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 14 15 16 Last

Moral Argument for God

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/04/07 - 02:31 PM:	#126
Tisthammerw wrote: Objective ethical statements such as 'We should not torture people for fun' do indeed command our behavior with an authority that transcends human minds. The part in my italics seems to be question begging. If it isn't, would the lack of apparent authority that transcends human minds be a strong indication that statements aren't objectively ethical? The 'hunch' theory of ethics that you seem to work to does have some problems. Institutional and personal racism, for instance, were consistently promoted by societies and moral and religious authorities in the nineteenth century. This would be a fair indication that the authority for disagreeing with it did not, at that stage, command our behaviour with an authority that transcends human minds. Since you are unwilling to accept a reason to believe that racism is wrong outside either hunch or religious edict, I struggle with how such a thing could ever be promoted to the status of a 'known wrong'.

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 07/04/07 - 02:38 PM:	#127
That people favorably regard certain deeds and unfavorably regard others (though which deeds these are vary significantly among individuals and societies throughout history) - is nothing that cannot be addressed by anthropology, evolutionary psychology. Certainly there is no miracle, and nothing so astonishing, that we would need to appeal to the gods as an explanation (always an asinine and intellectually immature mode of explanation).
_____________________ "...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

Tr157an
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 07/05/07 - 11:04 PM:	#128
1.There is a universal moral law This first premise is a unproven conclusion in of itself. It is not only not proved by you, or anyone else throughout history, but also unprovable. Our knowledge reaches only as far as our senses of perception do, and being that we are a) agents in the universe we try to categorize and b)temporal agents at that, it follows that nothing we can ever perceive will be absolute, but rather relative. 2.Such a moral law would imply a Law Giver Such a moral law does not imply a law giver. Even if we established absolutely that moral laws were absolute to the universe, their existence as such does not imply that they were created. It could just as well be that the absolute moral codes are as inherent to the universe as the laws of physics. I don't see how the existence of absolute morality implies the existence of a God any more proficiently than the existence of anything else be it objectively in of itself or not. This is in my opinion the weakest application of the creationism argument; that is being that morals are something insubstantial and thoroughly agreed by most to be relative to the agent. (Off course, it could very well be that of the millions of sentient cultures that have roamed the earth, one has had it right, and the rest by being a different culture (thus in itself implying having a different set of morals) wrong. Chances are that of all the ones both of the present and of the future, mine is the one that is absolutely in line with the universe's prescribed method of acting.) 3.Thus, God exists as the Law Giver Not only has the existence of God not been proven, but neither has any of God's attributes. That morals are absolute would require an absolute being for their creation. Thus to prove that morals are absolute we need to assume the existence of God. To then take absolute morals as a premise in an argument attempting to prove existence of God begs the question. It's like inferring the existence of God from an objective aesthetic perspective. By, for example, stating that a piece of turd is absolutely beautiful. The peice of turd can be beautiful only if God exists and it created it. Then, assuming that it is absolutely beautiful (because of the other assumption: God exists) the conclusion that since this turd is absoultely beautiful God must exist is made. Edited by Tr157an on 07/05/07 - 11:19 PM

apl
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 07/08/07 - 04:49 AM:	#129
I've skimmed through most of this thread and I think some people are putting too much weight behind evolution as an explanation for morality. It may be that not even murder is instinctively immoral to humans. For all we know, truely "wild" and isolated humans (ones not exposed to any kind of civil culture or family structure), if they existed, might have a tendency to murder (without guilt) a fellow human being if they deemed such an act low-risk, low-effort and highly advantageous. I suspect that our moral instincts are mainly a result of our upbringing and culture. There is strong evidence for this: the answer to every moral question I can think of seems to depend on culture (I welcome counter-examples). Even many fundamental moral questions relating to sexuality, sexual-abuse, murder (e.g. execution, killing in the name of pride) don't seem to have a universally agreed upon answer. The extent to which you believe "I should share" is probably strongly influenced by whether you're raised in a communist or capitalist society, or even on whether your parents were left-wing or right-wing. Near the start of this thread, Mariner post a story about a man who felt quilty for faking his pain in order to get sympathy as a child. Mariner challenged us to explain it using evolution. Mariner seems to imply a false dichotomy in doing so. Evolution and God aren't the only explanations at hand (apologies to Mariner if he didn't imply this). A possible explanation is obvious in the story itself - the man was a true Christian ("a Christian soul devoted to the succour of the poor and ill"), so his guilt was possibly a consequence of his religious convictions which, of course, were a consequence of his upbringing and/or culture. (By the way, I'm not implying that only Christians, or theists in general, could feel guilt in such a situation. I'm only pointing out that feeling guilt here is consistent with Christian values. It is consistent with most atheists' values too...) Edited by apl on 07/08/07 - 04:55 AM

