The Existence Of Morality

[Spademan 94]

this thread was much more interesting when it was just vb and bg.

The irony here is tasty.

[Sportsmack 0]

The irony here is tasty.

Irony? what irony? I totally include my self in the category of uninteresting posts in this thread lol. So I guess if that's tasty...

[speedz99 145]

And the wife gave an asprin to the dog, and he hasn't acted like he hurts much since. Although I am hurting in the hands after golf and I keep hearing of you saying..'43...yea, that's when arthritist starts'So we are both scheduled to see a doc.

This reminded me of something funny I saw outside a church the other day. It was a big sign that read:

The greatest gift you can give a child is your time.-God

The signature is what killed me.

[Spademan 94]

Irony? what irony? I totally include my self in the category of uninteresting posts in this thread lol. So I guess if that's tasty...

You think that the thread is more interesting if it is just vb and BG posting, and you post to say that.One would think it's pretty clear.Regardless, the BG/vb exchange isn't all that interesting.It's interesting when two men make reasonable arguments against one another, both able to access their own positions and adjust accordingly.That isn't what is happening here. It is the same ol' same ol' "God made it so that if A is not B or C, and C is not D, then B is not C"... umm, your conclusion does not follow your premises. "Yes it does, even if it didn't it doesn't prove there is no God, you're so closed minded lol ,"If you resurrected Aquinas and brought him in here, things would get interesting, because Aquinas actually had a mean grasp of logic, reason and rhetoric.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's interesting when two men make reasonable arguments against one another, both able to access their own positions and adjust accordingly.

I think one of the functions of engaging in argument is to clarify your own position. Thus, the point we are at now, where I'm really not sure what his position is (and he may need to think about it too) is actually an opportunity for progress.

[Sportsmack 0]

You think that the thread is more interesting if it is just vb and BG posting, and you post to say that.

ahhhhhhhhhh...cute.dammit, did it again

[Spademan 94]

I think one of the functions of engaging in argument is to clarify your own position.

In regards to position indeed one of the the functions of argument is to clarify, find faults with, find inaccuracies and contradictions in and possibly do away with altogether if too many of the former are found.The problem is, in my experience, only people who are willing and able to base their thought construct on reason/evidence/logic are capable of this particular skill-set.Faith usually makes this impossible, since it resists and often relishes in the resistance of these things. Good luck though. Heh.

[Balloon guy 158]

OK then now I am unclear as to your position. You are saying that god imbued all living creatures with a sense of morality according to his value system? I thought you had been arguing that morality came from religion, so that a person without religion would not have a basis for morality. That's why the behavior of the chimps refutes this argument. If your position is the first, then atheists, christians, and chimps should be the same morally.

Wow, good point that I missed.Yea, if morality came from religion, than animals exibiting morality wouldn't follow, since they can't read.I think I would say that religion and morality are seperate. Morality ie the rules of right and wrong, are independant of our religious codes, writings and teachings. In fact the Bible is nothing more than a users manual, pointing us to what is already in existance, telling us what God thinks, wants and does for us.There already is a foundational right and wrong. Finding it through either thought process, reading, or experience doesn't change it's pre-existing condition.And if something is found..then the method to find it wouldn't ever be the cause, except in this case apperantly.If it never existed, how could it be formed? Especially alongside an evolutionary program that , regardless of crows desire to pretend it is directionless, is heading towards a goal of survival, food, shelter and adaptabilty, in a manner that doesn't leave much room for morality. imo

[Balloon guy 158]

This reminded me of something funny I saw outside a church the other day. It was a big sign that read:The signature is what killed me.

Yea, if God ever got royalties for things He supposedly said..he'd be ri...hey

[Balloon guy 158]

I think one of the functions of engaging in argument is to clarify your own position. Thus, the point we are at now, where I'm really not sure what his position is (and he may need to think about it too) is actually an opportunity for progress.

