Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Morals are objective in the sense that they depend on our nature, which is an objective fact. To cite an obvious example, most all cultures have a moral rule of some kind about adultery. The reason for that is that more or less permanent pair bonding is part of our nature, because our offspring require the long term nurture of both parents. That's an objective fact and so moral precepts encouraging permanence of that bonding are in that sense objective. That is the only sense in which moral precepts are objective whether they are made up by God or not because if God created moral rules for us He would derive them from our nature.

But just like people say morals are evolutionary because it is important for groups or societies to cooperate to help survival using pairing is the same for helping humans survive. The question still remains why we ought to behave in a way that will benefit the survival of our species in the first place. In other words, where does our moral obligation to do what is good for humans come from? That has to be outside humans for it to be objective.

And besides why humans above other species. That's regarded as speciesism by putting humans above all else. Humans are wiping out other species all over the planet for the sake of their own survival so that speaks more about evolution being a mechanistic process and not a moral one. If it was then it would seem that wiping out 1000's of species for the benefit of humans is quite immoral.

There is nothing objective here but rather subjective views about evolutionary behaviors that were evolved based on biology. Evolution is descriptive but not proscriptive. All evolution can do is make you believe something is right or wrong, but it cannot make something right or wrong in the objective moral sense.

Also as mentioned evolution is about changing with environments. What may be seen as good with pair-bonding because offspring need permanence in nurturing may change as environments change. This is happening now with modern society with the makeup of families and child-rearing. There are more single parents, women having children artificially wanting to raise them on their own because they believe it is better. According to evolution, this is just an adaptation to the changing environment so who says that this is objectively wrong morally.

But you are still asserting the false dichotomy that moral rules are either made by God or are the product of nothing but individual opinion. Morality is a social phenomenon, not the whim of individuals.

So are you saying that individuals don't get a say in what is right and wrong? What about in a small group where there are different views. What about individuals who disagree with society about certain morals? The same-sex marriage vote was about 60% to 40% and there are many people who disagree with abortion even though it's legal. Many disagreed with the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. Who says society is objectively right according to a world atheistic view of morality.

The point is an atheistic world view posits that there is no ultimate right and wrong and that morality is subjective. If this is the case then no one can really claim another is wrong. That Hitler was wrong ultimately. But if there are objective morals than there has to be a moral lawgiver outside human subjectivity.

Objective morals need to have a measuring system that is not subject to humans and evolution or any material method but is transcendent which is a truth in itself whether there are objective morals or not. So, therefore, the only way atheists can deal with this is to say there are no objective morals. But then that leaves a bigger problem that no one can ever say that another is ultimately wrong and undermines any attempt to have united moral rules and obligations.

 

[HitchSlap]

But just like people say morals are evolutionary because it is important for groups or societies to cooperate to help survival using pairing is the same for helping humans survive. The question still remains why we ought to behave in a way that will benefit the survival of our species in the first place. In other words, where does our moral obligation to do what is good for humans come from? That has to be outside humans for it to be objective.

And besides why humans above other species. That's regarded as speciesism by putting humans above all else. Humans are wiping out other species all over the planet for the sake of their own survival so that speaks more about evolution being a mechanistic process and not a moral one. If it was then it would seem that wiping out 1000's of species for the benefit of humans is quite immoral.

There is nothing objective here but rather subjective views about evolutionary behaviors that were evolved based on biology. Evolution is descriptive but not proscriptive. All evolution can do is make you believe something is right or wrong, but it cannot make something right or wrong in the objective moral sense.

Also as mentioned evolution is about changing with environments. What may be seen as good with pair-bonding because offspring need permanence in nurturing may change as environments change. This is happening now with modern society with the makeup of families and child-rearing. There are more single parents, women having children artificially wanting to raise them on their own because they believe it is better. According to evolution, this is just an adaptation to the changing environment so who says that this is objectively wrong morally.