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4226

Posted 07/08/07 - 09:02 AM:	#130
Your explanation doesn't address the main issue -- where did those values (Christian or atheist, left- or right-wing, it doesn't matter) come from? Yes, Evolution and God are the only possible answers (or at least, they are the only answers which have been proposed). "Culture" must come from somewhere. Either it is a product of evolution, or it isn't. If it isn't a product of evolution (or, to be more encompassing, of naturalism), then it is a result of some metaphysical freedom. Consistent naturalism entails that all culture is in essence a kind of elaborate anthill, produced basically by hormones. Of course, one can refuse to take the last step and ascribe this metaphysical freedom to God. He can say "we just ARE metaphysically free, and this has nothing to do with God". This is a consistent stance. If I met someone upholding this position, the discussion would shift from metaphysics to history (traces of God are discernible within history -- actually, history as a whole bears God's fingerprint). Though this stance is consistent, it is a tough blow for those who, following Laplace, believe that they have no need of the God hypothesis. Those who embrace this stance do have that need -- whether or not they acknowledge it. But this is still far in the future, in the context of this thread. Tisthammerw and mric are still debating about objective vs. subjective morality (a debate which in my view is a dead end; these classifications are not suited to the problem). Their debate is interesting, of course (given the quality of the posters ), but my own focus of interest is the entire moral phenomenon, whether objective or subjective. A moral objectivist must agree that there is a subjective component involved in accepting the universal moral law; a moral subjectivist must agree that a moral proposition, even if subjective, is not a baseless whim (if he doesn't agree with that, he's a nihilist rather than a moral subjectivist; and of course, there are problems with nihilism too).
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 731

