Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Moral Argument for God » Moral Argument for God

Moral Argument for God

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

Moral Argument for God

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1554

Posted 05/20/07 - 12:44 AM:	#51
Tisthammerw wrote: You are arguing from the standpoint that -- morality is objective, (part of the universe or whatever), and that objective morality implies an authority, so that authority must be what theists call "God", (transcendent creator of the universe). Eh, you got it sort of right. I was arguing that if objective moral values exist they provide evidence for the existence of God. Must it be a creator God? Maybe, though I don't know of a way to prove it. But you don't leave any room for the idea that morality isn't objective, so there was no if. Tisthammerw wrote: I don't think it means that at all--any more than beliefs of the physical world (e.g. the shape of the Earth) changing over time implies truths of the physical world are relative. Now you fixated on my mention of "belief" at the end. I was pointing out that you distinguish between the morality of theists and atheists, which means morality is relative to whether you believe in one or more gods or not. If morality is objective, then it doesn't change and is observable from every point in the universe and from every type of observer. Objective morality, to me, is a house of cards -- because it requires that there be no exceptions, ever, to any moral rule. Your claim that atheists have no basis for morality means that morality depends on the belief system of the observer and not some fundamental aspect of the universe. Tisthammerw wrote: Problem is, morality is not something physical, it is an idea of what ought to be. Who decides what ought to be? This is something very different from saying what is (e.g. the speed of light). Sergeants tell their privates what they ought to do (“march on maggots!”) and parents tell their children what they ought to do (“eat your vegetables”) what about morality? Who decides what ought to be in that sense? There are a number of differing opinions of what the world ought to be like, and we can hardly appeal to empirical observation to tell who (if anyone) is right. It's not as if we can empirically test the wrongfulness of stealing, for instance. Notice also that some ought-statements (e.g. my stapler ought to be blue) are relative whereas others (the Holocaust ought not to have happened) are not. Why is the case? Theism at least provides an answer here. For the non-theist, the best answer of who/what decides what ought to be is reality (in some general sense). Reality says Hitler was wrong etc. But that leads us into the problems I discussed in post #41. This is a loaded argument. You are falling into the "is-ought problem", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem). "Ought" is prescriptive, (which already implies an anthropomorphic author), rather than descriptive, (derived from logic and facts). Since you have already implied an anthropomorphic prescriber of morality, it follows that there is an anthropomorphic prescriber of morality. You are still missing the piece that connects morality to objective reality. Tisthammerw wrote: Yes, you could be a utilitarian, but that still doesn't really solve the problem I illustrated before. Why not? There are schools of utilitarianism that suppose an objective morality. You calimed that if morality was objective, (and undisputed), then it implies a sentient prescriber. I gave the counter-example that an atheist can be utilitarian, accept an objective moral system, (not morality), and therefore atheists would have a moral basis. Their authority for not killing you would be in the interest of the "greatest benefit". Tisthammerw wrote: Suppose for instance I rob a bank because it benefits me. You might say what I did was wrong because it supplies a negative effect to the group (on a utilitarian view). Why should I care about benefiting the group? Because it's what one ought to do...and then we get to the same problem. What transcendent source of authority says what people ought to do? There is that is-ought problem again. A utilitarian sees morality as a system of rules and definitions where all acts are determined by the consequences of the actions. A utilitarian cares about the group because he/she is part of the group and shares the benefits of the group, (by not having their bank being robbed). Very few societies listen to any external, transcendent, prescriber -- (they would necissarily be theocracies) -- but judge the morality of the act by consensus and human judicial systems. Tisthammerw wrote: I should also provide this caveat on what the argument from morality is not. The claim is not that an atheist cannot recognize the existence of moral values (an atheist could believe, however mistakenly, that God is not necessary for objective moral values), nor is the claim that belief in theism is necessary to live a moral life (an atheist could follow the rules of morality and still disagree, however mistakenly, on the metaphysical basis of those rules). So this is the key point of the problem. You have to show that God is necessary for objective moral values. You have to show that the only sufficient cause is metaphysical. That means you have to show that objective moral values defy logic, reason and observation, (if they followed logic, reason or observation -- someone could figure out that what morality was without it being prescribed and you would have shown that God isn't necessary to be moral). In fact, you would have to claim that there are some acts which would be considered "bad" on every logical system of morality that are "good" only due to the prescription of a deity. It is possible, but such examples aren't viewed very favorable these days. Another challenge is to prove that morality is truly objective, and not a subjective, emotional experience. You have to give examples of a few actions that truly benefit everyone, (rather than just a small group or individual), or are universally negative without heavily restricting your sample set.
A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 05/20/07 - 01:59 PM:	#52
swstephe wrote: But you don't leave any room for the idea that morality isn't objective, so there was no if. In hindsight I probably should have made it more explicit in that post. For that I apologize. I don't think it means that at all--any more than beliefs of the physical world (e.g. the shape of the Earth) changing over time implies truths of the physical world are relative. Now you fixated on my mention of "belief" at the end. I was pointing out that you distinguish between the morality of theists and atheists, which means morality is relative to whether you believe in one or more gods or not. If morality is objective, then it doesn't change and is observable from every point in the universe and from every type of observer. Objective morality, to me, is a house of cards -- because it requires that there be no exceptions, ever, to any moral rule. Not necessarily (though it depends on what you mean by that). For instance, "thou shalt not kill" is generally a good rule to live by, but it might be necessary to break that rule (e.g. in self-defense or in defense of another). Ethical objectivism does not entail ethical absolutism. Your claim that atheists have no basis for morality means that morality depends on the belief system of the observer and not some fundamental aspect of the universe. Except God (if he exists) is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality--he would be the fundamental aspect of the universe (almost by definition). This is a loaded argument. You are falling into the "is-ought problem", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem). "Ought" is prescriptive, (which already implies an anthropomorphic author), rather than descriptive, (derived from logic and facts). Since you have already implied an anthropomorphic prescriber of morality, it follows that there is an anthropomorphic prescriber of morality. You are still missing the piece that connects morality to objective reality. Please explain, because I thought provided the solution. The question at hand for morality being objective was this: what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? The "missing" piece for this is God, for he would have supreme metaphysical authority over what ought to be. Yes, you could be a utilitarian, but that still doesn't really solve the problem I illustrated before. Why not? Well, I answered that in the post you quoted. The gist of it is that it still doesn't answer the problem of what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be (as I illustrated by my robbing the bank example). Their authority for not killing you would be in the interest of the "greatest benefit". Okay, let’s go with that. The “authority” is the principle that "one ought to benefit the group." Now we’re right back where we started. What transcendent source of authority says I ought to benefit the group? Pointing to utilitarianism eventually leads us straight back to the original question. A utilitarian cares about the group because he/she is part of the group and shares the benefits of the group, (by not having their bank being robbed). But if I robbed the bank and I knew I could get away with it, this would benefit me more than by not robbing the bank. A bank robber might well disagree with the notion that he shouldn't rob the bank. I (playing devil's advocate of course) would say "I ought to benefit me not the group." You have to show that God is necessary for objective moral values. Actually, I just need to show that objective moral values as evidence for the existence of God (if you'll recall, that is the claim I explicitly made). Do I think God is necessary for objective moral values? At first I didn't think so, but after considering things I don't see a better explanation. If not God in the traditional sense, then some type of God seems necessary (see post #41). You have to show that the only sufficient cause is metaphysical. Objective moral values grounded in the heart of God is pretty much the only explanation I've seen to answer the problem of morality's transcendent source of authority on what ought to be. If you have another, by all means tell me. All utilitarianism did was push the problem back a step when it leads us to the problem of "What transcendent source of authority says I ought to benefit the group?" At which point we’re back at square one. That means you have to show that objective moral values defy logic, reason and observation, (if they followed logic, reason or observation -- someone could figure out that what morality was without it being prescribed and you would have shown that God isn't necessary to be moral). I The is-ought problem strikes me as a valid one. If you could show how a formal set of purely logical axioms would lead to an objective morality, by all means show me, but I don't really think you can do that. Utilitarianism has a sort of logic to it but it depends on an axiom that leads us straight back to the problem of morality's source and foundation as I described above (e.g. who says I ought to benefit the group?). In fact, you would have to claim that there are some acts which would be considered "bad" on every logical system of morality that are "good" only due to the prescription of a deity. I'm not sure why I would need to show that. After all, just because objective morality is grounded in God does not at all mean that e.g. utilitarian metaethics is false; it only provides such ethics with a foundation for objective morality to be possible.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 265

