is observe what people believe to be moral, and so it is still not objectively defined nor can it be.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps in principle, but from an academic, philosophical point of view, no there is no "objective morality" because it is not discoverable scientifically.

Let me fix that.

"Perhaps in principle, but from an academic, philosophical point of view, no there is no "objective morality" because it is not discoverable definable scientifically."

There. That's what I meant.

[Ahab]

That of course would be a study of what people consider moral. Perhaps cheating on taxes just a little bit as long as you don't get caught, would be among those things, or having an abortion in the first trimester. Or second. Or third.

So does that make it "objective morality"?

The point is that science does not define morality, the best it can do is observe what people believe to be moral, and so it is still not objectively defined nor can it be.

You seem to be suggesting that science would need to first define what is "moral" before doing a study on objective morality. It's been done, mski. Or do you not accept a definition in a dictionary, and many dictionaries in fact, as scientific evidence?

The objective viewpoint is simply the overall viewpoint, generally, without picking the one you want to go with, subjectively.

[mfbukowski]

You seem to be suggesting that science would need to first define what is "moral" before doing a study on objective morality. It's been done, mski. Or do you not accept a definition in a dictionary, and many dictionaries in fact, as scientific evidence?

The objective viewpoint is simply the overall viewpoint, generally, without picking the one you want to go with, subjectively.

Talking at cross purposes, as usual.

Nevermind. We do not understand each other.

[Ahab]

Talking at cross purposes, as usual.

Nevermind. We do not understand each other.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you said. I just don't agree with you, on this point.

[Damien the Leper]

Objective and absolute seem to be problematic because one is far too constraining while the other is too loose.

I have appreciated the comments by the participants thus far. Thank you.

[Ahab]

Objective and absolute seem to be problematic because one is far too constraining while the other is too loose.

Objective just refers to the overall picture, generally speaking. When you're being (or at least trying to be) objective you're stepping outside of your personal biases (whether they are right or wrong) and just focusing on (or at least trying to focus on) the overall picture. To objectively look at religion, for example, you'd look at all of the religions in the world (or at least the ones you know and can find out about) to learn about them, generally, without using your subjective biases. You'd learn that X religion teaches X, Y religion teaches Y, etc, etc, and then maybe you'd pick one you think is the most correct even if you thought all were wrong, subjectively. Or maybe you'd find one you thought was just right.

Scientists can do that, too, and there are many lists out there where you can find both objective and subjective data.

Oh, and absolute just refers to a specific thing, as it is, while thinking it's always going to be one thing.

Thank you.

Oh shucks, it tweren't nothin or nothin much that I did, all by myself, but you're welcome for the little bit I contributed.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Ahab