Posted 07/11/07 - 05:02 PM:	#131
mric wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: How on Earth does your statement logically follow? Just because the argument from morality doesn't specify what the rules of behavior are doesn't mean it implies such rules do not exist. Neither does the argument imply that there can be no reason for thinking certain behaviors are moral. If there are reasons to think certain behaviours are morally objective (reasons rather than intuitions) which do not beg the question, then those reasons are likely to lead to a non-god source for objective morality. That still doesn't mean what you said earlier was not non sequitur, but in the mean time good luck finding your non-God source for objective morality. The reason your argument breaks down is that it is not the argument it first appears. To expand your argument more fully, so that it is closer to deductively valid: Moral objectivity requires morality to have no dependence on any aspect of humanity or society Morality needs to bear relationship X to an authority to be objective (I have never understood what X is - 'being grounded in its heart' is a rather opaque metaphor for me) There are no possible non-God based reasons to believe that morality is objective (if there were, there would be a non-God based explanation for its objectivity) Morality is objective Therefore there is an authority to which morality bears relationship X In order to have relationship X to morality, the authority must also have other characteristics required to be a god. I am not sure I can agree with premises 1, 2 or 3. Neither am I. I'm not saying that 1 is true, however I do claim that morality cannot completely depend on aspects of humanity and society, otherwise it would just be a form of ethical relativism. I think 2 is more or less true (some metaphysical basis of objective morality seems necessary), because who or what says how we ought to behave? If morality has literally no source and no basis, then there is literally nothing that says Hitler was wrong when he thought he should slaughter millions of Jews. So if you're going to reject God as the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values, I think you're going to have to come up with at least one alternate explanation. So far I haven't really seen an alternate explanation that works. As for 3, remember that I'm just arguing that objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God; not that they necessarily prove God exists. However, it is true that it seems (to me) objective morality requires some type of God, even if it's only pantheism. Nonetheless, God being the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values does not by itself mean there are no other explanations. Indeed, premise 3 implies a radical practical moral relativism But why is it that objective moral values being grounded in God mean they are relative? Is it because they have a metaphysical basis? That would not make a truth relative. For instance, the metaphysical basis behind "the Earth is round" is the shape of the Earth. However, that does not make the truth relative. 6 is a clear non sequitor Is it so clear? Then please refute my reasoning behind those other inferred aspects. I don't think you've done that. "Tisthammerw" wrote: Objective ethical statements such as 'We should not torture people for fun' do indeed command our behavior with an authority that transcends human minds. The part in my italics seems to be question begging. If it isn't, would the lack of apparent authority that transcends human minds be a strong indication that statements aren't objectively ethical? Yes and no. The existence of authority is inferred from the existence of objective morality itself (by definition, objective morality carries with it some kind of authority); it is not directly detected. So the lack of such visible detection is not by itself any indication that there are no objectively ethical statements. In that sense, the answer is no. In another sense, the answer is yes. If there was literally no reason to think there was any such authority (not even an inferred reason), then it would indicate that objective moral values did not exist; because if commands of morality did not transcend human commands, there would be no objective moral values. If for instance Hitler commanded his subordinates to slaughter Jews, and there was no authority, not even objective morality, that transcends his, then who or what says Hitler's subordinates are wrong in following the dictator's orders? People should obey the commands of morality over Hitler, because the authority of morality (however it exists) transcends Hitler's commands. Institutional and personal racism, for instance, were consistently promoted by societies and moral and religious authorities in the nineteenth century. This would be a fair indication that the authority for disagreeing with it did not, at that stage, command our behaviour with an authority that transcends human minds. This doesn't make any sense. If such acts were objectively unethical at the time, then clearly there was an authority (namely, objective morality) that commanded different behavior ("people should not behave in racist ways"). Now it is true that I believe in objective morality because it is something I intuitively recognize (I don't know how else you would believe it); just as I intuitively recognize that logic and reason are reliable. But just because some people don't listen to reason at different periods doesn't mean reason didn't exist back then. Similarly, just because people fail to realize what's morally wrong (through self-deception or other causes) doesn't mean that objective morality did not exist during those periods.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 731

Posted 07/11/07 - 05:11 PM:	#132
Unisonus wrote: That people favorably regard certain deeds and unfavorably regard others (though which deeds these are vary significantly among individuals and societies throughout history) - is nothing that cannot be addressed by anthropology, evolutionary psychology. Maybe so, but none of those branches can address why certain deeds are morally wrong. Remember that there is a difference between the way things are and the way things ought to be. Anthropology and evolutionary psychology may explain why we behave in certain ways, but they cannot tell us if we should behave in such ways, or even if there is an objective "should" for our behavior. What transcendent source of authority says how people ought to be behave? This is question that neither psychology nor anthropology can answer. Mariner wrote: Your explanation doesn't address the main issue -- where did those values (Christian or atheist, left- or right-wing, it doesn't matter) come from? Yes, Evolution and God are the only possible answers (or at least, they are the only answers which have been proposed). As I explained similarly above, evolution really isn't an answer. Evolution may explain why we do certain actions, but it can't even say whether the "should" behind our actions even exists.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4226

Posted 07/11/07 - 06:33 PM:	#133
Tisthammerw wrote: As I explained similarly above, evolution really isn't an answer. Evolution may explain why we do certain actions, but it can't even say whether the "should" behind our actions even exists. I wouldn't say that evolution isn't an answer. Someone trying to explain morality through evolution would say that the 'should' is forced upon us by hormones, genes, the environment, or something like it. In effect, this would deny free will (and with it, morality); a sociopath would by just as justified as a saint. In other words, it is a very, very bad answer . But it is still an answer, and I don't see any inherent contradiction in a world as depicted by this view. The problem with the view is not that it is illogical, but that it doesn't fit the facts. We know we are moral beings, i.e., we know we are free.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 731