Posted 05/21/07 - 05:50 AM:	#53
Hi hip, you say, Morality is probably even more greatly removed from our biological-“software” than we might think. Given that cultures throughout time and place have had vastly different preferences and ethos it would be hard to pick out some universal moral. I am confused between your use of terms. If society is the 'software' then waht is biological software? Either way I propose that moral standards across society are not as different as they appear. Since living relies heavily on having a correct judgment of reality in order to survive, thiose social behaviors that favor survival tend to spread and prevail. For example if a society existed that decided to kill everyone we meet regardless, inside or outside our group, these groups would not survive. Those groups that 'discover' helping those around us, in our group, feeding, housing, and keeping aliove and perhaps only killing those in other groups (if they can) behavior that promotes this will tend to prevail. The behaviors that allow groups to survive and flourish will therefore have some common attributes. This means that freedom of liberty, killing, have some typical cultural profiles. They vary in type only. ie. we can eat our dead relatives, or not. But killing our relatives indiscriminatly seeems to almost be non existent. It then just needs a social system to try and enforce this behavior without spending too much resource doing so. It’s here that I would question if human morality is really missing the heart of the discussion? Instead of looking for moral laws or guidelines that exist out there… how about looking at what’s in here, within our psyche? I doubt there’s any “software” of moral laws within… but there’s a whole body of emotional content which guide humans in their everyday decisions. Perhaps the question of morality is the wrong perspective when dealing with the emotional content of the human organism. I do not think we can easilt seperate the operation of who we are and our society. We have been socially longer than we have been human, so we are not likely to easily stand outside the group. For analysis we can try and see any points of connection but to construct a system of morality for ourselves, without a group it has no context. Imagine yourself totally alone with no form of related society about you. What moral stanard would you set yourself, just you in the society. What is good for me is good, full stop. If eating good food, killing other life, etc keeps you alive, and keeping alive is good then the behavior that leads to this is also good. Morality is very much about our emotional side. We are not strong on reason. Try and reason with an enemy soldier in the middle of conflict, and armed. There is little room for reason when the chips are down, facing hunger, poverty, death, even losing our job or getting a dose of road rage, reason is scarce. Even on a web forum we get hot under the collar. Moral systems probably would not exist without emotional beings, society might also not exist.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 05/21/07 - 08:50 PM:	#54
TMB wrote: “I am confused between your use of terms. If society is the 'software' then waht is biological software?” I was kind of taking an analogy too far in order to try and illustrate a point without going into how our neurology really functions and how it relates to evolutionary theory. Basically, certain “software” becomes hardware or instinctual to our physio-psychological make-up. Synaptic connections are more readily created or preformed/organized/conditioned without any exterior constituents, simply evolutionary/bio-genetic constituents. TMB: Statement wrote: “Either way I propose that moral standards across society are not as different as they appear.” Evidence wrote: “- Survival is dependent on correct evaluations of reality. - Killing genetic or social relatives makes for poor survival in the struggle for communal protection and the advantages of communal labor. - Communal “morals” teach or re-enforce behavior more favorable to communal life over self-interested behavior.” This was offered to counter my claim that communal cultures have vastly different “ethos” cross-culturally. I don’t contest what you’ve offered. In fact I agree. But, this does little to develop our understanding of what morality indicates let alone Morality with a capital “M” underlining a Moral Agent(s) (i.e. God or gods). What are the origins of Morality (that exterior code of conduct)? Morality (small “m”) upholds the standards of conduct within a community, accepted as right or proper by its participants. These can ultimately become whatever a community accepts (even if it is a declining community as in your first example). The argument I would like to focus on is that of Morality which indicates a code of conduct NOT connected to the participants. If morality naturally forms under communal systems, then I see no reason to explain moral phenomena beyond evolutionary explanations (positing an alternate Agent responsible for its existence). TMB wrote: “I do not think we can easilt seperate the operation of who we are and our society.” This is a platonic fallacy… kind of. You’re confusing or mistaking the difference between government and society. The government doesn’t make-up the society. It is the society that forms the government, and the impoverished citizens who forget such a distinction. Governments in the time of Plato where often invested with the divine interests and so it would seem (to a much greater degree) that the government (acting on the behalf or in the interests of the gods) was the sole bearer of society and communal life. Now, of course communal life seems impossible without organization, but here too there is a distinction between organization and government. TMB wrote: “to construct a system of morality for ourselves, without a group it has no context.” Well, it would certainly seem valueless anyway, eh? It would be like “God” coming up with a moral law and not telling anyone for some thousands of years before coming to earth to give out the “good news!” TMB wrote: “What moral stanard would you set yourself, just you in the society. What is good for me is good, full stop.” To set a moral standard for yourself is to become a martyr of society; otherwise, you play ball and you operate within your society: If there are cheaters and liars who profit off your otherwise “higher” personal moral standards, it would be beneficial if you withheld such “Moral” efforts (unless they in turn converted or influenced people around you to give strength and support to your ideals). Even within such a system, you’re still operating on the level of the social morale, there’s little evidence for the exterior Moral. TMB wrote: “Moral systems probably would not exist without emotional beings, society might also not exist.”
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 265