So are you saying that individuals don't get a say in what is right and wrong? What about in a small group where there are different views. What about individuals who disagree with society about certain morals? The same-sex marriage vote was about 60% to 40% and there are many people who disagree with abortion even though it's legal. Many disagreed with the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. Who says society is objectively right according to a world atheistic view of morality.

The point is an atheistic world view posits that there is no ultimate right and wrong and that morality is subjective. If this is the case then no one can really claim another is wrong. That Hitler was wrong ultimately. But if there are objective morals than there has to be a moral lawgiver outside human subjectivity.

Objective morals need to have a measuring system that is not subject to humans and evolution or any material method but is transcendent which is a truth in itself whether there are objective morals or not. So, therefore, the only way atheists can deal with this is to say there are no objective morals. But then that leaves a bigger problem that no one can ever say that another is ultimately wrong and undermines any attempt to install moral rules and obligations.

Why are Christians so hung up on ‘lawgivers’? Seems to me it’s an excuse to force your religious views onto others. How about we don’t force anyone to do something without their consent. The basis of morality is autonomy.

 

[stevevw]

It has to be done subjectively.

OK but that says nothing about what is ultimately right and wrong. That means that others who may have the view that it is OK to do evil things are not really wrong but rather just different.

Yeah they can! There is nothing preventing people from debating right vs wrong; it happens all the time.

Debate is one thing but arriving at a moral truth is another. Otherwise, it is just a never-ending debate that never gets completely resolved. When it does it will only be temporary because it will be undermined by different views. Even if groups come to the same conclusion this is still not an indication of what is good as groups/nations have been wrong many times.

Moral truths that are never agreed upon. If morality were objective, solving moral problems would be as simple as solving mathematical equations.

Moral truths are agreed upon. What people say about their views of morality is different from how they behave. Everyone behaves in the same way when their partner or child is killed by another or have something taken from them even when they claim that it is OK to kill and steal. There are certain moral truths that all humans know no matter what race or religion. These moral truths are beyond human subjective views and are always true.

 

[stevevw]

Why are Christians so hung up on ‘lawgivers’? Seems to me it’s an excuse to force your religious views onto others. How about we don’t force anyone to do something without their consent. The basis of morality is autonomy.

God doesn't force, anyone, to believe in him or to follow his laws. I am just putting it out there that there are moral truths that we all can know. Some may believe these are from God and others may think they are from nature. But the fact is they are out there because we behave like they are out there.

But I find the objection to Gods or religious law ironic in that secular society has more laws, rules, and regulations that actually take away our autonomy than any other thing. People think they live in the land of the free and democratic but modern secular society is actually designed to enslave people. Ironically again, believe it or not Jesus said that by following his truth we could be truly free.

 

[HitchSlap]

God doesn't force, anyone, to believe in him or to follow his laws. I am just putting it out there that there are moral truths that we all can know. Some may believe these are from God and others may think they are from nature. But the fact is they are out there because we behave like they are out there.

But I find the objection to Gods or religious law ironic in that secular society has more laws, rules, and regulations that actually take away our autonomy than any other thing. People think they live in the land of the free and democratic but modern secular society is actually designed to enslave people. Ironically again, believe it or not Jesus said that by following his truth we could be truly free.

Are you truly free?

 

[stevevw]

Doesn't mean they're right.

Well, I think actions speak louder than words. Someone can say that morals are relative but as soon as wrong is done to them they object and take an objective position on morality. Happens all the time. If someone is unaffected and OK with someone abusing their kid then IMO and most others there is something wrong with that person. Most people will react like it is wrong. The fact that people say that evil is in the world they are acting like there are objective morals in the world as they say it as they mean it, that they are determining what is evil for all the world not just them. People intuitively know what is good and evil.

 

[stevevw]

Are you truly free?

Ah free in what sense. It depends on what a person regards as important in life I guess. I am free as far as what this world wants to dictate and place on me even when it tries or does place restrictions. That's because I believe there is a greater purpose in life beyond what this world offers. But there was a time that I let all that get me down and bound up. Money is one of those binders and probably the biggest one as far as this world is concerned.