Posted 07/11/07 - 06:55 PM:	#134
Mariner wrote: I wouldn't say that evolution isn't an answer. Someone trying to explain morality through evolution would say that the 'should' is forced upon us by hormones, genes, the environment, or something like it. So if my genes and hormones give me the feeling that I should injure someone, does that make it morally right? Our genes, hormones, environment etc. might explain why we behave in certain ways but not whether we should behave in such ways (confer the naturalistic fallacy). Saying that morality's authority resides in a person's feelings (which are brought about by genes, hormones, etc.) would just be ethical relativism anyway.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4226

Posted 07/11/07 - 07:04 PM:	#135
Tisthammerw wrote: So if my genes and hormones give me the feeling that I should injure someone, does that make it morally right? Yes. In a naturalistic world in which there is no free will, everything that happens is 'morally right' (the expression is meaningless in such a world). Our genes, hormones, environment etc. might explain why we behave in certain ways but not whether we should behave in such ways (confer the naturalistic fallacy). This assumes that we have free will (a premise which would falsify naturalism). Saying that morality's authority resides in a person's feelings (which are brought about by genes, hormones, etc.) would just be ethical relativism anyway. More than that, it would be ethical nihilism. This is the answer which someone who believed that evolution can explain morality would have to offer. (The fact that so many people believe otherwise, including many writers of books about 'evolutionary psychology' and the like, is irrelevant; they haven't thought thoroughly about their position). It is a bad answer, as I said.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/11/07 - 11:59 PM:	#136
Mariner wrote: I wouldn't say that evolution isn't an answer. Someone trying to explain morality through evolution would say that the 'should' is forced upon us by hormones, genes, the environment, or something like it. In effect, this would deny free will (and with it, morality); a sociopath would by just as justified as a saint. In other words, it is a very, very bad answer . But it is still an answer, and I don't see any inherent contradiction in a world as depicted by this view. The problem with the view is not that it is illogical, but that it doesn't fit the facts. We know we are moral beings, i.e., we know we are free. What is bad about it? I don't see the problem (or at least no problem that isn't there with any source of morality). I don't see the connection to free will. Since morality in this situation would be a socially emergent phenomenon there is no sense in which a sociopath would be as justified as a saint (in fact the word 'sociopath' gives you a very good clue as to the benchmark of behaviour that is used - it is not the word 'theopath').

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/12/07 - 12:06 AM:	#137
How many mistakes can be made in one post? Mariner wrote: Yes. In a naturalistic world in which there is no free will... No. Free will is entirely compatible with naturalism (which is in itself not necessarily deterministic - even if it were there would be no problem with free will). everything that happens is 'morally right' (the expression is meaningless in such a world). No. Everything that is in accord with the morality that proceeds from evolution and society is morally right. Everything else is morally wrong or morally neutral. This assumes that we have free will (a premise which would falsify naturalism). See above More than that, it would be ethical nihilism. This is the answer which someone who believed that evolution can explain morality would have to offer. (The fact that so many people believe otherwise, including many writers of books about 'evolutionary psychology' and the like, is irrelevant; they haven't thought thoroughly about their position). It is a bad answer, as I said. No. Ethical nihilism would be to take morality out of the human space, and place it in an unattainable transcendental source. That would leave us with no recourse to any reasonable source of judging ethical behaviour beyond arbitrary and contentious ancient theocratic edict.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/12/07 - 12:08 AM:	#138
Tisthammerw wrote: Saying that morality's authority resides in a person's feelings (which are brought about by genes, hormones, etc.) would just be ethical relativism anyway. I thought that was your position - that morality's content and objectivity resided in your feelings (since you are unwilling to present any non-hunch reason for any moral position).