Posted 05/23/07 - 02:27 AM:	#55
Hi hip, you say, This is a platonic fallacy… kind of. You’re confusing or mistaking the difference between government and society. The government doesn’t make-up the society. It is the society that forms the government, and the impoverished citizens who forget such a distinction. Governments in the time of Plato where often invested with the divine interests and so it would seem (to a much greater degree) that the government (acting on the behalf or in the interests of the gods) was the sole bearer of society and communal life. Now, of course communal life seems impossible without organization, but here too there is a distinction between organization and government I think you have misunderstood what I referred to. I meant the difference between our biology and environment, the classic nature/nurture debate. You mentioned our psyche and biological software, so I see this as something innate in our biology that is modified by environment. Well, it would certainly seem valueless anyway, eh? It would be like “God” coming up with a moral law and not telling anyone for some thousands of years before coming to earth to give out the “good news!” TMB wrote: “What moral stanard would you set yourself, just you in the society. What is good for me is good, full stop.” To set a moral standard for yourself is to become a martyr of society; otherwise, you play ball and you operate within your society: If there are cheaters and liars who profit off your otherwise “higher” personal moral standards, it would be beneficial if you withheld such “Moral” efforts (unless they in turn converted or influenced people around you to give strength and support to your ideals). Even within such a system, you’re still operating on the level of the social morale, there’s little evidence for the exterior Moral. Let me clarify what I meant. I was posing a question of how morality would exist for a single person (you) society. That is you are alone, have no contact with other people (and never had). Ignore the obvious issues with procreation for a moment, and try to understand what 'morality' would be for this scenario. I imagine it would be that you did what suited your requirement and drive to survive. Ie. its good if it aides those things I do to survive. This could loosley be described as your own moral code. What is important you, how you live your life etc. Pretty much the same as a larger group. What works for the best of the group, and is cognisant of the need for some individual freedoms (without any individuals society will die), just enough to keep the group whole, defines correct behaviors etc.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 05/24/07 - 11:14 AM:	#56
I agree with you TMB
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 05/27/07 - 12:59 PM:	#57
The rules of justice are those moral requirements that above all keep us secure. Individual self-interested behavior comes from a self assurance or independent form of security. Morality is then thought to be opposed to self-interests. But we must not think that there are only two options here: justice is good for us under all circumstances -or- that we are always sacrificing ourselves by behaving well. The suggestion that God will reward our good behavior in another life set's up a form of incentives or reward. This can be side stepped with a third option (other than the two listed above): that in general we will be happier if we behave well, finding that our earnest behavior and dealings with other people go better. In such a system, the reward is the general response of one's behavior. In such a system, people needn't practice deception and hypocrisy to get results. In this case, we needed pretend that always behaving well is best, especially if the result is personal ruin, but on the whole or in general, the system balances itself out.
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/31/07 - 06:39 PM:	#58
vzzbux wrote: Morality is most likely taught. Human beings are instinctively reciprocate all actions performed on us. If a child is treated fairly and kindly then he/she will treat others fairly and kindly However someone who is beaten as a child will not have the same sense of morality than a person we would consider just. When viewed in this light both children are doing the exact same thing: They are merely repaying the actions taken out on them This seems to be a universal moral law but it doesn't need god to explain it, it is instinctive If morality is taught then, by your argument, all those who were "beaten as a child" and treated unfairly would grow up to be immoral people, and visa versa (i.e. all those who were treated fairly would grow up to be moral people) which is clearly not the case. I, personally, believe it's the combination of both: evolution is responsible for some basic concepts of morality to be imprinted in our genes--mostly thanks to our increased ability to empathize, which is, in my opinion, THE foundation of all morale values--and by examples set by our parents, society, or animals for that matter—feral children. In addition, you’re saying that those who were treated immorally would behave the same way since, as morality is taught, they wouldn’t know how to behave any other way, and wouldn’t see that causing another person pain (which is essentially what immoral behavior does) is morally wrong. Again, I don’t agree. I think that people who “decide” to behave immorally are very much aware of its evilness (unless we’re talking about a mentally ill or a brainwashed person), which is because of that “biological” moral component. Now, I just want to comment on religion as The Moral Implementer: I can't deny that some troubled individuals were helped by religion in finding the "moral way" (even though I think more were sidetracked from it by religion), but it is absurd to think that without religion people would be morally lost. That is to say, it is very naive to think that without church's 'thou shalt not kill' nobody would know that killing is wrong. This might have been true some 200,000 years ago when homo sapiens were in their infancy and not much different from animals, but as human brain evolved, and as the ability of “putting yourself in his/her shoes” or empathy increased, morale values as we know them were inevitable--here I imply on those basic, or say universal/absolute morale values, the ones that follow the Golden Rule; yes, I think the golden rule is the byproduct of evolution not teachings of Jesus. Of course, this rule, like any other that follows it, has to be considered in context. In other words, if this golden rule conflicts with higher priorities, such as self-preservation, it should be broken. This raises the question: how come moral values still differ from culture to culture? These differences are, in my opinion, learned, and are byproducts of religion, or government, or peer-pressure… For example, back in the day when slavery was allowed, white people simply didn’t see African people as their equal; they were “taught” that Africans were not much different from animals, so they treated them accordingly. However, people who were more morally evolved realized that these teachings were wrong. They could empathize with slaves and, even though they were taught their whole lives that it is alright to beat a black person for no reason, and that slavery is necessary, thought differently; and, as time went by, more and more people, either morally evolved themselves, or were taught by those who were, realized the immorality of slavery until finally (peacefully everywhere except in the U.S.) it became “almost” universally recognized as immoral, and is “almost” extinct now—we haven’t evolved to that point yet. However, extinction of slavery is by no means a byproduct of religious teachings—many religions still teach white-supremacy; for example, a very young religion of Mormons (who are Christians, by the way), are of opinion that Indians and blacks were “colored” by god as a punishment for murdering ancient Israeli tribes (that’s some unforgiving god, wouldn’t you say?), and believe that interracial marriages should be punished by death (teachings of Brigham Young). So, in my opinion, religion made the morale difference here as to allow slavery, not the other way around. Just as some other religious teachings state that “killing in the name of God” is, not only forgivable, but highly rewardable, or teachings that women are inferior to men (created from Adam’s rib and shit like that) actually encourage treatment of women as slaves, and so on. In conclusion I just want to say that human brain is, one day (maybe even sooner), going to evolve to the point when we will recognize religion as the “Unnecessary Evil,” and realize that the human race would be much better off without it. We will understand that giving billions of dollars to this institution is ridiculous, and religion will slowly, but surely, by means of reform not revolution, become extinct. Edited by pedja777 on 06/01/07 - 12:08 PM

