From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
The bible. Duh.
So why is it wrong to kill another person?
But seriously.
This is something with which I've struggled. I don't know if there is an answer that will satisfy both sides.
The best I've been able to come up with is: Morals are a manifestation of our internal struggle between self-preservation and the realization that what's best for me -- as an individual -- may not be what's best for the everyone else.
I would like to think common sense had a begining somewhere thru this evolutionary period. What is so hard to understand about right and wrong? Do u really believe a sky man must telepathicaly give us morals?
Quote from: "thomask"If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver.
I won't address the previous points but:
Why? Why MUST there be a moral law giver? If we eliminate any type of god and lets say we "guess" at how morality came about we find it a rather easy study. Humanity finds that it is better to be helped than not to be helped, and thusly it must be better to therefore help than not to help. So we can surmise that survival for oneself is easily compatible to helping others survive as well. It is not that hard to see the rise in altruism as a pointed selfish act. In order to better my chances of survival I will help others survive so they will help me. In order to make my life easier, better, more fulfilling I will help others so they can help me. Really, why is this so hard to understand? It is perfectly sensible, and rational, and common sense.
It doesn't begin with the bible. The Ten Commandments was predated by both the Codex Hammurabi
QuoteThe Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating back to about 1772 BC. It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi, enacted the code, and partial copies exist on a human-sized stone stele and various clay tablets. The Code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)[1] as graded depending on social status, of slave versus free man.[2]
Nearly one-half of the Code deals with matters of contract, establishing, for example, the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon. Other provisions set the terms of a transaction, establishing the liability of a builder for a house that collapses, for example, or property that is damaged while left in the care of another. A third of the code addresses issues concerning household and family relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity and sexual behavior. Only one provision appears to impose obligations on an official; this provision establishes that a judge who reaches an incorrect decision is to be fined and removed from the bench permanently.[3] A handful of provisions address issues related to military service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)
And the Codex Ur Mammu
QuoteThe Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It was written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BC. Although the preface directly credits the laws to king Ur-Nammu of Ur (2112–2095 BC), some historians think they should rather be ascribed to his son Shulgi. The first copy of the code, in two fragments found at Nippur, was translated by Samuel Kramer in 1952; owing to its partial preservation, only the prologue and 5 of the laws were discernible.[1] Further tablets were found in Ur and translated in 1965, allowing some 40 of the 57 laws to be reconstructed.[2] Another copy found in Sippar contains slight variants.
Although it is known that earlier law-codes existed, such as the Code of Urukagina, this represents the earliest extant legal text. It is three centuries older than the Code of Hammurabi. The laws are arranged in casuistic form of IF (crime) THEN (punishment)—a pattern followed in nearly all later codes. For the oldest extant law-code known to history, it is considered remarkably advanced, because it institutes fines of monetary compensation for bodily damage, as opposed to the later lex talionis ('eye for an eye') principle of Babylonian law; however, murder, robbery, adultery and rape were capital offenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu)
It has been observed in primates
QuoteSome animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.
Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.
Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists' bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/scien ... d=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
This is one of those recurring debates we have on here. It appears first of all that there is an inbuilt understanding in the nature of primates, humans, and other animals that a species needs to "learn to get along" to survive. Morality and ethics is apparently what we have named that inherent need of a species.
If in fact there were no code of conduct, chaos would become the norm; in tribes of baboons there is an understanding of hierarchical needs, the place of mothers and dominant males and females in the group. Any member of the group that disobeys or usurps the hierarchy can be punished, or even banished from the group. That these groups survive shows there is a need for the ranking, the hierarchy and the conduct of members.
Not a complete answer, but start there.
Monkeys? Let's get real about altruism. This developed VERY early in the (mammilian at least) evolutionary tree as the act of risking one's life to preserve the life of another has been observed in members of a wide range of species.
We had something like what we currently consider morality WELL before we started inventing religions.
Empathy. Even rats have it. Next question.
Personally, I find the "is" of science looking at morality far more interesting than the "ought" of religious morality. Do you realize that even babies show affinity to in-group members while displaying hostility to out-group members--even showing affinity to those who punish out-groupers.
There were a set of though experiments contained in (if I remember correctly) Evolution for Everyone:
1) Imagine taking a group of "good" people and dropping them off on a island, what's going to happen?
[spoil:sdma2xby]Likely there are going to work together to gather food and water and build shelter and "civilize" the island as much as possible. They could all work together to fight off any external threat[/spoil:sdma2xby]
2) Imagine taking a group of "bad" people and dropping them off on a second island, what's going to happen?
[spoil:sdma2xby]It is certainly possible that they will spend most of their time stealing from each other and fighting and each trying to avoid work at the others expense. They would likely not work well together to fight off an external threat with each one of them selfishly protecting himself at the expense of others/the comunity[/spoil:sdma2xby]
Which island is going to have a better overall standard of living? Which one will have highest high and the lowest low? Which one would you prefer to live on and why?
3) Now the real clincher. Imagine taking one of the "bad" people and moving him to the "good" person island, what happens?
[spoil:sdma2xby]Does this "bad" guy use strong-arm tactics, deceit, theft, ect to skip out on work while living off the work of everyone else, effectively becoming Czar while the other become his serfs? Can the "good" group force this "bad" guy to join in, act good and pull his weight? Would the "good" community be best served by acting "bad" to this "bad" guy by shunning, driving off or even attacking/killing him?[/spoil:sdma2xby]
As indicated, altruism and caring behavior have been exhibited in many different animals. Like the gorilla that protected the child that fell into the compound it was in until help arrived, or dogs and cats that adopt other animals and protect them and nurture them.
Why does morality have to be absolute or not at all? Why can't it be a guidelines? In that case, what we call morality fits in perfectly with what we know about evolutionary biology.
Oh, it's this topic again is it?
Morality = subjective. Like society, politics, economics, and everything else about humanity, it's fluid and constantly evolving.
There is no objective morality, and no objective moral framework. There is no good, and there is no evil. It's all relative to context and the individual.
The end.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Oh, it's this topic again is it?
Morality = subjective. Like society, politics, economics, and everything else about humanity, it's fluid and constantly evolving.
There is no objective morality, and no objective moral framework. There is no good, and there is no evil. It's all relative to context and the individual.
The end.
^ this.
Morality is a set of rules we made up so we can have civilized life without having random murders.