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 07/12/07 - 03:58 AM:	#139
No. Everything that is in accord with the morality that proceeds from evolution and society is morally right. Everything else is morally wrong or morally neutral. To reiterate Mariners point, evolution cannot form the basis of an ethical system. An evolutionary process includes both copies and mutations. Organisms, that mutate into something completely useless to the species, are not actually useless, as there was a chance the mutation would be useful, and so we see that some of the many organism that mutate, mutate into something useful. Being a mutation, even one that is in itself useless to the species, is just as an intrinsic part of evolution as being a copy. Or in this case, following the ethical norms is just as much a part of an evolving system of norms as not following those norms. Simply because the existence of norms can be explained is not a justification for following them. If it is evolution you are trying to take part in, then random actions would still be a contribution to evolution (indeed I don't see how anyone could be contributing more or less). Randomness is intrinsic to evolutionm however random actions form a void ethics. Edited by Boethiusman on 07/12/07 - 04:19 AM

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 07/12/07 - 04:30 AM:	#140
I would like to posit my own system for consideration, as it includes both God and universal moral law, but the latter was not given by the former. I believe in God, but my ethics is not God based. One should search for truth, as the justification of any other ethical system would rest upon whether it was true or not, and the only possible way to come to it would be to search it out. If it is indeed that these other maxims are true, then searching for truth is still more fundamental and the actual basis of the ethical system. At first many view this principle as void, but it is not. Some truths that I have found: one must continue to exist to search for truth, searching for truth is more efficient in a community of people so inclined (to one degree or another), great effort is necessary to find any truth effectively, the truth is not necessarilly obvious. The equivocation that this principle leads to random actions does not function. One is not searching for simply random truths, but truths that allow one to search for more truths. For instance, jumping off a tall building would indeed bring to me the truth of what jumping off a building is like, however, it would not bring me to as much truth as other actions may. Though this is my first principle I also believe that one should continue the existence of humanity and that this latter principle can be derived from the first. Unfortunately I can only make this inference in the minds eye at this time, I require further effort to formulate my thoughts upon this matter. Though at first it seems obvious as one is not only part of humanity and one needs to continue to exist to search for truth, and furthermore other people so inclined are also part of humanity, the difficulty arrises with the idea that we could conspire to maximize the truth we find in our own life times at the cost of the social and ecological systems humanity depends on. In my minds eye I do not see this as an effective search for truth, but I must appeal to the idea that I continue to exist after I die, and will be able to continue to search for truth and so learning how to live over an indefinite time is more porofitable than the aforementioned conspiring. To make this appeal I must posit existence is eternally ordered, and the only way to presume so is to presume there is an omnipotent eternal being that makes it so (else existence would be fundamentally unpredictable and no decisions could be made concerning, at the very least, an indefinite amount of time). So, though God is not the basis of my ethical system, my ethical system is not indepent from the existence of God. My actions might differ under one assumption or the other. But this is in the same category of dependence as humanity causing global warming, my actions may differ under one assumption or the other. I view the han (gender neutral pronoun borrowed from Finnish) that searches for truth with all of han's mind, body and soul, and who happens not to conclude God exists, is just as ethical as the han that seaches for truth with all of han's mind, body and soul and concludes that God does. However, any han that claims that they have searched in the manner I describe and have not concluded God exists, and that very same han does not review my arguments concerning the matter available by searching my posts on this very forum, I would argue has not searched for truth diligently. I would argue searching for truth is an absolute objective moral standard, but I am unsure whether this in itself implies God exists. I would also argue against such notions as the conscience. Edited by Boethiusman on 07/12/07 - 05:47 AM

apl
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 07/12/07 - 09:26 AM:	#141
Mariner wrote: Your explanation doesn't address the main issue -- where did those values (Christian or atheist, left- or right-wing, it doesn't matter) come from? Yes, Evolution and God are the only possible answers (or at least, they are the only answers which have been proposed). "Culture" must come from somewhere. Either it is a product of evolution, or it isn't. If it isn't a product of evolution (or, to be more encompassing, of naturalism), then it is a result of some metaphysical freedom. Consistent naturalism entails that all culture is in essence a kind of elaborate anthill, produced basically by hormones. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphysical freedom". I'll try answer your post anyway. Culture most certainly isn't a product of evolution - at least not the genetic evolution I assumed you were talking about. Culture has developed (evolved) far too rapidly for that. (Besides, we all know that it doesn't matter too much what your genes are - the cultural values you acquire are mainly a function of your social environment as you make the journey from childhood to adulthood.) Of course, evolution did play an important role in the development of culture and cultural values, but it was a mere catalyst – it got the ball rolling. In the beginning, through the dawn of culture, evolution gave us brains that had the capacity for language and sophisticated reasoning. Being social creatures, we bounced ideas/beliefs (or grunts!) off each other. We demonstrated tricks to one another. We learnt the ideas/tricks of others in our community, combined ideas/tricks to get better ideas/tricks and so on. As our ideas become more advanced, we started to form cultural values. Importantly, we passed our ideas and tricks onto our offspring, not through our genes, but through language and by way of example. So communication between sophisticated brains was the driving force behind the development of culture and culture-based values, not evolution, nor God. Edited by apl on 07/12/07 - 09:34 AM