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 06/01/07 - 11:51 AM:	#59
Tisthammerw wrote: Problem is, morality is not something physical, it is an idea of what ought to be. Who decides what ought to be? This is something very different from saying what is (e.g. the speed of light). Or the shape of the Earth!

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 06/01/07 - 04:19 PM:	#60
Tisthammerw wrote: Suppose for instance I rob a bank because it benefits me. You might say what I did was wrong because it did not benefit the group. Why should I care about benefiting the group? Because it's what one ought to do...and then we get to the same problem. What transcendent source of authority says what people ought to do? Theism provides an answer, atheism does not. You posted this example in several of your posts thinking that somehow you proved the existence of god with it, and discredited utilitarian beliefs too. Well, let’s see if that’s true. Why aren’t you a robber? There are several reasons for it, other than morality. (1) Because we are not all equally moral, government decided to make it a Law; i.e. “Thou shalt not rob a bank,” with severe punishment when broken. So, the fear of this punishment is more than enough for most people to not even think about robbing a bank. (2) Even if you think you’re brave enough to do it, robbing a bank is a very hard job, especially now days with cameras and all. It’s nearly impossible to get away with it, so most just figure that it’s not worth it. Now, let’s talk about those people who simply don’t do it because it seems immoral to them. First, let’s recall why government decided to punish those who rob banks. Well, utilitarianism has an explanation, a very simple one: if everybody did it, the group (the society) would self-destroy, hence you choose not to do it (from the same reason you clean after your dog in public parks). But let’s look at it from another angle: empathy. We people have evolved enough to even empathize with abstract concepts, or people we never met, people who would never make any difference in our lives. That’s why we cry when we’re watching movies, or news, and feel sorry for characters we know are not real; it’s empathy, and empathy alone. In fact, when you watch a movie (or a real thing, for that matter) where one of the characters is tortured, or killed, or harmed in any way, you feel sorry for him/her because of your ability to ‘put yourself in his/her shoes,’ and you know how much you would suffer if harmed like that. Or you could empathize with the family of the deceased, even though you know nobody in this family. The same reasoning follows when deciding against robbing a bank (or stealing at all) because you know you would hurt somebody by doing so. Now to the question of morality and evolution: look at the animal kingdom! Animals with bigger, more evolved brains (such as monkeys, elephants, hypos, dolphins, whales, etc. versus bacteria, fish, lizards etc.), are generally more morally evolved than others, and can show acts of compassion and empathy. Of course, these are hardly comparable to humans’, just like intelligence is, but it definitely exists; look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8mzz8xt6AU How do you explain this, or do you just choose to ignore it? Why would god make us more compassionate than other species? Why not make other species immoral as to make it easier for us to kill them, not that it’s stopping us now (see, it is arguable if we’re that moral really— consequentialists might argue that if we were any less moral, we would already destroy every living thing on this planet—us included—and I think we’re getting there.) Why does morality vary with brain evolution? Is this a coincidence? I think not. After all, why did God wait almost five billion years (which is, I think, roughly the age of Earth, and we homo sapiens are in existence for about 200,000 years) to create such moral creatures like us? Why not do it right away, or did he just choose to deceive us with this long period between life formation and humans, so we would make this nonsense evolution theory up in order to test our faith? Edited by pedja777 on 06/01/07 - 05:07 PM