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
...
The evidence indicates that morals are subjective choices of accepted behavior made by consensus among and between groups of sentient carbon-based lifeforms on the planet Earth. Some have lasted a long time (e.g., no murder without just cause). Some are more recent and represent a change from prior morals (e.g., slavery used to be OK but now is not OK). Accordingly, your term "absolutes" is a bit misplaced, although if you consider some morals as approaching the concept of absolute (but never quite getting there), then that is fair enough.
Quote from: "thomask"...
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
...
Mere assertions do not make a valid or sound argument.
Quote from: "thomask"...
So, where does morality originate?
It originates within groups of sentient beings. For example, there are no morals on Titan, a moon orbiting the planet Saturn. This is because there are no groups of sentient beings living there. There are morals on the planet Earth because there are groups of sentient beings living there (e.g., Humans, Chimpanzees, Elephants, Dolphins, etc.).
Thomas, are you still scratching your head on this subject? Choice 1: Morality has been bestowed upon us by our creator in the (wait a minute, where is he?). Choice 2: Morality is pretty much common sense and not too complicated for a human being to conjur up. Choice 3: (fill in the blank)
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
What moral absolutes? I've never heard a convincing account supporting their existence, and they seem impossible by definition.
QuoteI'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
No god means no sin, sure. Under Abrahamic religions, sin = breaking God's Law, so yeah. But God's Law isn't synonymous with "good", that would only be to an Abrahamic theist.
QuoteFor there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
Believing there is "good" and "evil" does not equate believing there being a moral "law", at best your own *personal* moral standard. The only way you can say that there is a moral "lawgiver" (which doesn't even make sense in the context of morality) is if you label it like that and fall for the semantic trick. That's like saying because there are "laws" in science (which, like morality, are not like legal rules) there must be a "lawgiver" of scientific laws, i.e you don't realize there's an obvious difference in how the term "law" is being employed.
QuoteSo, where does morality originate?
At base, it would seem to be a useful adaptation we picked up, and we're not the only species to do so; basically all social species have some level of moral understanding that they abide by. It seems readily apparent how morality could be advantagous to the survival and propagation of a species.
Who's morality are we talking about? Only religion talks about absolute morality. Solitary
> So, where does morality originate?
Morality evolved among social organisms because it increased the likelihood of getting genes into the next generation. Many species exhibit what we would call morality, caring for others in the group, and even sacrificing self for the good of others.
Frank
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
I've heard that tripe for so long I can't stand it any longer. Morals and ethics come from society not from some god. That is a fact. What is moral today wasn't necessarily moral yesturday. That fact proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that morals lie within the society that express them. They change and evolve with the times and with the changes of said society. If there was a moral giver then morality would never change, thus since morals change there is no one moral giver.
If there is a god and that god is perfect he/she/it would not need to change morality to suit different times. Since morals change and NEED to change then the morality wasn't perfect, thus if they were given by a god, that god could not be perfect.
So I just don't want to read hear anything about morality being from a god. I am so tired of the religious hijacking things and claiming that they invented them or some god invented them. They are just a bunch of hypocritical liars one and all!
If your so stupid you even have to ask a question like this you don't deserve atheist oxygen.
That's a bit much man...
He ain't coming back. And even if he was, he'd still tout the same nonsense like it was gospel.
Quote from: "thomask"For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
For there to be twinkies, one must assume there are Asians. If there are Asians, one must assume there is fudge law. If there is fudge law, then there must be a fudge law giver.
Makes just as much sense.
Animal behavior largely is due to natural selection. It's innate. Species survive to the form they exist in today because of their ability to work together or survive alone, to exhibit altruistic or antisocial behavior or to be cannibalistic or commit mass suicide, depending on what species we are talking about.
A lot of people do not like to think about humans as just animals, but we evolved just like any other animal.
That being said, there is something about human nature that makes us want other people to behave and think the way we do. Is that innate, due to natural selection? Or is it learned behavior? I have to wonder if it's a little bit of both. We all bristle when people disagree with us, right? What is that about? Why do people want everyone to agree and validate their beliefs?
I have always thought of "moral" as a subjective word. It's different things to different people. I see The Bible as a guideline for people who don't care to construct their own set of morals. I happen to think the "morals" that Believers tend to get behind are largely wrong.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "thomask"For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
For there to be twinkies, one must assume there are Asians. If there are Asians, one must assume there is fudge law. If there is fudge law, then there must be a fudge law giver.
Makes just as much sense.
I'm hungry.
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Here you go.
http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/ (http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/)
QuoteThe foundation of the emergence of rule systems is built upon centuries of reasoned insight and personal experiences that reveal which actions are better than others, which are productive, and which are disruptive and should be avoided. As efficient actions reveal themselves to an evolving society, its people develop the means to make productive choices between one type of action and another. Some choices are decidedly better than others. This prioritizing of human actions into efficient hierarchies establishes the foundations of rule systems which later refine themselves into more sophisticated systems of morals, manners and statutory laws. All these systems have a tendency to address the fundamental need of the human species to survive and avoid the common fate of extinction by conserving energy and directing social attention towards more productive kinds of behavior. It could be said that as civilization approaches the ideal of efficiency, the harmony that follows from efficient and thoughtful actions inspires a state of peace that exponentially increases the chances of human civilization surviving over long periods of time.
That's where they come from.....us.
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Nope.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Nope.
Yup.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion)
Nope
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion)
Nope
You shouldn't link to things that don't make your point. I answered a question. I didn't offer an argument, and my answer wasn't intended as an argument.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion)
Nope
You shouldn't link to things that don't make your point. I answered a question. I didn't offer an argument, and my answer wasn't intended as an argument.
(//http://makemelaugh.com/pics/I-Like-What-Im-Reading.jpg)
Do you realise that, in trying to disprove my point, you're actually proving my point?
This debating malarkey is easy! I should take it up as a hobby!
EDIT: Nope.
No, but I realize you think so. I realized that as soon as you posted the links. But what's your point? It's not meant as an argument, and shouldn't be taken as such. If it were, then you would certainly have a point, as mere assertions aren't arguments. If you asked me my name and I stated it, I wouldn't be anymore guilty of the fallacy you indicated than I am now with regard to the answer I gave.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"No, but I realize you think so. I realized that as soon as you posted the links. But what's your point? It's not meant as an argument, and shouldn't be taken as such. If it were, then you would certainly have a point, as mere assertions aren't arguments. If you asked me my name and I stated it, I wouldn't be anymore guilty of the fallacy you indicated than I am now with regard to the answer I gave.