 

[HitchSlap]

So, was Jesus mistaken when he claimed knowing the truth would make you free?

 

[Speedwell]

Why are Christians so hung up on ‘lawgivers’? Seems to me it’s an excuse to force your religious views onto others. How about we don’t force anyone to do something without their consent. The basis of morality is autonomy.

That's the difficulty. Secular morality and secular moral philosophy do not provide the detailed regulation of sexual behavior that some Christians have a perverse interest in.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

Well your on the right track that morality from God is objective where morality from man is subjective to the individual. Other than that your most likely not going to convince an atheist that God exists, only God and the atheist can do that. If he’s not seeking or knocking he won’t find and the door won’t be opened no matter what you say. There is ample evidence of God’s existence but they typically refuse to contemplate the possibility of it. I find it strange that they often entertain the idea of evolution and the Big Bang theory when these are still only unproven theories with loads of unanswered questions and insufficient evidence to confirm their validity. The thing about atheists is they reject the idea of God based on insufficient evidence to support His existence while accepting other unconfirmed theories that also have insufficient evidence to confirm them as well.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well your on the right track that morality from God is objective where morality from man is subjective to the individual. Other than that your most likely not going to convince an atheist that God exists, only God and the atheist can do that. If he’s not seeking or knocking he won’t find and the door won’t be opened no matter what you say. There is ample evidence of God’s existence but they typically refuse to contemplate the possibility of it. I find it strange that they often entertain the idea of evolution and the Big Bang theory when these are still only unproven theories with loads of unanswered questions and insufficient evidence to confirm their validity. The thing about atheists is they reject the idea of God based on insufficient evidence to support His existence while accepting other unconfirmed theories that also have insufficient evidence to confirm them as well.

I can’t decide what you know least, BB, ToE, atheism, or god.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's the difficulty. Secular morality and secular moral philosophy do not provide the detailed regulation of sexual behavior that some Christians have a perverse interest in.

Cue George Carlin.

 

[Ken-1122]

Some form of loyalty to a permanent sexual partner.

Some form of loyalty? Objective is not vague like that; objective is specific and is consistent with everybody. Your argument fails.

If you are not already aware that human offspring require a longer period of nurture than those of other creatures then I am not going to try to convince you of it in a chatroom.

I am aware of the nurturing humans require; my point is if this were an objective issue, you would be able to demonstrate your claim as true.

 

[Freodin]

But if morals come from the subjective views of humans then there is no way to determine right or wrong objectively. Therefore no one can say that another persons ideas of good and evil are wrong. Yet humans act like there are moral truths all the time.

Don't you see the mistake you are making?
You are saying that if morals are not objectively right or wrong, then they are also not subjectively right or wrong.
But there is no reason to make that assumption.

Both approaches have their problems: if morals are subjective... then how do we implement them? That is indeed a valid question, and a question that has been debated for a long time, with various potential responses.

But there is a problem with "objective morals" that is much more glaring: if morals are objective... how would we know?
There is no, absolutely no way to establish a "moral" without a human making judgements. Even if you find some of the best accepted "moral" in the world... you have no means to establish if they are "objective".
You can tell those who disagree that they are mentally ill, depraved, sociopaths... but that still doesn't establish the objectivity of this "moral". It just states that you and a lot of others disagree.
You can claim that "God" creates objective morals... but you have no way to show that. Again, all you have is your claim, and the further claim that everyone who disagrees is wrong.

You cannot find these "objective morals". All you have are subjective morals of your own, and a particular method of how to implement them: by claiming that they are objective.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I can’t decide what you know least, BB, ToE, atheism, or god.

What’s the point of this post?

 

[Ken-1122]

OK but that says nothing about what is ultimately right and wrong. That means that others who may have the view that it is OK to do evil things are not really wrong but rather just different.

Not sure of the difference between right/wrong vs Ultimately right/wrong, but a quick look in the real world and you will see there have always been people with the view that it is OK to do evil and you claiming them as objectively wrong no more matters than me calling them subjectively wrong.