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 06/02/07 - 04:13 PM:	#61
pedja777 wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Suppose for instance I rob a bank because it benefits me. You might say what I did was wrong because it did not benefit the group. Why should I care about benefiting the group? Because it's what one ought to do...and then we get to the same problem. What transcendent source of authority says what people ought to do? Theism provides an answer, atheism does not. You posted this example in several of your posts thinking that somehow you proved the existence of god with it, and discredited utilitarian beliefs too. Well, I think I provided evidence for the existence of God. I don't think I discredited utilitarian beliefs, only that utilitarianism by itself doesn't solve the problem of "what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?" The statement "one ought to benefit the group" doesn't really solve this problem, but only brings us back to where we started. Why aren’t you a robber? There are several reasons for it, other than morality. [Describes fear of punishment, the difficulty of getting away with it] Now, let’s talk about those people who simply don’t do it because it seems immoral to them. [Explains reasons] That nicely explains why I and others do not rob banks, but it doesn't explain why it's morally wrong. Even if there was no fear of punishment (suppose there was no government) and even if I was a complete sociopath who had no empathy etc. it would still be wrong for me to rob banks. It would still be the case that "I ought not to steal." So we still have the problem of locating morality's transcendent source of authority. The best a non-theist could argue is that reality says I ought not to steal, but then that leads us into the problems I mentioned earlier. Now to the question of morality and evolution: look at the animal kingdom! Animals with bigger, more evolved brains (such as monkeys, elephants, hypos, dolphins, whales, etc. versus bacteria, fish, lizards etc.), are generally more morally evolved than others, and can show acts of compassion and empathy. Animals with brains are more able to help the group, which in turn allows everyone to survive. These animals—even the most intelligent one on your list—are also quite capable of cruelty, as even Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees documents. look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8mzz8xt6AU How do you explain this, or do you just choose to ignore it? No, I won't choose to ignore it. What happens in the video is actually quite fascinating. How do I explain it? A crocodile is a hippo's natural enemy (especially as a calf), and adult hippos are by instinct extremely hostile to them. Additionally, hippos are also gregarious, and so this one might have "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of instinctive thinking built into its system. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the hippo in the video was a female (mother hippos by instinct are ferociously protective of their young for years—including such protection against crocodiles). By some fluke the maternal instinct might have been transferred onto another species (although perhaps rare, it is not unheard of). In any case, even if the idea of morality is built into our system (and perhaps to some extent those of other species, particularly gregarious and pack animals that are programmed by evolution to help others) none of this really explains how or why morality exists. And none of this really answers the question I proposed above. Why not make other species immoral as to make it easier for us to kill them I'm not convinced that animals are moral agents. Apart from that, animals fight and kill each other all the time! I suspect the reason why animals aren't more "immoral" than they are now is for survival (utilitarian) purposes. After all, why did God wait almost five billion years (which is, I think, roughly the age of Earth, and we homo sapiens are in existence for about 200,000 years) to create such moral creatures like us? Even if God exists, I am still no telepath and would pretty much have to speculate on that answer. Maybe evolution has some kind of beauty to it that God appreciates. In any case, if God exists his ways (being infinitely intelligent) are far beyond ours. We cannot reasonably expect to understand the "why" behind everything, and perhaps we cannot even reasonably expect to understand the why behind most things. Why not do it right away, or did he just choose to deceive us with this long period between life formation and humans, so we would make this nonsense evolution theory up in order to test our faith? Creationists would say that the evidence does not at all point to evolution, but rather points to a Biblical creation and there is no deception involved. (I'm not a Biblical creationist, I was just playing the devil's advocate.)
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 06/03/07 - 03:33 PM:	#62
Tisthammerw wrote: Well, I think I provided evidence for the existence of God. I don't think I discredited utilitarian beliefs, only that utilitarianism by itself doesn't solve the problem of "what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?" The statement "one ought to benefit the group" doesn't really solve this problem, but only brings us back to where we started. I’m sorry, but I find your evidence to be very weak at best. See, I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival, and I actually find people to be, on average, not that moral at all. In fact, people did more damage to this planet than any other species. We are responsible for more cruelty, killings, even extinctions of the whole other species, than any other living organism on earth, and we are the only ones capable of destroying the whole planet; so, again, I claim that if we were any less moral, we wouldn’t be here today. But, you may say, this again doesn’t prove how we have this moral code in us? Brain evolution makes perfect sense to me, but you’ll keep on questioning its origin, and you’ll keep on denying the undeniable. Actually, your argument, in my opinion, is similar to questioning any other distinguishable feature on humans; i.e. why do we have five fingers on each hand, or why do we have two symmetrical sides, two arms and two legs, why are we capable of questioning all these things… why anything is the way it is, really? Well, the laziest, or the easiest way to answer these is by calling everything: god’s will. Now, if we start with physical and psychological traits of living organisms, then we may continue with the events too, right? Namely, Cleveland beat Detroit because it was god’s will, Bush is killing Iraqis because god wants him to (the saddest thing is that he probably believes this), and so on. In other words, everything is predetermined. Out of all theories I’ve ever come across in any field I despise this one the most. If this was so then life wouldn’t make sense to me at all, and god would be this evil freak who’s just playing with us. For the similar reasons I despise Calvinism, or any teachings of Armenianism for that matter. In fact, as you’ve probably noticed by now, I’m not fond of any religion at all. In any case, the question remains: “why are we moral?” I find evolution to be a very reasonable explanation, while your explanation is just wishful thinking! Tisthammerw wrote: That nicely explains why I and others do not rob banks, but it doesn't explain why it's morally wrong. Even if there was no fear of punishment (suppose there was no government) and even if I was a complete sociopath who had no empathy etc. it would still be wrong for me to rob banks. It would still be the case that "I ought not to steal." So we still have the problem of locating morality's transcendent source of authority. The best a non-theist could argue is that reality says I ought not to steal, but then that leads us into the problems I mentioned earlier. Wow, so many assumptions (don’t you know that when you ‘assume’ something you’re making an ass out of you and me.) (1) Suppose there was no government? If there was no government or punishment for stealing such society would last until everybody realized that stealing is unbeneficial and self-destroyable, or until some sort of government is established—I don’t think we’re yet morally evolved enough to live in anarchy, and I don’t think we ever will be; we’ll probably destroy ourselves first. (2) Suppose you were a complete sociopath who had no empathy? If you were such a person then you wouldn’t know the difference from right and wrong, and that’s a fact! Such a person, if he commits an immoral act that is punishable by law, gets the verdict “innocent for reasons of insanity.” In fact, there have been cases where even a moderate brain injury distorts a person’s view of what is right and what isn’t, and he ends up doing things he never would’ve done if no injury happened. In addition, people who get drunk, or drugged, or who are mentally ill (like schizophrenics) DO NOT know that difference either. Tisthammerw wrote: Animals with brains are more able to help the group, which in turn allows everyone to survive. These animals—even the most intelligent one on your list—are also quite capable of cruelty, as even Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees documents. Oh, and humans aren’t? Your example proves nothing! In fact, it just strengthens my utilitarianism views. Tisthammerw wrote: I also wouldn’t be surprised if the hippo in the video was a female (mother hippos by instinct are ferociously protective of their young for years—including such protection against crocodiles). By some fluke the maternal instinct might have been transferred onto another species (although perhaps rare, it is not unheard of). It was a male hippo! Tisthammerw wrote: I'm not convinced that animals are moral agents. Apart from that, animals fight and kill each other all the time! I suspect the reason why animals aren't more "immoral" than they are now is for survival (utilitarian) purposes. Maybe this http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=sto... article will make you change your mind. Tisthammerw wrote: Creationists would say that the evidence does not at all point to evolution, but rather points to a Biblical creation and there is no deception involved. (I'm not a Biblical creationist, I was just playing the devil's advocate.) Ah yes, the good old creationists. First there was Young Earth creationism, then Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, and then finally the Evolutionary creationism. Each of these HYPOTHESES makes god less and less involved in creation (see the pattern here), letting the nature take its course in the last one, and each of them more-or-less contradict each other. Whenever they encounter something scientifically not clear yet they explain it by God’s intervention. However, when science comes to indisputable proves about these questionable points, they modify their ‘theory’ by trying to fit this new evidence in. All in all we still haven’t answered any questions really (that’s philosophy for you, which is why I’m a mathematician), and we never will. I find atheistic views to be more accurate, you don’t, and I don’t think either of us is going to persuade the other one otherwise. But, I have to tell you, I sure hope you’re right!