You're posting an
assertion. Lets see, shall we?
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Assertion, also an argument. Just becuase you're not calling it an argument [assertion] doesn't mean it isn't, it just means you're obfuscating, which also means you're being dishonest. But that's a common trait from most theists who visit here so its nothing to worry about. I feel stupider for having to explain this to you because I know you're being intentionally misleading in your replies to me.
The fact that you're equating giving your name to giving your view on the origin of morality [god, in our case] only further makes my point for me. I can't believe you would post that unless you're either misleading folk on your intentions or you are educationally sub-normal. It's hard to tell the difference.
So, in response to your
assertion and your
argument, nope.
Well, I won't return the insults, but if we can't get past the nonsense, then so be it. Better luck next time I guess.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Well, I won't return the insults, but if we can't get past the nonsense, then so be it. Better luck next time I guess.
Take your tail between your legs and go home, son.
It's ok, most people take learning as a virtue and a positive trait in which to embody. But you're free to do whatever you want.
Thanks for not replying to my points which we both know are correct BTW. Really reveals your character 8-)
What for? You're not interested in having a discussion. You can hide that behind the ad hominems and the over extrapolation of logical fallacies, but it doesn't change anything at all. In any case, enjoy insulting me. If you want to have a discussion, you know where to find me.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"What for? You're not interested in having a discussion. You can hide that behind the ad hominems and the over extrapolation of logical fallacies, but it doesn't change anything at all. In any case, enjoy insulting me. If you want to have a discussion, you know where to find me.
Still not replying.
Now you want a discussion whereas previously you indicated you weren't making an 'argument' [assertion]?
I get the feeling you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Also, read up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Not guilty of committing an ad hom. I'm insulting you because you're trying to insult us/me. There's no arguments to discredit aside your assertion, which discredited itself by committing the two fallacies i pointed out above (for posterity:
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion)
Nope
On snap. I don't care for discussions with intellectually dishonest folk if I'm honest. But I'll carry on insulting you, if that's ok boss?
Oh, by the way, how much did it cost over in the US to get your victim complex diagnosed?
It's perfectly fine with me. That's the behavior I've grown to expect.
Regarding the other question, I'm honestly not familiar with what you're talking about. Why is it that I'm a victim? Because you've attempted to insult me?
Being truly offended by you would be something like getting upset with a blind person for stepping on my toe. So honestly, I couldn't care less. I'd prefer a different sort of interaction, but it's clear that won't happen.
Also, I would point out that the word discussion also isn't identical to the word argument either.
I will say though, you've chosen a tactic I haven't run into for a couple of years, and you're better at it than the last guy. He never really wanted to interact either. It was all just rhetorical nonsense masquerading as something else.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"It's perfectly fine with me. That's the behavior I've grown to expect.
Regarding the other question, I'm honestly not familiar with what you're talking about. Why is it that I'm a victim? Because you've attempted to insult me?
Being truly offended by you would be something like getting upset with a blind person for stepping on my toe. So honestly, I couldn't care less. I'd prefer a different sort of interaction, but it's clear that won't happen.
Also, I would point out that the word discussion also isn't identical to the word argument either.
I will say though, you've chosen a tactic I haven't run into for a couple of years, and you're better at it than the last guy. He never really wanted to interact either. It was all just rhetorical nonsense masquerading as something else.
Ironic really that you don't see the issue with your own behavior/position on this thread and yet have the temerity to ask regarding your own victim complex.
As you haven't made a single point worthy of detailed or informed discussion [scratch that, you indicated that that wasn't your intention and now you say that it is. You can't blame a brother for being confused] I really don't know what you expect of me/us. The only 'tactic' I've engaged in is answering your assertion and your argument, even if you're not willing to accept that they were.
If you want a discussion, make a goddamn point instead of bleating nonsense about how your assertion wasn't an assertion, even though it was.
I hope lurkers get as much enjoyment reading this short exchange as I had writing in it. :popcorn:
QuoteMorality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Irrelevant.
Even if this is the case, and morality has an objective standard, it is irrelevant due to the fact that no one knows this objective standard and lives by a set of subjective rules. We should base our knowledge on what can be observed and interacted with rather than an idea that is proposed to beyond the realm of human understanding and will never be able to be understood.
No, all your statement does is say that we should not strive to understand morality scientifically because it transcends the realm of science (and therefor reality insofar as we know it). Just like the Earth and the Sun, the fact that the world is round orthe evolution of man your statement says that we should not question, only obey. And just like the theories before, piece by piece we are discovering that god is an irrelevant character in the equation. Your book has a poor track record of explaining how reality works and I see little reason to believe it got this one right either.
> Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Do you have any evidence for that?
I didn't think so.
In fact, according to your own myths, your god tried to keep people from learning morality. As he created them, they didn't know right from wrong, the essence of morality. Only by disobeying that god did they learn morality.
The truth is quite the opposite. The people who invented your god ascribed to him the morality (or lack thereof) they saw in humans.
Frank
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
So if you do not believe God exists, you cannot be moral?
Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Morality is about the well being and the flourishing of conscious beings.
We all inhabit the same physical universe and are subject to the same physical laws. We all know what contributes to our own well being and ability to flourish given those physical laws, so it is easy to figure out what others would want too.
For example: living is better than dying, health is better than illness or injury, freedom is better than slavery, etc. Since the vast majority of us know we want these for ourselves and our loved ones, we can understand that others want the same for themselves.
For most of human history, we have been evolving societies that have been heading in the direction of providing more well being for more people than in the past.
Please note that it is no longer thought, by the vast majority of people in modern societies, to be moral to: own slaves, stone unruly children, stone women that are not virgins on their wedding night or force a women to marry her rapist. We did not come to these conclusions from the edict of a moral law giver, but by evaluating these using rational thought.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "thomask"From where do moral absolutes originate?
I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..
No god means no sin, no good, and no evil
For there to be evil, one must assume there is good. If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...
So, where does morality originate?
Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Prove it.
I'll wait.
Sam Harris is very good at explaining this whole concept. I strongly recomend watching this debate. Though once in a while you might want to smash your screen when Craig is talking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg7p1BjP2dA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg7p1BjP2dA)
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Prove it.