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4226

Posted 07/12/07 - 09:53 AM:	#142
apl, 'Cultural values', 'ideas', 'beliefs', 'communication' -- if you define these concepts, you'll see that in a naturalist worldview, they must be the result of natural causes -- in the last analysis, they must be determined (yes, determined) by gravity, or by the electromagnetic force, or by the nuclear forces. There is no other possible cause, in this naturalistic worldview. Since these forces don't have freedom, their effects can't have freedom either. 'cultural values', 'ideas', and 'beliefs' would basically be a testimony to the randomness of the world, none of them having any claim to be true (much less 'moral'). This entails many contradictions, of course. Most evidently, they would deny the relevance of threads such as this, and of reasonings such as the one embraced by those who believed in this worldview. A word of warning -- I believe in evolution; it is our best explanation of biological features. (I'm a biologist). I know, though, that evolution cannot explain many things -- including, to get back to the subject of the thread, morality. * mric** -- You are still not focusing on the phenomenon of morality itself. You haven't defined morality, yet. I don't know how many mistakes one can make in one post, but I know that 'No' is never a refutation . (For instance, to say that ethical nihilism upholds a transcendental source of morality is quite funny . I'll wait for further comment from you, provided that you define your words in order to avoid this kind of misstep).
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/13/07 - 05:54 AM:	#143
Mariner wrote: mric -- You are still not focusing on the phenomenon of morality itself. You haven't defined morality, yet. I don't know how many mistakes one can make in one post, but I know that 'No' is never a refutation . (For instance, to say that ethical nihilism upholds a transcendental source of morality is quite funny . I'll wait for further comment from you, provided that you define your words in order to avoid this kind of misstep). No, I said that claiming a transcendental source of morality upholds ethical nihilism. Quite different. By placing the source of ethics outside the perceivable world, you lose access to any criteria that allow you to differentiate ethical from unethical behaviour. If personal revelation and scripture are possible sources of partial ethical guidelines, you have no criteria to judge different personal views or different scriptures on an ethical basis. Only God knows - and you have in practice denied human capacity to have a reason to believe our moral judgements are right in any respect. All the answers to this problem beg the question by applying certain 'obvious' moral characteristics to god - however, in this world view 'God is good' ceases to be descriptive, and becomes emptily tautologous.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/13/07 - 07:53 AM:	#144
Boethiusman wrote: To reiterate Mariners point, evolution cannot form the basis of an ethical system. An evolutionary process includes both copies and mutations. Organisms, that mutate into something completely useless to the species, are not actually useless, as there was a chance the mutation would be useful, and so we see that some of the many organism that mutate, mutate into something useful. Being a mutation, even one that is in itself useless to the species, is just as an intrinsic part of evolution as being a copy. Or in this case, following the ethical norms is just as much a part of an evolving system of norms as not following those norms. Simply because the existence of norms can be explained is not a justification for following them. If it is evolution you are trying to take part in, then random actions would still be a contribution to evolution (indeed I don't see how anyone could be contributing more or less). Randomness is intrinsic to evolutionm however random actions form a void ethics. Quite right. Evolution explains why morality exists, and what sort of things constitute morality. It does not answer the question "what makes morality good", any more than it explains "what makes beauty aesthetically pleasing" or any other grammatically well-formed but rather pointless question.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4226