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 06/03/07 - 03:33 PM:	#63
Tisthammerw wrote: Well, I think I provided evidence for the existence of God. I don't think I discredited utilitarian beliefs, only that utilitarianism by itself doesn't solve the problem of "what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?" The statement "one ought to benefit the group" doesn't really solve this problem, but only brings us back to where we started. I’m sorry, but I find your evidence to be very weak at best. See, I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival, and I actually find people to be, on average, not that moral at all. In fact, people did more damage to this planet than any other species. We are responsible for more cruelty, killings, even extinctions of the whole other species, than any other living organism on earth, and we are the only ones capable of destroying the whole planet; so, again, I claim that if we were any less moral, we wouldn’t be here today. But, you may say, this again doesn’t prove how we have this moral code in us? Brain evolution makes perfect sense to me, but you’ll keep on questioning its origin, and you’ll keep on denying the undeniable. Actually, your argument, in my opinion, is similar to questioning any other distinguishable feature on humans; i.e. why do we have five fingers on each hand, or why do we have two symmetrical sides, two arms and two legs, why are we capable of questioning all these things… why anything is the way it is, really? Well, the laziest, or the easiest way to answer these is by calling everything: god’s will. Now, if we start with physical and psychological traits of living organisms, then we may continue with the events too, right? Namely, Cleveland beat Detroit because it was god’s will, Bush is killing Iraqis because god wants him to (the saddest thing is that he probably believes this), and so on. In other words, everything is predetermined. Out of all theories I’ve ever come across in any field I despise this one the most. If this was so then life wouldn’t make sense to me at all, and god would be this evil freak who’s just playing with us. For the similar reasons I despise Calvinism, or any teachings of Armenianism for that matter. In fact, as you’ve probably noticed by now, I’m not fond of any religion at all. In any case, the question remains: “why are we moral?” I find evolution to be a very reasonable explanation, while your explanation is just wishful thinking! Tisthammerw wrote: That nicely explains why I and others do not rob banks, but it doesn't explain why it's morally wrong. Even if there was no fear of punishment (suppose there was no government) and even if I was a complete sociopath who had no empathy etc. it would still be wrong for me to rob banks. It would still be the case that "I ought not to steal." So we still have the problem of locating morality's transcendent source of authority. The best a non-theist could argue is that reality says I ought not to steal, but then that leads us into the problems I mentioned earlier. Wow, so many assumptions (don’t you know that when you ‘assume’ something you’re making an ass out of you and me.) (1) Suppose there was no government? If there was no government or punishment for stealing such society would last until everybody realized that stealing is unbeneficial and self-destroyable, or until some sort of government is established—I don’t think we’re yet morally evolved enough to live in anarchy, and I don’t think we ever will be; we’ll probably destroy ourselves first. (2) Suppose you were a complete sociopath who had no empathy? If you were such a person then you wouldn’t know the difference from right and wrong, and that’s a fact! Such a person, if he commits an immoral act that is punishable by law, gets the verdict “innocent for reasons of insanity.” In fact, there have been cases where even a moderate brain injury distorts a person’s view of what is right and what isn’t, and he ends up doing things he never would’ve done if no injury happened. In addition, people who get drunk, or drugged, or who are mentally ill (like schizophrenics) DO NOT know that difference either. Tisthammerw wrote: Animals with brains are more able to help the group, which in turn allows everyone to survive. These animals—even the most intelligent one on your list—are also quite capable of cruelty, as even Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees documents. Oh, and humans aren’t? Your example proves nothing! In fact, it just strengthens my utilitarianism views. Tisthammerw wrote: I also wouldn’t be surprised if the hippo in the video was a female (mother hippos by instinct are ferociously protective of their young for years—including such protection against crocodiles). By some fluke the maternal instinct might have been transferred onto another species (although perhaps rare, it is not unheard of). It was a male hippo! Tisthammerw wrote: I'm not convinced that animals are moral agents. Apart from that, animals fight and kill each other all the time! I suspect the reason why animals aren't more "immoral" than they are now is for survival (utilitarian) purposes. Maybe this http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=sto... article will make you change your mind. Tisthammerw wrote: Creationists would say that the evidence does not at all point to evolution, but rather points to a Biblical creation and there is no deception involved. (I'm not a Biblical creationist, I was just playing the devil's advocate.) Ah yes, the good old creationists. First there was Young Earth creationism, then Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, and then finally the Evolutionary creationism. Each of these HYPOTHESES makes god less and less involved in creation (see the pattern here), letting the nature take its course in the last one, and each of them more-or-less contradict each other. Whenever they encounter something scientifically not clear yet they explain it by God’s intervention. However, when science comes to indisputable proofs about these questionable points, they modify their ‘theory’ by trying to fit this new evidence in. All in all we still haven’t answered any questions really (that’s philosophy for you, which is why I’m a mathematician), and we never will. I find atheistic views to be more accurate, you don’t, and I don’t think either of us is going to persuade the other one otherwise. But, I have to tell you, I sure hope you’re right! Edited by pedja777 on 06/03/07 - 03:39 PM

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 06/03/07 - 04:46 PM:	#64
pedja777 wrote: I’m sorry, but I find your evidence to be very weak at best. If so, what is the basis for objective moral values? What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? Statements like "I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival," even if true, do not answer this question. I'm not trying to explain why we believe in moral values or why we behave morally, I'm trying to explain why objective moral values exist. People should not steal. Why? Because doing so harms the group. Why should I care about what happens to the group? Because the health of the group is what ought to be. But that brings us back to the question at hand. What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? It was a male hippo! How do you know this?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/07 - 06:11 PM:	#65
swstephe wrote: "People are moral if they have blue eyes". Well, if I can show you one person who is moral and has brown eyes, then it's false, (and eye color is irrelevant). Not quite, your statement wouldn’t be proved wrong by finding a moral person with brown eyes since your statement says nothing about people with brown eyes. What you are saying is that all people with blue eyes are moral, so this statement wouldn’t be disproved by finding a brown-eyed moral person. Consider this similar example: people are tall if they play basketball (assuming there are no Boykinses, this statement is generally true). Now, this certainly means that all basketball players are tall, but it says nothing about volleyball players, for example. In fact, they might be even taller, and if you found one such tall volleyball player the original statement “people are tall if they play basketball” still holds. However, if we write “people are tall if AND ONLY IF they play basketball” then you covered it both ways; i.e. people are tall if they play basketball AND people play basketball if they are tall, which, in other words, means that all people who play basketball are tall AND all tall people play basketball. In short, the above mumbo-jumbo leads to one little correction: you should’ve written "People are moral if and only if they have blue eyes," and everything else holds. By the way, I agree with you.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1554