Debate is one thing but arriving at a moral truth is another. Otherwise, it is just a never-ending debate that never gets completely resolved.

Yes! Mankind has never arrived at a moral truth; it has and will always be a never-ending debate that never gets completely resolved.

Moral truths are agreed upon. What people say about their views of morality is different from how they behave.

We are talking about morality, not behavior; one usually has little to do with the other.

Everyone behaves in the same way when their partner or child is killed by another or have something taken from them even when they claim that it is OK to kill and steal. There are certain moral truths that all humans know no matter what race or religion. These moral truths are beyond human subjective views and are always true.

People often behave differently when it comes to personal issues than what they believe to be right or wrong. The parents of a murderer will not want their child sent to the electric chair as long as he promises to never do it again; but somebody else’s child murders, they will flip the switch themselves.

 

[HitchSlap]

What’s the point of this post?

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

 

[Freodin]

OK but that says nothing about what is ultimately right and wrong. That means that others who may have the view that it is OK to do evil things are not really wrong but rather just different.

See, you cannot even talk about this topic without making a moral judgement of your own.
"...others who may have the view that it is OK to do evil things..."
No. Others may have views that it is OK to do things that you consider evil.
Are they wrong? Perhaps it is you who is wrong?
Which method do you use to find out? Objectively. Not based on someone elses opinion.

You have no method. There is no method. There are only ways to implement subjective morals.

Debate is one thing but arriving at a moral truth is another. Otherwise, it is just a never-ending debate that never gets completely resolved. When it does it will only be temporary because it will be undermined by different views. Even if groups come to the same conclusion this is still not an indication of what is good as groups/nations have been wrong many times.

Correct. That's the way it is. Why do you think this is a support for your claims?

Moral truths are agreed upon.

Again: correct. Morals are moral because they are agreed on. Not the other way around. People don't agree on morals because they are moral.

Morals are not facts. Morals are rules. And rules work because people agree on them, implement them and act on people who break these rules.

What people say about their views of morality is different from how they behave. Everyone behaves in the same way when their partner or child is killed by another or have something taken from them even when they claim that it is OK to kill and steal.

And again, this is mostly correct. People's views of morality are extremely complex, and do not always follow this simplistic "black and white" scheme that "objective morals" try to imply.
Even people who are very upset when it is them who are affected will find all kinds of excuses why the same behaviour is "moral" when it happens to someone else... someone who in some way "deserves" it.

So instead of "killing someone is wrong"... this "objective" moral always turns out to be "killing somemeone is wrong.... except..."

Well... perhaps these morals are "objective". But in that case, they are so complicated and situational that they are virtually indistinguishable from subjective morals.

There are certain moral truths that all humans know no matter what race or religion. These moral truths are beyond human subjective views and are always true.

Are there? Which would that be? It's definitly not about killing and stealing.

 

[stevevw]

So, was Jesus mistaken when he claimed knowing the truth would make you free?

The truth Jesus was talking about wasn't just about this world but spiritual freedom from the slavery of sin. Without Jesus, people are enslaved in sin and therefore to the laws of God. Forever being condemned as a sinner who cannot keep God's laws. But accepting God's truth in Jesus a person is set free from the power sin and death have over them by becoming born again. (Romans 6:22; 8:1–2).

So I guess Christians don't seek to please and follow the idea of this world of what is good and right but God's will. Though Christians are conforming to God's laws they want to because it is the truth which makes them free as opposed to being enslaved to the ways of this world through sin.

 

[Speedwell]

Some form of loyalty? Objective is not vague like that; objective is specific and is consistent with everybody. Your argument fails.

Objective means that which does not cease to exist when you stop thinking about it. It need not be perceived the same way by everyone.

I am aware of the nurturing humans require; my point is if this were an objective issue, you would be able to demonstrate your claim as true.

If you are aware of it, why do you need it demonstrated? It should be enough for this kind of casual discussion that since we both agree that it exists, we can also agree that it is demonstrable.