I'll wait.
lol
No plans for a while, Smartzi?
Like for the rest of your life...
oh shit. Not again.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
So it's moral to cut open pregnant women and to smash small children's heads against rocks.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"So it's moral to cut open pregnant women and to smash small children's heads against rocks.
Why sure Anti. After all, he who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's the lover of life but the player of pawns.
Exactly! :wink:
Could it be just our emotions that trigger our moral reactions to a situation like a physically strong adult sexually assaulting a much weaker and more vulnerable child. Such as those cases of paedophile priests which really get my hackles up big time.
Quote from: "thomask"So, where does morality originate?
According to the sound concept derived from anthropology, morality originated and evolved from primitive man's need for clan survival.
He ain't coming back. Typical cowardice.
Since there is no God the question about where does morality come from is simple. From the same place that the religions and their Gods come from: people. The fact that this is debatable shows how pathetic the understanding of the human condition is by Theists. Religious people deny their humanity as soon as the invent a God. This in itself should be considered a crime against humanity. We are not puppets. We are not toys to suffer the whims of some imaginary creator. To paraphrase an advertisement for Las Vegas; "what happens on Earth stays on Earth."
Existentially, to disavow the responsibility for morality and relegate it to some manufactured God is reprehensible. We cannot pass the buck to anything else. How we conduct ourselves and interact in society is completely within our responsibility. Humans desire fairness. Many animals do as well. It is a trait of virtually all social creatures. My dogs desire fairness. We all eschew being mistreated. We all have instincts for staying alive. These things are fundamental and morality is just a means to preserve those fundamentals so we can all co-exist.
If you view human actions from a psychological point of view then it can be said that the historical creation of a God(s) was to self-impose morality on ourselves. The actual morality imposed by a fictitious God was really invented by humans and cloaked to trick ourselves into thinking that the dictates came from something greater than ourselves. This is such nonsense and is delusional. It must come to end and the burden must be shifted back to where it belongs. To ourselves.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion)
Nope
You shouldn't link to things that don't make your point. I answered a question. I didn't offer an argument, and my answer wasn't intended as an argument.
An answer without an argument is a waste of bytes and time. There are infinite answers to each question and all of them are equally useless without arguments for why they are the
correct answer, which is the only thing anyone ever cares for.
If you can't give an argument for why your answer it worth considering, you might as well not give it, because it's useless.
Quote"Simply being primed with science-related thoughts increased a) adherence to moral norms, b) real-life future altruistic intentions, and c) altruistic behavior towards an anonymous other. The conceptual association between science and morality appears strong."
This short quote is reeking of something us philosophers call "cognitive bias". In other words, it's pretty much the same thing religio-tards do. Here's how it works...
The pastor associates Jesus with happy feelings, and have the person go into a self-induced alpha state (look it up). After a while, the person goes into the alpha state on his own when he talks about Jesus. (this is mainly why religious people are always smiling, they're getting endorphins from the alpha state.)
Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but nonbelievers do the EXACT SAME THING when they talk about science. I call it science worshiping.
The quote from the video basically tells you this is going on when they use the words 'primed' and 'thoughts'.
The test subjects were giving happier answers because they were high on jesus science.
Besides, here's another study that says nonbelievers are simply more compassionate by nature – effectively negating the whole 'science morality' study!
http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheis ... ssion.html (http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html)
Something interesting... Take a look at the reporters in the video. Watch how they start smiling and look like they are feeling good while they talk about this.
The second beef I have with this whole false scientific study, is that ANYTHING SUBJECTIVE HAS NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
Just like math doesn't make us moral, neither does science. Math and science are both based on OBJECTIVE testing, evidence, provability, etc, etc, etc. There is no place for anything subjective, or emotional, or moral, or happy or sad.
We should do the same experiment they did in the video, but 'prime' the participants with thoughts of addition or multiplication.
I bet we wind up with the same results.
I mean, really, people? You science worshipers don't even know the difference between morals and ethics!
Take a look at the video and comment. Do you agree with them? Why?
[youtube:r406yrbs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjo7Eekv6Io[/youtube:r406yrbs] Solitary
I can't really help answer your question as I have questions myself about what morality actually is and what it all contains. I have always assumed to be a "moral" person all that was required was to treat your fellow man with respect. By respecting your fellow man you pretty much accumulate all of those silly long drawn out commandments into one simple guideline. Now in the religious aspect of morality I am completely baffled. They tell you not to kill or wish ill will on your neighbour except for the part where "God" in the first half of the bible does quite a sum of killing himself so I guess it's ok to kill and harm people when your God?
I do always love the whole "Obviously an objective morality is grounded in God's essential nature" assertion. Strangely, moral philosophers don't tend to - ever - postulate that. Almost as if it were a claim without merit or use. Figure that one out.
QuoteMorality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
No, it is grounded in a basic human desire to not have other people hurt them or mess with their shit. If I don't want you to steal my stuff, I should probably not try to steal your stuff, because that would tend to piss you off. You might send your bigger, stronger relatives to beat the crap out of me, too, and I sure don't want that. Plus, I know how I would feel to have my stuff stolen, and can use my sense of empathy to figure out that you would feel the same way. So, yeah, not gonna steal your stuff.
I think it is absurd that the question of what is moral could be based on the fact that a human invention called God was created to convince humans they they cannot know what it is without that God. It is preposterous on a grand scale.
Quote from: "ApostateLois"Plus, I know how I would feel to have my stuff stolen, and can use my sense of empathy to figure out that you would feel the same way. So, yeah, not gonna steal your stuff.
That assumes that you have a sense of empathy. I'm beginning to suspect that religion is a sign of a defective empathic sense (among other things). How many times have you seen the Christian assertion that without fear of God, Christians would be terribly immoral people? (Or maybe the sense of empathy just gets warped, at an early age, into a fear of some bigger guy?)
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Irrelevant.
Even if this is the case, and morality has an objective standard, it is irrelevant due to the fact that no one knows this objective standard and lives by a set of subjective rules. We should base our knowledge on what can be observed and interacted with rather than an idea that is proposed to beyond the realm of human understanding and will never be able to be understood.