Posted 06/03/07 - 06:52 PM:	#66
Yep -- you are right, I should have started with "People are moral if and only if they have blue eyes", especially since the analogy would be: "people are moral if and only if they are theists".
A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

pedja777
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/07 - 07:32 PM:	#67
Tisthammerw wrote: If so, what is the basis for objective moral values? What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? Statements like "I argue that people are moral because it increases our chances of survival," even if true, do not answer this question. I'm not trying to explain why we believe in moral values or why we behave morally, I'm trying to explain why objective moral values exist. People should not steal. Why? Because doing so harms the group. Why should I care about what happens to the group? Because the health of the group is what ought to be. But that brings us back to the question at hand. What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? How do you know this? Here we go again: “What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” This question is so pointless. I, for one, don’t think there is an objective moral law. I think that all moral laws (even the one that says “thou shalt not kill”) are relative to the context. For example, if you had a chance to kill Hitler in the middle (or at the end, for that matter) of WWII I think it would be morally, ethically, and any other which way, acceptable. But, let’s say moral laws are universal. Let’s say they are the same throughout our universe. You claim that this proves the existence of god since, your question is, “what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” Well, it’s the same transcendent source that says what the weight or electrical charge of an electron should be everywhere in the universe (if it were different by an infinitesimal amount no atoms would form, and we certainly wouldn’t be here), the same transcendent source that says how strong any of the four forces should be everywhere in the universe (again, even the smallest variation in any of the four forces would mean our non-existence), the same transcendent source that makes the speed of light the same everywhere in the universe, and so on. You call this source god, and it might be, I hope it is, but I think it is just one of an infinite number of possible outcomes. There might be universes where there are no atoms, no life, then there might be those where conditions for life are even more favorable, where every planet has life; there might also be universes (or planets in our universe) where moral code is “imperfect” enough so that they self-destruct as soon as they become intelligent enough to do so (do we fall in this category?), and yet, there might be universes (or planets in our universe) where intelligent creatures are morally evolved (or encoded, if you wish) enough in order to self-preserve for eons, and they pity us, like we pity lizards, for our moral imperfection. So, my point is that moral law isn’t much different from any other physical or mental trait of humans, animals, or aliens, objective or not. Your argument that god must exist because we can differentiate between right and wrong is very weak to me. One banal argument against it is “why is the world so evil and unjust then?” since your assumption presumes that god is perfectly righteous and moral. But let’s not go into meaning of life... there is no room for that in this thread. I know the hippo is a male because the narrator says so. Edited by pedja777 on 06/03/07 - 07:37 PM

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 06/09/07 - 02:44 PM:	#68
pedja777 wrote: Here we go again: “What transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” This question is so pointless. I, for one, don’t think there is an objective moral law. Then the point of arguing seems somewhat moot. I was trying to argue that "objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God." Or rather, "if objective moral values exist, they are evidence for the existence of God." If you are simply going to argue that no objective moral laws exist, this really doesn't address the deductive validity of the reasoning I was using. I think that all moral laws (even the one that says “thou shalt not kill”) are relative to the context. For example, if you had a chance to kill Hitler in the middle (or at the end, for that matter) of WWII I think it would be morally, ethically, and any other which way, acceptable. I think so too. But here you are arguing against moral absolutism, not moral objectivism (there is a difference). The right thing to do does indeed depend upon the context of the situation, but that does not imply the rejection of objective ethics. But, let’s say moral laws are universal. Let’s say they are the same throughout our universe. You claim that this proves the existence of god since, your question is, “what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be?” Well, it’s the same transcendent source that says what the weight or electrical charge of an electron should be everywhere in the universe Keep in mind the idea that the electrical charge is the same everywhere in the universe is a much different statement from saying the charge of an electron should be the same everywhere. May I ask what transcendent source of authority says this is the way things should be? You haven't identified it. Of course, you could say that the “transcendent source of authority” behind moral values (e.g. one ought not to kill) is reality. It is reality says what ought to be. Reality—unlike fallible humans—cannot be mistaken about what is right, and it is reality in some general sense that says what ought to be. It’s just that there isn’t any specific component of the universe (as a person or culture) that says it’s wrong, but rather the universe itself. By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism). But even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). This pantheistic God must also be omnipresent—assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of who you are and where you are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal. This pantheistic God must also be eternal—assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of when you are. Yet the necessity of a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by implying the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.). I mentioned this point earlier in the thread (and in a web page of mine). I know the hippo is a male because the narrator says so. I think you are mistaken. I saw the youtube video again and didn't hear the hippo's gender mentioned.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 692

Posted 06/09/07 - 09:57 PM:	#69
Tisthammerw wrote: By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God��"like omnipotence and consciousness��"are not necessarily associated with pantheism). But even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). This pantheistic God must also be omnipresent��"assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of who you are and where you are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal. This pantheistic God must also be eternal��"assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of when you are. Interesting. Could you indicate why you believe an entity would need to be present to be the source of objective morals? Is it like claiming that you need to have a policeman around for there to be criminal laws in society? What is it about a God that makes morals valid and binding (and apparently requires his presence to do so)?

