Talk:Argument from morality

message: I've removed the following:
The assumption that "God exists" is an instance of circular reasoning, since the argument attempts to show precisely that God exists. However, despite this, many believers still consider this argument to be valid, because they consider God to be a necessary entity by most believers (making it an argument from personal belief). That is to say, they believe that God must exist and cannot not exist (the opposite of this would be a contingent entity, such as the Earth or the Sun — which exist but could very well not exist). This stance however, is criticized because it avoids logic and reason, despite it being what it tries to use to prove its assumption in the first place.
The argument doesn't take as an assumption that "God Exists" (and if it's written here so that it does then it should be changed); rather, it takes as a premise that objective morals exist, and that the only explanation for this is God. Those are both, of course, contentious claims, but they're not circular; one (prima facie) doesn't have to first prove God in order to prove objective morals. Read C. S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man for a good (non-theistic) reductio ad absurdum argument for objective morality (which he calls "the tao"). (Lewis does later argue in Mere Christianity that God is necessary to explain why the tao exists, but that is separate from the question of whether it exists.)
Finally, the stuff about God being a necessary entity is an entirely seperate argument (either the Ontological Argument or certain forms of the Cosmological argument) and doesn't belong here; any formulation of this argument which appeals to such a concept to explain God is no longer arguing from morality. Snowboardpunk
:: I agree with this removal. "God exists" is not a premise of the argument as it is described on this page, but is a conclusion. It seems that whoever wrote this is conflating the assumptions of Christians (who do assume God exists) with the assumptions of this argument.Ischus (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular Reasoning 2

message: I dont edit wikipedia, but I thought I would this time...Is the edit ok, and if not, how could I have improved what I added? I may add/change criticism and objections section later.  If you disagree with my edit, just revert it back. Hpmons 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit ok?

message: Hey guys. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the "circular reasoning" section. What argument is only valid if we assume that God exists? Certainly not the argument from morality, which is the subject of the page. That doesn't assume that God exists, but rather that absolute morality exists. It then concludes, solely on this one assumption, that God exists. So what argument assumes His existence? I just don't understand what the author(s) of that section are trying to say. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me. Then maybe we can all figure out a way to word it better. Thanks.
----
I'm cleaning the thing up and of course the circular reasoning issue has to be dealt with. I'm not sure I can formulate a non-trivially-circular argument that is equivalent to the original, at least not in the proper words. The idea of replacing the word "God" by "some fixed external standard of morality" only to conclude later that its name is "God" looks rather weasely to me, and moreover, it doesn't solve anything and just begs the question of how we are to know that this "external standard" exists. Then again, I'm an irredeemable atheist and positively perplexed. Anyone? --Pablo D. Flores 14:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So in light of this, let us examine a claim brought out earlier: "If God is dead, then everything is permitted."  If God were to have any reasons for what he forbids, those reasons are what make the forbidden things wrong.  So it is argued that it is possible to understand that we might lead moral lives, and accept very strong moral standards, even if we deny that God exists.  We do not have to believe in God in order be rational in accepting moral principles. 
Suppose the reasons God has is that committing the forbidden actions leads to separation between God and humanity, and that separation from the source of existence leads to annihilation, non-existence. Thus it is possible for God to have reasons for what he forbids, that wholly depend on God's existence, that leave standing the initial claim, "If God is dead, then everything is permitted". 
----
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but it seems quite obvious to me that the Argument from morality is not (in any valid sense of the term proof) a proof of the existence of a/many God(s). Why? I'll quote from the article: "The argument is valid if and only if the following assumptions are correct:
# God exists."
Any thoughts on this? shouldn't this be pointed out in the article? --snoyes 18:24, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: The original version of the topic, from Larry's Text, begins with the assertion that morality comes from God.  That presupposes the existence of God, so I included that as an assumption.  Perhaps there is another formulation of the argument that renders it less trivially circular. Fairandbalanced 14:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: No, you're quite right that any "proof of God" will fail to prove him -- for the obvious reason that if a theistic God exists, he exists necessarily (that is to say, without need of anything else) rather than contingently (that is to say, because of some other fact).  As a Christian, I nonetheless hold this position with some vigour.  Incidentally, I think Larry's Text does a brilliant job of expounding my own view of ethics as flowing from the character of God.  Which, I guess, is why (a) it doesn't belong in an article on some misguided "proof of God"; and (b) it needs work before it can enter an article on theological ethics.  Wooster 15:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular reasoning