No, all your statement does is say that we should not strive to understand morality scientifically because it transcends the realm of science (and therefor reality insofar as we know it). Just like the Earth and the Sun, the fact that the world is round or the evolution of man your statement says that we should not question, only obey. And just like the theories before, piece by piece we are discovering that god is an irrelevant character in the equation. Your book has a poor track record of explaining how reality works and I see little reason to believe it got this one right either.
Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, or are you saying that the standard is too imperfectly followed for it to be appropriately considered an objective standard that all people have access to?
I would submit that you can both observe and interact with similar behaviors all around the world, which at the very least, imply an objective standard. For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:
The unjustified taking of innocent human life
Stealing the property of others
Having an inordinate envious desire for things that do not belong to you
Cheating on your wife
Being a liar
Dishonoring your parents (family)
There are significant differences in exactly how these things play out from one culture to another, but this has less to do with the moral law's absence and more to do with other phenomenon. For example, the extent to which a person, group, or society understands the moral law and how it should be applied can vary. Our free will and socializations can also affect the behavior that results from our knowledge and understanding of the moral law and its proper application.
The bottom line is that most of this particular difficulty has to do with a confusion between fact and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. There is a difference between sociology and morality. Sociology is "descriptive", but morality is "prescriptive". These are qualitatively different. Be careful not to confuse the changing factual situation (e.g. the 1860's treatment of blacks in America) with the unchanging moral duty (e.g. treating all mankind as equals before God).
Getting back to what I was discussing earlier, there is also a confusion regarding the difference between the moral values and factual understandings. In other words, there is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of how that value is properly applied. For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not. What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong. Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses. One's factual understanding of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not. I hope that makes sense to you.
I hope this was at least somewhat helpful.
I don't know much, but I do know that some of the most immoral people I have met....were at a church
Quote from: "fingerscrossed2013"I don't know much, but I do know that some of the most immoral people I have met....were at a church
Of this, I have no doubt.
In one sense, it makes sense, since church is really only meant for the deeply immoral sinner.
In another sense, it's sad, since those who regularly assemble to worship and learn about their creator are called to lives of holiness & righteousness.
This is specifically why it's important, for the believer, to maintain a focus on Jesus Christ. Human beings will always disappoint you, if given the chance. And the faith any one person has is only as good as the object in which it is place. When you put in human beings and their behavior, you're likely to come away with a bad taste in your mouth almost every time.
That's not an excuse. It's just the reality.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, [. . .] For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:
What do you actually mean when you say "objective"?
Is near universality sufficient to establish some moral as "objective"?
I find that the vast majority of all moral codes boil down to "promote happiness and wellbeing for yourself and others, while avoiding unhappiness for yourself and others." All of the specific rules that we think to be just derive from this general rule. Don't lie, because lying causes unhappiness and mistrust in the long term. Don't covet, because it will make you discontented. Don't murder, because it will truncate a potentially happy and productive life.
Even arbitrary religious rules can boil down to this principle if we look at them from the superstitious perspective of their framers. Don't blaspheme, because if you do god will punish you and make you unhappy. Don't suffer a witch to live, because she will bring harm upon the whole community. Sacrifice livestock to god so that he'll smile upon your endeavors and make your life fulfilling.
So I just cut out all the extraneous rules, and derive my idea of the most moral behavior in a given situation from that behavior's probable effect on people's happiness and wellbeing. It works rather well, and comes free of most moral dilemmas; after all, when you only have one principle, how can your principles come into conflict?
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, [. . .] For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:
What do you actually mean when you say "objective"?
Is near universality sufficient to establish some moral as "objective"?
Independent & non-contingent.
It's nearness to universality is likely more a reflection of the sociology or descriptive behavior relative to the moral law than it is on the moral law itself. Having said that, it can still certainly be an indicator as to its objective nature. It just doesn't necessarily "establish" it. Were morality non-objective or subjective, we would expect significantly more divergence that we either see or have seen. Instead, we find a lot of the same basic moral notions that extend through time.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, [. . .] For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:
What do you actually mean when you say "objective"?
Is near universality sufficient to establish some moral as "objective"?
Independent & non-contingent.
Independent of or to what?
QuoteIn one sense, it makes sense, since church is really only meant for the deeply immoral sinner.
Believing in God and Jesus, worshiping them at church, getting saved and baptized and born again...none of these make the slightest difference in the behavior and morals of most people. You can't tell the difference between a Christian and anyone else just by observing their behavior. There are men who are the very paragon of good behavior on Sundays and at Wednesday night Bible Study, but the rest of the time they beat their wives and kids, cheat on their tax returns, or are rotten jerks in the workplace. If we cannot trust church-goers to set the example for the rest of humanity, then why should people bother going to church? Why be born again, why worship God, or any of the rest of it, if you are going to think and behave like anyone else, and have exactly the same morals?
Quote from: "JonathanG"But seriously.
This is something with which I've struggled. I don't know if there is an answer that will satisfy both sides.
The best I've been able to come up with is: Morals are a manifestation of our internal struggle between self-preservation and the realization that what's best for me -- as an individual -- may not be what's best for the everyone else.
You're actually pretty close to the truth, but you fail to make an important distinction. As social animals, collective survival is often genetically advantageous to humans. Its not necessarily an either or type situation.
QuoteI would submit that you can both observe and interact with similar behaviors all around the world, which at the very least, imply an objective standard. For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:
The unjustified taking of innocent human life
Stealing the property of others
Having an inordinate envious desire for things that do not belong to you
Cheating on your wife
Being a liar
Dishonoring your parents (family)
Two problems.
1) "the overwhelming majority of" does not imply an absolute, for that it'd have to be "all"
2) all of these are defined as tautologies; they do not refer to specific actions, but use words that are
by definition unacceptable actions without specifying what those words mean.
What does it mean "to cheat on your wife"? Is that a specific, objective action? Because if what you mean is "having sex with someone else while married" then it's not considered immoral by everyone. For example, I'm in an open relationship so it would be perfectly acceptable for me to have sex with someone other than my wife.
But on the other hand, if it means "don't have sex without your wife's permission" then it becomes totally subjective whether or not having sex outside of marriage is cheating.
And if you call me immoral for having an open relationship, you've returned to defining morality as objective by branding anyone who doesn't agree with your morals an immoral person without showing why your morality is the only objective truth.
In any case, you're kinda stuck with morals being subjective. And this is just one example.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Independent & non-contingent.
