Yeah, sure.

But then what happens when one chosen person is instructed by God to say, kill another chosen person and yet this latter one is instructed by God to save a child?

Unless we multiply God per person, then the same God would be telling X to kill Y, and God is also commanding Y to save a child. Yet the child can't be saved if Y is killed.

We face the typical dilema of God giving two orders simultaneously which are contradictory. Unless God's notion of morality differs radically from ours, such a situation is hard to reconcile with our innate ethical faculties.

But then what happens when one chosen person is instructed by God to say, kill another chosen person and yet this latter one is instructed by God to save a child? — Manuel

Monotheists resolve their differences by declaring the supremacy of one monotheism over others; or that only one monotheism is the right one. So that in the above scenario, they would say that only one person was instructed by God, while the other is merely imagining it, or lying about it.

Unless God's notion of morality differs radically from ours, such a situation is hard to reconcile with our innate ethical faculties.

No actual monotheism proposes such a situation. It is characteristic for monotheists to claim that only their religion is the right one, that only they have the right idea of God.

Is religious morality nothing more than the Hawthorne effect?

Google definition of Hawthorne effect (noun): The alteration of behaviour by the subjects of a study due to their awareness of being observed.

Bentham's panopticon!

Vide observer effect.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Aristotle's' Ethics. Surprised that on a philosophy forum you did not mention this.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Besides the Nicomachean Ethics, these (more or less contemporaneous) works come to mind as proponents of secular morality: Confucius' Analects, Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus' Discourses ...

All that those atheists and humanists above are doing is copying some of the moral principles from religion and leaving out the references to God or karma. — baker

You got it backward. It is the humanist and atheists above that have a grip on what morality is, and the religious pulled in God or Karma to make it palatable to themselves.

Nobody owns morality. It is a human trait, that can't be given and can't be taken away. You think that it's God-given; I think it is a product of evolution.

You think everything is god-given; I think nothing is god-given.

There is no argument. Neither by you, nor by me. I can't prove everything is not god-given; you can't prove anything is god-given. It is a matter of faith, belief, weltanschauung. To argue that you have the truth and for me to argue that I have the truth is futile. This is purely a matter of faith or belief, and therefore nobody has the upper hand on the other.

The upper hand only can be applied if the two notions can be unified, the two notions being "God created the world and everything in it" and "no god created anything", which two notions will never be unified, so the upper hand will never be applied rightfully.

Besides the Nicomachean Ethics, these (more or less contemporaneous) works come to mind as proponents of secular morality: Confucius' Analects, Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus' Discourses ... — 180 Proof

Given that we are on a philosophy website, this is fair. But you have to speak to your audience. Nobody in his right mind on this website read the above works, other than possibly you and for sure philoso4. (I forgot how s/he spells his/her moniker exactly). Maybe three or four others. But to the present correspondents (including to me) your post is a fallacy of appeal to authority. You are not making an argument; you are referring the argument, and it is correct in a group where people are familiar with those works, but here it's inappropriate.

There is "no appeal to authority". No "argument" required. I answered with some classic examples a question raised in the OP. Maybe you and some others who are not familiar with them, if you're seriously interested in this topic, ought to investigate these works.

Besides the Nicomachean Ethics, these (more or less contemporaneous) works come to mind as proponents of secular morality: Confucius' Analects, Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus' Discourses ... — 180 Proof

How are these not religious??

Each of these works out of a very specific metaphysics system respectively that are alien to the average Westerner. Perhaps this makes it so easy to overlook them, but they're there, and they're essential for the respective moral system to be intelligible and experienced as actionable.


And the OP question was:

I'm not asking whether morality can be justified without religion. I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. — baker

How are these not religious?? — baker

Read them in their cultural-historical contexts. The moral systems they present are in contrast to the superstitions / religious practices prevailing when they were written. None of these thinkers "justify" these works with religious beliefs / practices. Don't conflate metaphysics with religion – while religion is necessarily metaphysical, metaphysics is not necesaarily religious.