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 06/10/07 - 02:10 PM:	#70
mric wrote: Interesting. Could you indicate why you believe an entity would need to be present to be the source of objective morals? Is it like claiming that you need to have a policeman around for there to be criminal laws in society? No, it's more like you need a lawgiver for there to be criminal laws in society. In ethics, what you need is some kind of metaphysical basis for objective moral values. I’ve explained this sort of thing before in this thread and my web page, but for now I don’t mind explaining it again. Before I go on, let's first examine the nature of what I’ll call should-statements (and, synonymously, ought-statements). Examples of should-statements are “You should not eat spaghetti with your fingers” and “My stapler should be blue.” The basis of the truth of the latter should-statement is an individual; in this case myself. While I believe this ought-statement to be true (my stapler ought to be blue) it is nonetheless a matter of personal taste rather than an objective truth. Some ought-statements have their basis in the culture. For instance, in the culture of the United States eating certain foods with your hands (e.g. a spaghetti) is not considered good manners. As with the should-statement about my stapler, I believe this statement is true (one should not eat spaghetti with one's fingers). But again the veracity for statements like these is relative. In this case of manners, the source of such veracity is the culture. What one culture considers good manners another may not. Ethics is another example of a should-statement. For instance, “Thou shalt not kill” simply means “one should not kill.” Yet if different people have different ethical ideas of the way things ought to be, who decides what ought to be? Hitler thought he should commit genocide, though many other people disagree. In the horrors of the Holocaust, most of us intuitively recognize there is something in reality—transcending what anyone says or thinks—that says such genocides are not the way it ought to be. But what is this “something”? In determining the source and basis for objective moral values, the key question becomes what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? And why would it be that some ought-statements are matters of personal taste and others are not? What is it about a God that makes morals valid and binding (and apparently requires his presence to do so)? By definition, God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else. Thus, if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would possess a supremely transcendent source of authority. In contrast, atheism provides no source for morality. Ethics being grounded in God explains why moral values transcend humanity. It also explains why some should-statements are matters of personal taste and why others are not. All things considered, I think God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 692

Posted 06/10/07 - 10:07 PM:	#71
I don't think many people do think that morality transcends humanity. We don't apply our moral judgements to other creatures. Genocidal ants don't get taken to war crimes tribunals. More pertinently, if we came across moral beings who ate some of their children as a form of population control, we might be revolted, but we would be very cautious before applying human moral standards. Perhaps this is fairly good evidence that morality has a human base. Perhaps you want to make some odd additional assumptions about God's anthropocentrism, or that he has a different objective rule book for each species, but be careful of the consequences of either.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1753

Posted 06/10/07 - 11:24 PM:	#72
mric wrote: I don't think many people do think that morality transcends humanity. We don't apply our moral judgements to other creatures. Genocidal ants don't get taken to war crimes tribunals. More pertinently, if we came across moral beings who ate some of their children as a form of population control, we might be revolted, but we would be very cautious before applying human moral standards. Perhaps this is fairly good evidence that morality has a human base. Perhaps you want to make some odd additional assumptions about God's anthropocentrism, or that he has a different objective rule book for each species, but be careful of the consequences of either. I'm not sure if I'd use the term transcends humanity to decribe morality. However it is definitely not restricted to human beings. That wouldn't make any sense from an evolutionary stand point. It must have evolved with other emotions and foundations, and must be hardwired into our brains. It also just be restricted to human beings alone, other animals must also share it. The oughts I don't think exist in reality, they are entirely subjective. Nothing beyond the subjective assement of a situation says how one ought to act. However it is clear that other sentient animals besides humans have simply ethical codes and moral foundations, and a sense of fair play. There was and in intensive testing and evaluation of animals in given situations that all seem to point to this being the case. In my minds the moral oughts are entirely irrelvent, the fact that they postulate moral oughts is what matters. If the aliens ate their kids under certain situations that doesn't at all mean that they do not and cannot postulate subjective moral values. If they do, then they are moral values. The ability to look at an is, and deside that it ought to be another way, is what morality and ethics are. That not everything that can be should be.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 06/13/07 - 04:33 PM:	#73
mric wrote: I don't think many people do think that morality transcends humanity. Here's an example of why it does (if morality is objective). Suppose the Nazis took over the world and brainwashed or exterminated everybody who thought the Holocaust was morally wrong. The Holocaust is still morally wrong even if every living human being thinks otherwise. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say moral values transcend humanity.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1554

Posted 06/13/07 - 06:23 PM:	#74
This gets into a strange area: A. morality is objective, (meaning it can be derived from observation and reason) B. morality is proscribed by an intelligent entity, - therefore the morality of A and the morality of B must necissarily coincide. anyone who claims to have direct access to B's morality cannot have any contradiction with A's morality. This gets into a strange area since the main 3 religious categories all accepted slavery as moral, in their particular context, and yet humanity has come to a point where slavery is immoral. Therefore, either modern humanity has made a mistake in declaring slavery immoral, or else the main 3 religious categories don't have direct access to morality and the only measure of true morality we can trust is A.
A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733

Posted 06/16/07 - 06:20 AM:	#75
swstephe wrote: This gets into a strange area: A. morality is objective, (meaning it can be derived from observation and reason) B. morality is proscribed by an intelligent entity, - therefore the morality of A and the morality of B must necissarily coincide. anyone who claims to have direct access to B's morality cannot have any contradiction with A's morality. I'm not sure "prescribed" is the right word. Objective morality is grounded in the heart of God; it’s not about God’s commands per se but about who and what God is. This gets into a strange area since the main 3 religious categories all accepted slavery as moral, in their particular context, and yet humanity has come to a point where slavery is immoral. Therefore, either modern humanity has made a mistake in declaring slavery immoral, or else the main 3 religious categories don't have direct access to morality Perhaps they don't, but God being the basis of objective morality does not at all imply that people who claim to have access to God actually do. Sure they're might have been some genuine prophets over the years, but plenty of false ones too. And let's not forget one other possibility. I remember seeing one episode of Hercules: the legendary journeys where Hercules was having a talk with this one decent Norse god. The Norse god knew a lot of things were wrong with the society he presided over but also knew that he couldn't tame savages overnight; so he mitigated what evil he could with his (seemingly crazy) laws. “Patience and compassion” he said. Suppose the God of Abraham is real and he allowed slavery when he spoke to Moses, but that might have been because he knew he couldn't wipe it out (human nature being what it is). So instead he mitigated the problem. For instance, suppose a slave-owner hit his slave with a club and knocked out her tooth. Under Mosaic Law, that slave would then have to go free. This is still not an ideal system, but it's better than nothing. Indeed, Israelite slaves were probably better off than the African American slaves of the early United States. Please keep in mind though that we're discussing philosophy of religion. A deist would believe in God but would argue that all the religions are false, and this would not contradict my argument at all. and the only measure of true morality we can trust is A. Great, but that still doesn't answer the question of how objective moral values are possible. What is the metaphysical basis for objective morality? What supremely transcendent source of authority says what ought to be? Theism provides a straightforward explanation. The best answer for a non-theist would be "reality," but that leads us into the same problem I described earlier (see post #70).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.