Independent of or to what?
Of any contingent thing or anything that ever began to exist.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Independent & non-contingent.
Independent of or to what?
Of any contingent thing or anything that ever began to exist.
IOW, something like "X was immoral even before there were human beings"? (It can't be something like murder, because you can't murder anything but a human being, by definition.)
Sorry, no. Morality requires sentient beings. Trees can't be immoral. Hydrogen gas can't be immoral. Without sentient beings, everything is amoral (nothing has any moral value, good or bad).
Morality is contingent on conditions. If the only choices are bad and worse, bad is the better choice even if, under other conditions, we'd consider it immoral.
Quote from: "Plu"Two problems.
1) "the overwhelming majority of" does not imply an absolute, for that it'd have to be "all"
Keep in mind what I said earlier. There is a difference between the facts on the ground (what is) and the moral value (what ought to be). You want to be careful not to confuse changing factual situations (e.g. the greater or lesser degrees of aberration people may demonstrate in their behavior) with the unchanging moral value itself. In other words, it does not follow that because a law is not followed both universally and perfectly, that the law itself does not exist. The fact that the behavior is so widespread amongst such a overwhelming majority throughout a range of both times and cultures does imply an absolute to which we have access as human beings.
Quote from: "Plu"2) all of these are defined as tautologies; they do not refer to specific actions, but use words that are by definition unacceptable actions without specifying what those words mean.
You may have a point here, in that I was simply speaking off the cuff, but these are essentially elements of the 10 commandments against lying, covetousness, murder, theft, etc... I assumed wrongly that the connection could be made without a precise listing of that acts in question, in part because I was speaking in terms of societal views rather than specific actions at the time. My apologies.
Quote from: "Plu"What does it mean "to cheat on your wife"? Is that a specific, objective action? Because if what you mean is "having sex with someone else while married" then it's not considered immoral by everyone. For example, I'm in an open relationship so it would be perfectly acceptable for me to have sex with someone other than my wife.
But on the other hand, if it means "don't have sex without your wife's permission" then it becomes totally subjective whether or not having sex outside of marriage is cheating.
And if you call me immoral for having an open relationship, you've returned to defining morality as objective by branding anyone who doesn't agree with your morals an immoral person without showing why your morality is the only objective truth.
In any case, you're kinda stuck with morals being subjective. And this is just one example.
Yes, it is. I just assumed the connection could / would be made, but that's my penchant for inappropriately giving the benefit of the doubt. Again, this is a confusion of fact and value. All kinds of people can redefine circumstances in their own mind and life in order to rationalize that they are not violating the moral law. This is the changing factual situation on the ground. You could say the same thing about the murdering of Jews during World War II. Did each Nazi believe he was taking the life of an innocent human being without proper justification? No, probably not. The fact that he was indeed doing that very thing made no difference to him, given his own personally rationalized understanding and resulting aberration in behavior. When the fact / value distinction is not made, you can certainly come away with what appears to be subjective morality. However, if morality is truly subjective, then no single act is genuinely wrong. It would only be wrong in the same the same way that putting honey on a hamburger is wrong. It's just not my preference.
Whether one is branded or not, their morality or immorality remains the same. Since the moral law is objective in nature, it doesn't matter whether anyone is branded or whether anyone agrees. It simply is a contravention or it is not. The willing outward conscious recognition on the part of those involved is essentially irrelevant to the fact itself. If one redefines or lowers the bar, as it were, with respect to what counts as cheating or adultery, then we're not talking about any change in the moral law itself. We're talking about a defect or change in the involved parties' understanding and therefore, appropriate application of the moral law to their specific circumstance. The example I gave in the earlier post applies.
Quote"...it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not. What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong. Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses. One's factual understanding of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not."
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Of any contingent thing or anything that ever began to exist.
IOW, something like "X was immoral even before there were human beings"? (It can't be something like murder, because you can't murder anything but a human being, by definition.)
Sorry, no. Morality requires sentient beings. Trees can't be immoral. Hydrogen gas can't be immoral. Without sentient beings, everything is amoral (nothing has any moral value, good or bad).
Morality is contingent on conditions. If the only choices are bad and worse, bad is the better choice even if, under other conditions, we'd consider it immoral.
This is actually not true. Moral facts are true facts even if the acts themselves have yet to be instantiated in reality. That is the essential difference between moral facts and the everyday facts of life. For example, if I said, "my dog, Soldier, eats grass when he goes outside." What would be necessary for that to be a true fact? My dog, Soldier, would have to have eaten grass when he went outside. But if I said, "it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun", would that act have had to occur before it could be true? No! It would be true regardless of whether it had been instantiated. That's part of the difference between objective and non-objective morality. Objective morality can tell you about the morality of future events that have yet to occur, while non-objective or contingent moralities cannot. Our understanding the appropriate application of the moral law is contingent, but that's different than saying the moral law itself is contingent. But yes, there are circumstances where the moral thing to do is to make the choice that prevents the most evil, but nothing about morality has changed in that circumstance. It wouldn't be the case that you were intentionally choosing bad in order to bring about bad. It would be that you were choosing the bad in order to prevent the worse. The fact / value distinction is vital to being able to understand the concept of objective morality, as well as how it cashes out in real terms.
There is no such thing as objective morality. Something is good or bad because we say it is, and not because there is something intrinsically good or bad about it. Murder is bad, we always say--except when we murder lots and lots of people in war. Then it is good. The people being murdered don't think so, of course, but who cares what they think? They'll be dead soon. Even Christians have no problems with murder, rape, slavery, you name it, as long as they can justify it by saying "God told me to do it." They've done this all through history, are doing it now, and will continue doing so until Christianity is replaced by some other, equally horrifying religion. Morals are relative, even to those who shriek the loudest that they are not.
QuoteKeep in mind what I said earlier. There is a difference between the facts on the ground (what is) and the moral value (what ought to be). You want to be careful not to confuse changing factual situations (e.g. the greater or lesser degrees of aberration people may demonstrate in their behavior) with the unchanging moral value itself. In other words, it does not follow that because a law is not followed both universally and perfectly, that the law itself does not exist. The fact that the behavior is so widespread amongst such a overwhelming majority throughout a range of both times and cultures does imply an absolute to which we have access as human beings.
