Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

I told you at the beginning of this it had nothing to do with this thread--you wanted reasons of WLC's bad arguments anyway. I gave them, and now you say this isn't the place to discuss it. Wow.

Science can point to the Big Bang. But, there is no reason to think that was the beginning of all matter and energy. The present incarnation of our universe is all we can observe; we don't know if a previous universe collapsed and expanded before the Big Bang. There may have been innumerable cycles of matter and energy forming and collapsing. God is not the only other option. That fact makes the Kalam pointless.

Fair enough I can see that this will go off on another tangent.

 

[Speedwell]

Fair enough I can see that this will go off on another tangent.

Not necessarily. The issue came up merely as a typical example of a weakness in Craig's argumentation style, which applies to his moral arguments as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do not believe there is any way to objectively say that a particular moral position is correct and a different moral position is incorrect.

Technically, I'd have to say that we can't even objectively say that a person holds the moral position they claim to hold, since they could be doing everything they can to fake it, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion. Asa far as I am concerned, if a person claims to hold a moral position and acts in accordance with that moral position, I'd be happy to accept it.

You'd be 'happy' to accept "it"? That's kind of scary for me to hear you say this .......... !

 

[Moral Orel]

Not necessarily. The issue came up merely as a typical example of Craig's argumentation style, which applies to his moral arguments as well.

Not that I would ever defend one of WLC's arguments, but it's sort of poisoning the well to attack his other arguments in order to debunk his moral arguments. If his moral arguments fall into the same pitfalls, and they do, then that can be demonstrated instead of going off on tangents.

 

[Moral Orel]

You'd be 'happy' to accept "it"? That's kind of scary for me to hear you say this .......... !

I sense a Three's Company style misunderstanding coming on... She isn't happy to accept a different moral position for herself, she's happy to accept that person's claim about what their moral position is.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Simple answer: unless moral absolutes exist, morality comes from one's own imagination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I sense a Three's Company style misunderstanding coming on... She isn't happy to accept a different moral position for herself, she's happy to accept that person's claim about what their moral position is.

Yeah, I can't imagine holding 'my own' moral position in such a way, or having a moral position that permits, for my being "happy" about another person's supposed moral claims about their own potentially contradicting moral position. It's sounds like a form of lunacy to me.

 

[Speedwell]

Not that I would ever defend one of WLC's arguments, but it's sort of poisoning the well to attack his other arguments in order to debunk his moral arguments. If his moral arguments fall into the same pitfalls, and they do, then that can be demonstrated instead of going off on tangents.

You're right, and I don't remember why the subject was originally brought up, but I refer to it only as an example of straw-manning that might be more accessible to Steve, since he apparently doesn't see it going on in Craig's moral arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

Simple answer: unless moral absolutes exist, morality comes from one's own imagination.

Not just one's own. Morality is a social phenomenon, not an individual creation.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, I can't imagine holding 'my own' moral position in such a way, or having a moral position that permits, for my being "happy" about another person's supposed moral claims about their own potentially contradicting moral position. It's sounds like a form of lunacy to me.

The phrase "I'd be happy to" doesn't literally mean she feels happiness to find out someone holds a moral position...

 

[Moral Orel]

Not just one's own. Morality is a social phenomenon, not an individual creation.

Ethics is a social phenomenon, morality is an individual creation that can be (but not necessarily) influenced by society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The phrase "I'd be happy to" doesn't literally mean she feels happiness to find out someone holds a moral position...

....ok. What 'does' it mean in this instance?

 

[Moral Orel]

....ok. What 'does' it mean in this instance?

"I believe them without seeing reason to disbelieve them".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"I believe them without seeing reason to disbelieve them".

And what does THAT mean?

 

[Moral Orel]

And what "THAT" mean?

???

 

[2PhiloVoid]

???

I edited it. Read it again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

???

Is she blind? Is she just so loose in her own moral position that Tolerance runs headlong over a moral cliff?

 

[Speedwell]

Ethics is a social phenomenon, morality is an individual creation that can be (but not necessarily) influenced by society.

I understand the distinction (although I don't agree with the "not necessarily" part of your post) but I'm not sure that Steve does.

 

[Moral Orel]

I edited it. Read it again.

And what does THAT mean?

Still ??? I can't parse it down any simpler.

Is she blind? Is she just so loose in her own moral position that Tolerance runs headlong over a moral cliff?

She didn't say anything about tolerating it. If a skinhead tells me that he thinks all Jews should be exterminated, I will believe that is his moral position because I don't see any reason to disbelieve that's what it is, and then I'll beat the tar out of him.

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand the distinction (although I don't agree with the "not necessarily" part of your post) but I'm not sure that Steve does.

The "not necessarily" is there because morals can develop in isolation. Almost no one finds themselves in complete isolation from other people, but for the rare folk that do, it doesn't mean morality ceases to exist for them. While the concept of morals developing in isolation has almost no real application, the fact that it can happen is important to consider, as I've found out in this thread, because some folk think that morals are only morals if they're about interaction between people.