I think I'm back on track.I must admit it's easy to get sidetracked with random atheist dogma being thrown around like it's fact though.But when you get your worldview from the likes Of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, you gotta expect some angery misconceptions I guess.

[Spademan 94]

Haha. "Atheist dogma.""Worldview from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.""Angeeerrry misconceptions."Adorable drivel. Difficult to get back on track when you were never on in the first place.

[vbnautilus 48]

Wow, good point that I missed.Yea, if morality came from religion, than animals exibiting morality wouldn't follow, since they can't read.

Even though chimps probably wrote the bible! <knee-slapping and laughter>

I think I would say that religion and morality are seperate. Morality ie the rules of right and wrong, are independant of our religious codes, writings and teachings. In fact the Bible is nothing more than a users manual, pointing us to what is already in existance, telling us what God thinks, wants and does for us.There already is a foundational right and wrong. Finding it through either thought process, reading, or experience doesn't change it's pre-existing condition.

OK, so it seems that we agree that the actual rules of right and wrong are there to be discovered without needing the Bible.

If it never existed, how could it be formed? Especially alongside an evolutionary program that , regardless of crows desire to pretend it is directionless, is heading towards a goal of survival, food, shelter and adaptabilty, in a manner that doesn't leave much room for morality. imo

I think you somewhat misunderstand/misrepresent crow here, but if you view morality as a solution to a problem (how to live well together in large groups and maximize the well-being of all those interacting individuals) then it becomes pretty clear how it develops over time as the social conditions of various groups of organisms change. I feel like with this shift from what I originally thought you meant (that knowledge of religion was the source of morality) to what you seem to be saying now (god embedded morality into nature to be discovered) this discussion becomes one and the same as the evolution discussion -- how did complex biological or social phenomenon come to be the way they are.

[crowTrobot 2]

Especially alongside an evolutionary program that , regardless of crows desire to pretend it is directionless, is heading towards a goal of survival, food, shelter and adaptabilty

also nonsensical. survival/adaptability are parts of the mechanism, not specific directions of change such as increased moral behavior.anyway, you're implying that moral behavior can't possibly ever be a positive adaptation that leads to better chance of survival even in a species with social structures.please elaborate : )

[Balloon guy 158]

Even though chimps probably wrote the bible! <knee-slapping and laughter>

thought they just plagerized Shakesphere...

OK, so it seems that we agree that the actual rules of right and wrong are there to be discovered without needing the Bible.

I think this is true. I hold that the Bible points us towards, clarifies and gives credit to God for, but they are seperate from the Bible

I think you somewhat misunderstand/misrepresent crow here, .

crow thinks if I don't use the exact label for an action, I can be critized for the misuse of the correct scientific term. It's exactly like a person who wants to think that spelling means your point is incorrect. It gets old. Plus he has never been nailed down on what an atheist is, what evolution means or how it all started...but if you get the label wrong..he'll let you know.

but if you view morality as a solution to a problem (how to live well together in large groups and maximize the well-being of all those interacting individuals) then it becomes pretty clear how it develops over time as the social conditions of various groups of organisms change

Would that be morality? Or would that be how to use morality to the most effective state?For instance, God says don't have sex outside of marriage. The morality is to remain a virgin till marriage. The practicality of it is the prevention of diseases, unwanted children, social problems from mulitple partners etc. Society can say all day that they want to remove the stigma of unmarried sex, but they have never removed the consequenses fully. And now we have STDs that kill you on top of everything else.So the morality never changed, just the acceptance of the consequenses.

I feel like with this shift from what I originally thought you meant (that knowledge of religion was the source of morality) to what you seem to be saying now (god embedded morality into nature to be discovered) this discussion becomes one and the same as the evolution discussion -- how did complex biological or social phenomenon come to be the way they are.