You are not showing any evidence of said objective rules, though. Certain behaviours are widespread because they
work, and they only continue to be widespread as long as they continue to do so. All the civilizations that do not follow certain simple rules (like "don't kill your neighbour for no reason") will quickly succumb to other civilizations. These rules aren't based on some objective morality, they're based on the simple fact that you need to follow them in order to live as a clan.
But those rules are extremely mallable. Specific actions are almost impossible to call "wrong" because they've been considered right at some point in our history. Again; the only thing you're doing is claiming objective morality by default. There's nothing to show for it existing based on the history of the human race and the fact that civilizations with completely different morals existed for centuries or even millenia.
QuoteBut if I said, "it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun", would that act have had to occur before it could be true?
Again, loaded language. Of course this doesn't have to occur before it can be true. It's true by definition of the word "torture", which is a word that has "wrong" contained in itself. You can leave out all the other parts and just end up with "torture is wrong" and you end up with yet another tautology because torture is defined as wrong.
Now when you try to come up with situations where you don't use loaded language to describe actions, you'll find that it quickly gets really complicated to have a black/white moral/immoral view of said action, and it also becomes much easier to find examples of situations where it's the best option as well as cultures where it was totally acceptable.
Torturing babies for fun might be wrong, but tossing handicapped babies off a cliff was pretty normal stuff for the ancient Spartans and they didn't consider it immoral. The fact that nobody in their culture did but you do merely shows that you have a different view of morality, which makes it subjective.
Again; the only way to claim "objective morality" is by claiming that every human culture in the history of the world was deeply and horribly immoral, including your own. That makes "moral" and "immoral" into words that are basically completely useless.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"The fact that the behavior is so widespread amongst such a overwhelming majority throughout a range of both times and cultures does imply an absolute to which we have access as human beings.
You know what behavior is widespread among an "overwhelming majority throughout a range of both times and cultures"? Making enemies of your neighbors and slaughtering them as much as possible or practical. Based on that, should we conclude that slaughtering your enemy is objectively moral? Know what has been overwhelmingly accepted throughout human history? Slavery. Should we conclude that slavery is objectively moral?
Quote from: "gomtuu77"The fact that the behavior is so widespread amongst such a overwhelming majority throughout a range of both times and cultures does imply an absolute to which we have access as human beings.
Or it could mean evolution drove us into that pattern of behavior, as it has driven countless other species into their patterns of behavior. Behavioral consistency within a species is hardly indicative of moral absolutes, much less a magical skydaddy to invent them.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Plu"Two problems.
1) "the overwhelming majority of" does not imply an absolute, for that it'd have to be "all"
Keep in mind what I said earlier. There is a difference between the facts on the ground (what is) and the moral value (what ought to be).
"Ought" is an opinion, which would make it relative morality, not absolute morality. It really doesn't matter whose opinion it is, yours or a god's, it's still relative morality unless you redefine some words.
QuoteYou want to be careful not to confuse changing factual situations (e.g. the greater or lesser degrees of aberration people may demonstrate in their behavior) with the unchanging moral value itself. In other words, it does not follow that because a law is not followed both universally and perfectly, that the law itself does not exist.
But so far all we have is an assertion that moral laws exist aside from people. You haven't presented any evidence.
QuoteThe fact that the behavior is so widespread amongst such a overwhelming majority throughout a range of both times and cultures does imply an absolute
To theists, maybe. To others it implies that over and over, the same morals work and the same morals fail. But it doesn't imply that some moral "law" exists aside from thought.
QuoteQuote from: "Plu"2) all of these are defined as tautologies; they do not refer to specific actions, but use words that are by definition unacceptable actions without specifying what those words mean.
You may have a point here, in that I was simply speaking off the cuff, but these are essentially elements of the 10 commandments against lying, covetousness, murder, theft, etc...
Taken from MUCH earlier moralities. Even ca. 1850 BCE, there were prohibitions against covetousness, murder, theft, lying, etc.
QuoteWhether one is branded or not, their morality or immorality remains the same. Since the moral law is objective in nature
Your assertion - still no evidence.
Quote"...it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not. What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.
"Murder" is, and always has been, a legal term, meaning "killing in violation of the law". It never had anything to do with morality. Until historically recent times, the law was to test witches by killing them, so killing them wasn't murder. Following the law is neither inherently moral or inherently immoral, it's just expedient.
Quote from: "gomtuu77"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "gomtuu77"Of any contingent thing or anything that ever began to exist.
IOW, something like "X was immoral even before there were human beings"? (It can't be something like murder, because you can't murder anything but a human being, by definition.)
Sorry, no. Morality requires sentient beings. Trees can't be immoral. Hydrogen gas can't be immoral. Without sentient beings, everything is amoral (nothing has any moral value, good or bad).
Morality is contingent on conditions. If the only choices are bad and worse, bad is the better choice even if, under other conditions, we'd consider it immoral.
This is actually not true. Moral facts are true facts even if the acts themselves have yet to be instantiated in reality.
This is actually not true, since "moral facts" are things asserted by people.
QuoteThat is the essential difference between moral facts and the everyday facts of life. For example, if I said, "my dog, Soldier, eats grass when he goes outside." What would be necessary for that to be a true fact? My dog, Soldier, would have to have eaten grass when he went outside. But if I said, "it is wrong to torture handicap babies for fun", would that act have had to occur before it could be true?
No, since you're just stating your opinion. Whether it falls in line with what everyone else thinks or not, it's still not a statement of fact, it's just an opinion. Using the word "wrong" inherently MAKES a statement an opinion. Or don't you understand language?
That may be your problem - that you think that just because every single person on the planet shares a particular opinion, that makes it some kind of objective fact. It doesn't. An opinion is an opinion even if every sentient creature in the universe shares it. Using agreement as evidence that the opinion agreed with is a fact is argumentum ad numerum, yet that's the only argument you've presented so far - that it appears to you that, since everyone agrees, there MUST BE some underlying objective law. The ONLY response needed to that is "I don't accept your assertion without evidence". The fact that everyone agrees with something doesn't make it correct or a law. And the fact that at least one person in the history of our species has tortured at least one handicapped child for fun means that not everyone agrees that it's wrong. (One case destroys the assertion of "everyone".)
gomtuu77, since you've referenced the 10 commandments, I'm curious as to how you would rate them (describe their accuracy and completeness) as a revelation of these absolute moral facts you claim exist
Quote from: "Poison Tree"gomtuu77, since you've referenced the 10 commandments, I'm curious as to how you would rate them (describe their accuracy and completeness) as a revelation of these absolute moral facts you claim exist
Which 10 commandments? The Bible lists 3 different sets. (And different sects and religions use still different ones.)