I answered with some classic examples a question raised in the OP. — 180 Proof

Which question? If you wanted to obscure your answer to confuse me, you succeeded.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion?

I'm not asking whether morality can be justified without religion. I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. Is this just rebellion against religion, or is there something else to it? — baker

But is it possible to conceive of morality without reference to religion to begin with? — baker

Okay, I must have missed something. I looked for some examples you gave, but again, all I saw was Greek authors and the title of their works in Greek. I am sorry, I must have missed the examples.

Or were there any provided?

If you seriously expect me to read several ancient texts to see you point, and in this I think I am not alone on this site, then you are in for a big surprise.

Again: speak to your audience. Speaking above their heads is not communicating.

I quoted the question. What are you smoking / drinking?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718532

I quoted the question. What are you smoking / drinking? — 180 Proof

Right. I gotta quit that stuff. Apologies. The rest of my criticism stands, though.

But you're right. I was careless. Sorry.

(A) I'd replied to the baker, not to you. (B) Confucius is Chinese, not Greek. :roll:

There's the idea that one doesn't need religion in order to be moral. — baker

No one thinks that. That's a straw man position invented by atheists so that they can avoid addressing the fact that morality itself requires God.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là — Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace

:fire:

:roll:

Like theocracy, ... only religious morality "requires" g/G. :point:

:vomit: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:

Who says?

By who's standard?

How do we know anything anyway?

What about eastern ideas?

Well, God once commanded ethnic cleansing, rape and genocide. He would have a total authority to command a machete attack to a daycare and it would be a just and moral act. Or would he have that authority and would it be a just and moral act? Maybe humans could have better morals than God - who is to say? Maybe God is bound by some natural morality that makes it impossible for him to command a machete attack to a daycare? (I mean God very likely doesn't exist but for the sake of the argument.)

Well, God once commanded ethnic cleansing, rape and genocide — hwyl

Unless you are begging the question, you're claiming those activities were once morally right, yes?

If they were never morally right, then he never commanded them.

If they were, then he did - but then they wouldn't be a counterexample, would they?

So what are you saying?

By who's standard? — Bartricks

Englishy speech, pleez. Learn how and when to use "who's" and "whose".

Your ideas are even more screwed up than the language you pretend to write in.

So what are you saying? — Bartricks

I am not that person that you ask, but I think what he's saying is that you are wrong.

Of course that concept is totally strange and foreign to you, to the extent that you can't even begin to conceive it.

That's a straw man position invented by atheists so that they can avoid addressing the fact that morality itself requires God. — Bartricks

We, the atheists, are not avoiding to address that position. We are, in fact, addressing it by vehemently denying its truth.

You are incapable of constructing a straightforward thought that has any semblance to reality. In fact, reality is just a fantasy for you, if you ask me.

That's a straw man position invented by atheists so that they can avoid addressing the fact that morality itself requires God. — Bartricks

You incorrectly invoked the idea of Strawman. This is not a Strawman, even if your claim were true.

Man, (or woman), you made one claim and I found four things wrong with it. Fatally wrong. Why do you do this to yourself?

Confucius is Chinese, not Greek — 180 Proof

That man was, but Analects sounds more Greek to me than Chinese. For my own information I looked it up, and it is used as an English word. However, it does smack of Greek.

So what are you saying? — Bartricks

I'm saying you are very circular :)

Who's to say? It's all subjective. Eastern concepts

They have good ideas in the east.

Now, once more, what were you trying to say?

That's just your opinion. Have you read the works of eastern philosopher Ispeakcrap? Or Meno Thinkatall?

Do try and engage in some kind of argument, god are being theist

They have good ideas in the east.

Now, once more, what were you trying to say? — Bartricks

Hmm, I think your quote misfunctioned?

What were you trying to say? What is your off the peg criticism of divine command theory?
Do you think genocides used to be right, or were they always wrong? Clarify that first