Well I wouldn't say God hid morality for us to discover. He did give Moses 10 commandments, He did give the Pentateuch, and He sent his Son to give us the most clear understanding through example.So we have had direction, the Bible also says we have a conscience that tells us things are right and wrong. Religion is just the manner that has bene used for the last 6,000 years, you know, since the beginning.Now from an evolutionary angle, there would not be a morality hidden in nature to discover...right?and unless you want to make the case that there is a blueprint for what's best that evolution is stearing us towards..then the idea that evolution brings us towards a morality seems irrational to me.Best to have an example to discuss;How about the morality of a severely retarded child in society.

[Balloon guy 158]

also nonsensical. survival/adaptability are parts of the mechanism, not specific directions of change such as increased moral behavior.anyway, you're implying that moral behavior can't possibly ever be a positive adaptation that leads to better chance of survival even in a species with social structures.please elaborate : )

Caring for the elderlyFeeding the poorCaring for a severly retarded childNot polluting

[vbnautilus 48]

Would that be morality? Or would that be how to use morality to the most effective state?For instance, God says don't have sex outside of marriage. The morality is to remain a virgin till marriage. The practicality of it is the prevention of diseases, unwanted children, social problems from mulitple partners etc. Society can say all day that they want to remove the stigma of unmarried sex, but they have never removed the consequenses fully. And now we have STDs that kill you on top of everything else.So the morality never changed, just the acceptance of the consequenses.

I think the consequences of an action do change its morality. My position is that what is moral is what serves us best. So before condoms are invented its probably a good idea not to have unmarried sex, because then you have a whole bunch of kids running around with uncommitted parents. Nowadays with birth-control technology, not so much of a problem, and we have seen a shift in this value as a result. Fewer and fewer people think premarital sex is wrong at this point. The moral rules codified by religion captured a snapshot of the best ideas of what worked best at a certain time in history. Some of the things (particularly the more general stuff -- do unto others) still apply, but much doesn't (think of the food rules in the Old Testament).

Well I wouldn't say God hid morality for us to discover. He did give Moses 10 commandments, He did give the Pentateuch, and He sent his Son to give us the most clear understanding through example.So we have had direction, the Bible also says we have a conscience that tells us things are right and wrong. Religion is just the manner that has bene used for the last 6,000 years, you know, since the beginning.Now from an evolutionary angle, there would not be a morality hidden in nature to discover...right?and unless you want to make the case that there is a blueprint for what's best that evolution is stearing us towards..then the idea that evolution brings us towards a morality seems irrational to me.

By "there to be discovered" I didn't mean to imply hidden, so let's not get distracted by that. Some of "moral rules" that affect our genetic success most directly are hard-wired into our biology (e.g. don't have sex with your sister). Some of the things that are more socially-borne are instead embedded in the culture (e.g. don't eat with your left hand).

Best to have an example to discuss;How about the morality of a severely retarded child in society.

I think Christians and atheists alike can agree that is clearly immoral to allow retarded children into society.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think Christians and atheists alike can agree that is clearly immoral to allow retarded children into leadership positions in the democrat party.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think the consequences of an action do change its morality.

I know what you are saying..a guy comes to your door to kill someone inside and you lie that he's not there so that the guy leaves. But isn't that action designed to allow the bending of a 'lesser' morality. I do admit that I have not suggested this in the past, the idea of grades of morality, but I am comfortable with the notion that we can rate moral actions, esp when they come into conflict. I am okay with abortion to save the physical life of a mother, but not to save her emotional health.But this still leads to the notion that there is a greater good that must be sought, even if it means breaking a rule or two to accomplish it. Isn't that greater good a goal, a direction or foundational truth? The sanctity of life is of much greater weight than the sanctity of the speed limit.