Posted 07/13/07 - 08:12 AM:	#145
mric wrote: No, I said that claiming a transcendental source of morality upholds ethical nihilism. Quite different. By placing the source of ethics outside the perceivable world, you lose access to any criteria that allow you to differentiate ethical from unethical behaviour. If personal revelation and scripture are possible sources of partial ethical guidelines, you have no criteria to judge different personal views or different scriptures on an ethical basis. Only God knows - and you have in practice denied human capacity to have a reason to believe our moral judgements are right in any respect. All the answers to this problem beg the question by applying certain 'obvious' moral characteristics to god - however, in this world view 'God is good' ceases to be descriptive, and becomes emptily tautologous. I think you are raising a false dilemma here -- either morality is based on the perceivable world, or it is based on revelation and scriptures. I wasn't thinking of revelation and scriptures as the basis of moral knowledge -- to me, it is fairly obvious that they are non-candidates for this role. I think this basis is 'intuition' -- a non-sensorial access to another dimension of reality. (Spelled out, it sounds like something out of Star Wars -- but it is quite correct, in my opinion). Moral intuition is not infallible (just as vision isn't infallible), but it allows us to identify moral tenets as true or false. This intuition is present in all human beings (including psychopaths -- which are merely unable to use it due to 'brain malfunctioning', just as blind people have eyes but can't use them; please note, though, that I'm talking about psychopaths in the strict sense, not about sane people who do evil things). Quite supernatural, of course. But then again, I'm saying that natural explanations simply cannot account for the phenomenon in the first place. And it looks like you agree with this. Do you?
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 07/13/07 - 09:02 AM:	#146
Quite right. Evolution explains why morality exists, and what sort of things constitute morality. It does not answer the question "what makes morality good", any more than it explains "what makes beauty aesthetically pleasing" or any other grammatically well-formed but rather pointless question. My question was not "what makes morality good", it was what makes the idea of morality and goodness that society has developed worth conforming to. If the answer is evolution, then it is no answer, as for a system to evolve various members must depart from the norm, even at the harm of the species. Both the normal person and the person that goes around murdering and burning things have equal claim to taking part in evolution (whole species going extinct is still part of evolution; indeed the end of all life in the universe would still be an evolution). That evolution explains why morality exists, I disagree, unless by morality you mean social norms. Social norms are not by definition good, as certain definitions of morality are, and as beauty is by definition aesthetically pleasing. You will have to further elaborate your meaning. Mariner: I completely disagree with the idea of a moral compass. Many things, before I reasoned them to be harmful, I had no feelings about one way or the other. For instance, as a child I drank a lot of pop, and I did not think anything of it. Later I reasoned that this was a harmful habbit and not what I should do. Now, if pop is given to me for free and I succumb to the temptation of drinking it I feel a litle uneasy. The rationalization comes before any feelings, just as in chess one must learn the game fairly deeply before having feelings that can be trusted. All players must appeal to feeling to make the final decision, both in terms of move and time, however the feelings of a novice are usually wrong. In the case of the master, han's feelings represent countless hours of experience, and I would argue specifically countless hours of rationalizing, whereas the feelings of the beginner are simply appealed to as a source of arbitrariness. I would argue it is the same case with ethics. The "feelings" we seem to not be able to escape, seem automatic or innate, I would argue are simply conditioned responses that cannot be accepted at face value, and can infact be changed. For example, two years ago I dropped out of Christmas, at least the commercialized part. To make this decision I had to go against my social conditioning. Even though my decision was clearly the right thing to do, in both my system of ethics and the Judeo Chrstian ethics, still most people I knew, including my familly, were offended. Most people's moral compass tell them that commercialized Christmas is great. I would argue that this is due to social conditioning. Even I at first actually felt bad about dropping out of Christmas, but forced myself to do it. Now, if the existence of social conditioning, which cannot be trusted (which is not to say it is necessarilly wrong in each case), is admitted to, the only way to save the concience theory (without constructing a labrynth of compasses) is by appeal to rationalization. We must sit down and ponder what feelings are from the true moral compass and what feelings are from social conditioning. The only way to distinguish would be by appeal to some feeling independent ethical theory. But if such a theory is appealed to, why appeal to the compass to begin with. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Edited by Boethiusman on 07/13/07 - 11:44 AM