Quote from: "ApostateLois"There is no such thing as objective morality. Something is good or bad because we say it is, and not because there is something intrinsically good or bad about it. Murder is bad, we always say--except when we murder lots and lots of people in war. Then it is good. The people being murdered don't think so, of course, but who cares what they think? They'll be dead soon. Even Christians have no problems with murder, rape, slavery, you name it, as long as they can justify it by saying "God told me to do it." They've done this all through history, are doing it now, and will continue doing so until Christianity is replaced by some other, equally horrifying religion. Morals are relative, even to those who shriek the loudest that they are not.
That's perfectly fine. That would simply mean that exterminating 6 million Jews wasn't actually wrong. It is wrong now because we won the war and we say it's wrong today. And that's fine. It's my contention that Hitler's act of mass murder was wrong, regardless of who did or did not say so. If you think it's reasonable to only be able to condemn immoral behavior in the same way that we choose between ice cream flavors, have at it! I don't think that corresponds to reality at all, and I don't think that such a view is born out by history. The rest of your comments have little to do with reality at all, so far as I can tell. I don't know any Christians today who would accept God made me do it for murder, rape, and slavery, but I guess you know a bunch. If you're talking about the past, then again, you're failing to make the fact / value distinction. Our understanding of the moral law and how it should apply does change over time, but the law itself remains the same. Numerous examples have already been given. If your confusion remains, re-read.
Quote from: "Colanth"This is actually not true, since "moral facts" are things asserted by people.
So you're saying that it could be okay to torture handicap babies for fun? Perhaps you don't think it's okay, but since moral facts are just a human assertion, it could actually be a completely acceptable thing to do. Hmmmmm... That's very interesting. Sad, but interesting.
Quote from: "Colanth"No, since you're just stating your opinion. Whether it falls in line with what everyone else thinks or not, it's still not a statement of fact, it's just an opinion. Using the word "wrong" inherently MAKES a statement an opinion. Or don't you understand language?
Right, the idea that torturing handicap babies for fun being wrong is just an opinion, which means that someone else could hold the opposite opinion and be just as right. If that's your view, have at it. It's not my view. And no, the word inherently doesn't make something opinion. Inherent is just a synonym for intrinsic. It's use doesn't change the nature of a fact in any way.
Quote from: "Colanth"That may be your problem - that you think that just because every single person on the planet shares a particular opinion, that makes it some kind of objective fact. It doesn't. An opinion is an opinion even if every sentient creature in the universe shares it. Using agreement as evidence that the opinion agreed with is a fact is argumentum ad numerum, yet that's the only argument you've presented so far - that it appears to you that, since everyone agrees, there MUST BE some underlying objective law. The ONLY response needed to that is "I don't accept your assertion without evidence". The fact that everyone agrees with something doesn't make it correct or a law. And the fact that at least one person in the history of our species has tortured at least one handicapped child for fun means that not everyone agrees that it's wrong. (One case destroys the assertion of "everyone".)
I'm not using agreement as evidence. You've entirely missed the point of what I've said, especially regarding the fact / value distinction. I've already stated that our behaviors can actually vary from culture to culture, and that has no impact on the objective nature of the moral law. You can certainly continue to deny that it's genuinely wrong to torture handicap babies for fun and render it as mere opinion if you'd like, but that doesn't serve as a refutation of any kind. Quite frankly, why bother to refute if you're comfortable with such a heinous point of view? What does it really matter? Torturing handicap babies? I like vanilla and she likes chocolate! Same thing, right? It's all just an opinion. Wow...
The fact that you're still using the "torturing" example even though I've already shown you how it's tautological and thus irrelevant shows that apparently you aren't as interested in learning anything as I originally thought.
Why don't you give a few examples of objective morality that don't include loaded language and we'll discuss those?
the only objective morality there is are the Laws of Physics. everything else is a subjective morality.
Quote from: "Lucid"the only objective morality there is are the Laws of Physics. everything else is a subjective morality.
I don't think I have ever seen so many fallacies in logic in one statement starting with a false analogy to prejudicial language. :roll: =D> #-o Solitary
I would like to see any evidence at all that morals exist outside of the human mind, that they weren't simply developed over long periods of time in the course of human evolution. How would one even show that this is the case? How is one to provide evidence that, once upon a time, God handed morals to humans on a stone tablet? I don't know, but it is not my problem. Christians assert it, it is up to them to prove it.
I'd like to remind some of you that the existence of objective morailty (moral realism) doesn't entail that humans abide by the standard. It's very existence would mean that the standard could be transgressed, since morality is about what you ougt do, after all.
I'm not saying it is true (don't know enough moral philosophy), but I'm just saying. ;)
Will somebody please just go ahead push the fat guy in front of trolley so this thread can move on to the important stuff like nude pictures.
You want to do what to a fat nude guy in the front of a trolly?
Quote from: "ApostateLois"I would like to see any evidence at all that morals exist outside of the human mind, that they weren't simply developed over long periods of time in the course of human evolution.
Would you accept "sentient creature" instead of "human"? If you've ever owned a dog, you know that they can exhibit what must be a sense that they've done something "wrong" at times. They seem to have some little understanding of right and wrong. Bonobos seem to also. And elephants definitely do.
Why would God give "mere animals" knowledge of right and wrong? Was there an elephantine "Eve"?
Good point. Most social animals abide by certain rules of behavior to ensure that the entire group will get along with each other with a minimum of fighting and competition. Otherwise, they'd kill each other, or be so anti-social that they couldn't live in a group at all to begin with. Human morals are simply those sorts of rules, only we developed ways of passing them on through oral and written traditions. We also learned how to tell stories so that children could easily understand how the rules work; and evolved fancy hierarchies of authority to enforce the rules, often through fear and threats of punishment. But certainly no god was involved in all of this. There is no evidence that we magically received our instructions from a supreme sky-being, and everyone decided to follow those rules forever after. If Christians have evidence that this did, in fact, happen, I'd like to see it. I expect to be waiting a long, long time.
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55h1FO8V_3w
watch this video^ It explains it well.