My position is that what is moral is what serves us best. So before condoms are invented its probably a good idea not to have unmarried sex, because then you have a whole bunch of kids running around with uncommitted parents. Nowadays with birth-control technology, not so much of a problem, and we have seen a shift in this value as a result. Fewer and fewer people think premarital sex is wrong at this point. The moral rules codified by religion captured a snapshot of the best ideas of what worked best at a certain time in history. Some of the things (particularly the more general stuff -- do unto others) still apply, but much doesn't (think of the food rules in the Old Testament). By "there to be discovered" I didn't mean to imply hidden, so let's not get distracted by that. Some of "moral rules" that affect our genetic success most directly are hard-wired into our biology (e.g. don't have sex with your sister). Some of the things that are more socially-borne are instead embedded in the culture (e.g. don't eat with your left hand).

Well I think that this clearly describes the secular position,' whatever serves us best...is best.''I am lawful to do anything that doesn't harm another.'Taken to an extreme these can have disasterous effects. They are by definition imposed on another, after all, who are you to say this is what's 'best' let alone what 'best' really is.A self focus, which is really what these are, will bring a society to ruin. As it has in the past. It will also bring down a religion, as it has in the past.I think if I had to define morality in one sentance I would say;"Morality is the ability to perform actions and designs that benefit others without regard to yourself"and I think secular morality would be:"Morality is the ability to perform actions and designs that benefit myself and others, while regarding myself"

[vbnautilus 48]

Taken to an extreme these can have disasterous effects.

By definition, they cannot. If the effects of an action were disastrous, it wouldn't be moral.

They are by definition imposed on another, after all, who are you to say this is what's 'best' let alone what 'best' really is.

No, they are not imposed on us by anyone, they are facts of our situation. The fact is that if we allow killing we are all going to live lives that we consider worse. Whether or not an action serves the collective well-being is an objective fact that arises from the realities of social life. It's not externally imposed on us (in fact it seems to me that religious morality is the kind that is imposed by an external source.) The kind of morality I am describing is inherent.

A self focus, which is really what these are, will bring a society to ruin.

I, you, every human culture and ape-community agree that self-focus is not the basis of morality.

"Morality is the ability to perform actions and designs that benefit others without regard to yourself"

Sure, a rule like this benefits everyone, you included. Something like this is likely the endpoint of the search for what benefits us all the most.

and I think secular morality would be:"Morality is the ability to perform actions and designs that benefit myself, my family and my community"

That is absolutely not what I am advocating or describing.The thing is, we both have a very similar idea of what is moral, just different ideas of why those things are moral. The why is important though since it helps decide future gray area cases.

[Sportsmack 0]

I think Christians and atheists alike can agree that is clearly immoral to allow retarded children into leadership positions in the democrat party

can i make this my sig even tho it's a FYP? I'm not up on my sig etiquette.

[checkymcfold 0]

If you resurrected Aquinas and brought him in here, things would get interesting, because Aquinas actually had a mean grasp of logic, reason and rhetoric.

my aquinas is a bit rusty, but i can play his part if necessary.also, re: evolution--you have to be careful about ascribing morality to evolutionary mechanisms, or even some sort of overarching purpose, etc.. the only reason, evolution-arily speaking, why i don't want to **** my sister isn't that it's wrong or "bad" for the species, but rather that when people do that, genes get messed up, and the offspring that result, for whatever reason, don't survive that great in the world. it's not that there's a good or bad about it, just a sort of "fit" or "unfit," and i think that it's a mistake to ascribe any sort of moral compass to that.i'm also quite drunk, so that could be very poorly worded. apologies.

[Spademan 94]

my aquinas is a bit rusty, but i can play his part if necessary.

Big shoes to fill. Let's see it.You as Aquinas vs vb on the concept of soul: GO!

[Balloon guy 158]

By definition, they cannot. If the effects of an action were disastrous, it wouldn't be moral.

I fear we will always end up with this result. I can perceive an argument that would counter what you say, as you can with my statement. I don't know if we can really make a statement of generalities about the entire spectrum of morality with any reasonable definitive scale of success...I blame my shortcomings in finding a more focused approach.