message: The first link in the references section sounds as if it links to something by C. S. Lewis.  The page that it links to, however, appears to be something else.  -- Wmarkham 01:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  C. S. Lewis link 

message: Dunno where else to put this, but here:
The theist would cite counterexamples to those above, such as human rights abuses in atheist societies, typically communist China, North Korea, old East Germany and the former Soviet Union. 
The "examples above" are already an counter-example to the argument's own prediction. There is no point citing counter-counter-examples.
To the theist, this would be further evidence for, not against, the concept of an Absolute Moral Authority, and it's universal application in the human conscience, and thus for The Argument From Morality. For if peoples in a society with no structured concept of god have similar morals to those of believers today, the theist would argue, it would appear as though there must be an Absolute Morality.
This part is irrelevant, the previous paragraph is a counterargument to "influenced morality by history". It has also been mentioned already. It is also circular reasoning because it is assumes the validity of the original premise - "If there is a moral law, then there must be a moral lawgiver."
Infinity0 17:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of my edits 

message: I added the cleanup tag, and readded the NPOV tag, because the article currently reads like a disjointed hodgepodge of attacks against several variations of the argument from morality. I think the article definitely needs to be thoroughly reorganized, perhaps listing the variations of the argument first and their underlying assumptions and brief justifications of the assumptions, and then proceeding onto criticisms and possible rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Of course, rebuttals shouldn't be nested ad infinitum, but I don't know what a reasonable depth is. Also, the prevalence of various clear straw man arguments for all sides probably need to be removed. Ngchen 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup January 2006 

message: I have rewritten the entire article, basing my rewrite largely on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article (perhaps being a bit too liberal in my borrowing of its form and wording).  As it stood before, the article was a mess - arguments were poorly constructed, the "contrary evidence" section was irrelevant, and the "responses and counter-responses" section was a haphazard hodgepodge.  My current version is not perfect, but hopefully it presents a nicer template to work with.  Each variant of the argument will have its own criticism section, and the final "general criticism" section can have criticisms common to all forms of the argument.  Dshin 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infinity0, I like your revised numbering scheme.  Dshin 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) Uh, just a heads up, it's customary to put new talk page sections at the bottom. :P -- infinity0 20:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that makes sense.  Fixed!  Dshin 22:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Rewrite

message: The old "general criticism" is incoherent as stated because it only applies to Variation 2, and thus belongs there. Variations 1 and 3 do not depend in any way on the origins of moral norms. In addition the old general criticism section was not worded NPOV and was mostly un-refed. NBeale 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General critiicism 

message: Why is Locke included here in such a manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.78 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locke 

message: I don't see how that has to do with anything. Unless... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.78 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 2 

message: Why is this link pointing to a non-existent page? Furthermore does it seem to anyone else that the phrase in brackets : "although some leading researchers on the evolution of altruism are Christian" is irrelevant to the validity of criticisms of the moral argument based on "Evolutionary Dynamics". This phrase is found near the picture of Nietzsche and anyone willing to edit...
:I removed this as I don't think it's relevant either. Chimplode (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary dynamics? 

message: The image :Image:C.s.lewis3.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:C.s.lewis3.JPG

message: Newman's classic argument from the conscience would be good to include here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.196.55 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newman 

message: Could someone please clean up the crisiim portion about Nietzsche?  I don't think I know enough on this topic to make the required corrections.Spauldio (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedrich Nietzsche 

message: The quote "All forms of the moral argument begin with the premise of moral normativity, that is, that well-functioning human beings are typically aware of actions as being right and wrong." is troublesome - moral normativity presumably does not entail deontological ethics, which is based on actions rather than, say, consequences. Richard001 (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normativity does not equal deontological ethics 

message: William Lane Craig put it thus in a speech:
* Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
* Premise 2: Objective values do exist.
* Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
I think this simplistic formulation is a good one and ought to go in the article but I'm not sure where.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to get something about Craig in, but I can't find any sources about it. That video you gave a link to has been taken down; do you know of any more sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William Lane Craig]]'s statement of the argument