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4226

Posted 07/13/07 - 09:30 AM:	#147
Boethiusman, moral intuition as I see it is an extra-sensory way of gathering input about the world. It is not infallible. It is what enables us to say 'X is good' (goodness is not a natural property, after all). Any discussion about morality presupposes moral intuition, but without the guidance of reason, moral intuition is helpless. It becomes the puppet of external forces, as you describe. No one is born with a full-fledged moral compass. We are born with the ability of identifying good and evil (since nothing in the world could teach this to us). We learn, and build, our own moral compasses as we pass through the world. All in all, I don't think we disagree.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 07/13/07 - 09:39 AM:	#148
My view of most ethical debates is that there is one camp which views certain deeds as so wrong that having any reason behind the wrongness would somehow deminish the wrongness of it. So they make these deeds axiomatically wrong. Since this is such a large camp, this often becomes the terms of debate: are axiomatic maxims justified or not. The axiomatic maxim camp must bring in soft ideas (else the axiomatic status of the maxims is lost), or more often simply no ideas at all and just declare that the maxims are true and this or that is wrong. Those that don't accept the soft ideas or the arbitrary axiomization fall under the illusion that ethical relativism and ethical nihilism are the only alternatives. But ethical relativism and ethical nihilism are unfunctional, they cannot actually be used to decide what to do or they justify all actions, and so horrified by this possibility, the ethical axiomization camp, who also have the illusion that there are only three options, feel they must defend the axiomized maxims that much more rigorously, in an attempt to avoid the occurance of at least the most grotesque actions. At the same time, within the axiomatic maxim camp itself there isn't any real deep ethics, because the motivation for the excercise only exists with respect to the most gross evil, the system breaks down in dealing with the small and the subtle, and a soft foundation leads to a soft house: ethical axiomization is often simply an illusion covering a comfortable (or desire for a comfortable) inexamined life. Edited by Boethiusman on 07/13/07 - 10:08 AM

Boethiusman
A person

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Location: France
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 350

Last Blog: Fuego Solar Concentrator

Posted 07/13/07 - 09:49 AM:	#149
All in all, I don't think we disagree. It is possible. My view of my ethical feelings is that they are of the same nature as my feelings about chess, or how much butter I should put on my bread, or when exactly I should set my alarm. Feelings in ths category are simply a tool we have to help us deal with complex systems. If this is the interpretation then I completely agree. However, in chess there is a totally rational system I am trying to enchroach upon, my reliance on feeling is simply due to my lack of an exhaustible ability to rationalize. There is in every chess situation the best move or moves, and they are the best not with respect to any feeling I have. In ethics I am searching for truth, in every situation there is the decision or decisions which will lead me to the most truth. My ethical system is independent from my feelings. It is my attempt to actually live in accordance with my ethics in which feelings enter the picture. Edited by Boethiusman on 07/13/07 - 09:54 AM

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 677

Posted 07/13/07 - 10:35 AM:	#150
Mariner wrote: I think you are raising a false dilemma here -- either morality is based on the perceivable world, or it is based on revelation and scriptures. I wasn't thinking of revelation and scriptures as the basis of moral knowledge -- to me, it is fairly obvious that they are non-candidates for this role. I think this basis is 'intuition' -- a non-sensorial access to another dimension of reality. (Spelled out, it sounds like something out of Star Wars -- but it is quite correct, in my opinion). Moral intuition is not infallible (just as vision isn't infallible), but it allows us to identify moral tenets as true or false. This intuition is present in all human beings (including psychopaths -- which are merely unable to use it due to 'brain malfunctioning', just as blind people have eyes but can't use them; please note, though, that I'm talking about psychopaths in the strict sense, not about sane people who do evil things). Quite supernatural, of course. But then again, I'm saying that natural explanations simply cannot account for the phenomenon in the first place. And it looks like you agree with this. Do you? Why do you think that our moral intuition isn't an evolved moral intuition, but a supernatural characteristic? The analogy with sight is fine - you are not claiming that sight is unevolved are you?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.