No, they are not imposed on us by anyone, they are facts of our situation. The fact is that if we allow killing we are all going to live lives that we consider worse. Whether or not an action serves the collective well-being is an objective fact that arises from the realities of social life. It's not externally imposed on us (in fact it seems to me that religious morality is the kind that is imposed by an external source.) The kind of morality I am describing is inherent.

Well I would agree to a point that religion is/does impose a morality, one that often is counter to the ones our sin nature strives to attain.I also hold with you that we have an inherent morality inside of us all. Some have beaten it down farther through selfish desire, by external conditions, and by cultural necessity. But we still go back to the question of the origin.By your definition, would you say there was a point when our morality didn't exist..then it did (through natural selection?)

I, you, every human culture and ape-community agree that self-focus is not the basis of morality.

And yet at the root, we all are self focused through that id thing and the other pysch thing about super ego...Would you hold that we went from self awareness to community awareness, or versa visa?

Sure, a rule like this benefits everyone, you included. Something like this is likely the endpoint of the search for what benefits us all the most.

I do agree that the seeking of this is a worthy life spent.

That is absolutely not what I am advocating or describing.The thing is, we both have a very similar idea of what is moral, just different ideas of why those things are moral. The why is important though since it helps decide future gray area cases.

Well my why is that God said it's the correct way to live, for the best results in my life and the lives of others. And my role in life is to do the things that He asks, things that please Him. It is probably the most important change I found in myself when I became a Christian, a true desire to please God just to please God, without an expectation of rewards for the act, since I already am set up forever..no reward can increase what I already have to look forward too. And no punishment exists for me that can diminish the reward either. I am freerolling life.I also admit that I approached this change after 6 years in AA, where a daily self examination revealed myself to be a fully self focused animal, who even twisted my good deeds into seeking man's approvals, impressing the babes, or placing myself above others who weren't as charitable as myself. So I do appreciate that maybe my worldview isn't accurately 'normal'. but I haven't found many examples where I was all that different thaneveryone else, just took to drugs and alcohol more than healthy. What would your why be?

[Balloon guy 158]

my aquinas is a bit rusty, but i can play his part if necessary.also, re: evolution--you have to be careful about ascribing morality to evolutionary mechanisms, or even some sort of overarching purpose, etc.. the only reason, evolution-arily speaking, why i don't want to **** my sister isn't that it's wrong or "bad" for the species, but rather that when people do that, genes get messed up, and the offspring that result, for whatever reason, don't survive that great in the world. it's not that there's a good or bad about it, just a sort of "fit" or "unfit," and i think that it's a mistake to ascribe any sort of moral compass to that.i'm also quite drunk, so that could be very poorly worded. apologies.

Then there are the Hawaiian and English monarchies who inbred as a rule...btw Has anybody ever explored the number of people needed to reproduce without ever needing to inbreed?The Christian perspective is that Adam and Eve were mechanically flawless, so their genes would allow inbreeding for a while before disasterous results...a devolution if you will.

[vbnautilus 48]

Would you hold that we went from self awareness to community awareness, or versa visa?

This is a very interesting question to me. My speculation is that we went from individual-mindedness, to thinking of ourselves as part of small groups (families/tribes), and now we are in the process of fighting that tribal group mind as we expand to a more global mind. But this is one of the things I am currently investigating -- doing an experiment to try and understand what brain systems are involved in the way we empathize more with members of our small social group.... do we naturally empathize with everyone but learn to turn it off for those we hate? Or do we have to learn to empathize with those close to us? I think its the former, but we'll see what the data say.

What would your why be?

I think it's best for all of us if we behave more selflessly. The only way that individual selfishness - the pursuit of pleasure above all else, greed, etc. -- makes sense is if you envision yourself as totally separate from everything else, which is a mental illusion. If you recognize that you are part and parcel of everything and everyone else, you recognize that you have to treat them well - they are in a very real sense part of you. Thinking of my "self" as being totally contained within the boundaries of my physical body is a very narrow view of what I am. Everything is interconnected.