Where does morality come from?

[Ken-1122]

Nope. At this point, I can justify my claim by quoting you, buddy. I don't need to argue for it anymore.

Your claims are only justified to your satisfaction not mine. You can think whatever you want of me; I don't know you enough to care.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You know there's a lot more to science that writing grant proposals, right?

Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?

And a grant proposal isn't, "Give me some money, and I'll go and find evidence to support this particular conclusion for you."

Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.

 

[Belk]

Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?
Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.

This would seem a fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Kylie]

Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?

They do NOT have the same kind of faith that you have in God. Let's make that abundantly clear right now.

Secondly, what do you think they have faith in? Let's say a scientist is writing a grant proposal to study the effects of Drug A on Disease B. What faith do you think they have?

Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.

They are saying that they want to investigate a particular thing.

Honestly, you really don't seem to understand how science works.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This would seem a fallacy of equivocation.

More like unwilling to admit an obvious defeat.

Maybe the problem is that a christian has no aversion to the word faith and having experienced this, knows that faith is the same and only the objects change. Those who have an aversion to christ don’t want to touch faith of any kind with a ten foot pole. So all faith in anything or anyone is removed from their vocabulary. They don’t understand what the word means but think the object of faith defines what faith is. It doesn’t.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They do NOT have the same kind of faith that you have in God. Let's make that abundantly clear right now.

Strawman!!! Never said it was. Can you bring yourself to admit scientists have faith??

Secondly, what do you think they have faith in? Let's say a scientist is writing a grant proposal to study the effects of Drug A on Disease B. What faith do you think they have?

First admit straight out that scientists have faith at all. If you won’t bring yourself to admit that they have any faith at all, it’s useless to talk about what kind.

They are saying that they want to investigate a particular thing.

Honestly, you really don't seem to understand how science works.

You accuse me of saying all of what scientists do in one sentence is wrong and when I ask for a better one sentence description, you ad hominem me.

I seem to understand science at its heart better than others. I’m not afraid of any words. You are afraid of at least one word....faith.

 

[Moral Orel]

More like unwilling to admit an obvious defeat.

Maybe the problem is that a christian has no aversion to the word faith and having experienced this, knows that faith is the same and only the objects change. Those who have an aversion to christ don’t want to touch faith of any kind with a ten foot pole. So all faith in anything or anyone is removed from their vocabulary. They don’t understand what the word means but think the object of faith defines what faith is. It doesn’t.

The word "faith" carries a lot of baggage with it. People don't want to deal with all that baggage where it isn't applicable, so why not use a different word? Sort of like how a lot of Christians hate it when an atheist refers to miracles as "magic".

I mean I'll go ahead and admit that basically everything everyone believes can't be proven with 100% certainty. So everyone's belief about basically everything is "faith". Now the term is watered down to near meaninglessness, isn't it? So what is it that you're trying to argue because people don't have 100% certainty? I'd really like to see this multi-user discussion get to a point.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The word "faith" carries a lot of baggage with it. People don't want to deal with all that baggage where it isn't applicable, so why not use a different word?

As I said, unbelievers have an aversion to that word. But in deference to your negative emotional connection, what word would you suggest? I’m open.

of like how a lot of Christians hate it when an atheist refers to miracles as "magic".

Touché although we think it’s not accurate. Faith has many objects and is a commonly used word. “Have a little faith, bro” is common.

I mean I'll go ahead and admit that basically everything everyone believes can't be proven with 100% certainty. So everyone's belief about basically everything is "faith". Now the term is watered down to near meaninglessness, isn't it? So what is it that you're trying to argue because people don't have 100% certainty? I'd really like to see this multi-user discussion get to a point.

When there is 100% certainty there is no faith needed. I can believe it will rain Monday but come Monday and it’s raining I don’t say “I believe it’s raining” anymore. The requirement of 100% certainty is a fallacy.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I said, unbelievers have an aversion to that word. But in deference to your negative emotional connection, what word would you suggest? I’m open.

I dunno because I don't know what you're trying to get at by pointing it out.

When there is 100% certainty there is no faith needed. I can believe it will rain Monday but come Monday and it’s raining I don’t say “I believe it’s raining” anymore.

There is no 100% certainty for basically everything. Maybe it isn't raining, maybe you're dreaming.

The requirement of 100% certainty is a fallacy.

It's a fallacy? Why isn't "belief without absolute proof" an acceptable definition for "faith"?

 

[Kylie]

Strawman!!! Never said it was. Can you bring yourself to admit scientists have faith??

In what way was I misrepresenting you? You used an argument that I've only ever seen used to disparage science. I was getting in before that could happen.

First admit straight out that scientists have faith at all. If you won’t bring yourself to admit that they have any faith at all, it’s useless to talk about what kind.

Sounds like you just want me to agree that you're right so you can show that you're right. If you want to say that they have faith, you should at least be able to DESCRIBE the way they have faith. Seems like you are just trying to set things up so you can say the faith they have is just like religious faith.

You accuse me of saying all of what scientists do in one sentence is wrong and when I ask for a better one sentence description, you ad hominem me.

That wasn't an ad hominem.

Honestly, it seems that you are getting very upset that I'm not playing by your rulebook. And yet all I've done is make the statement that scientists do not use the same kind of faith that you have in God, and I've asked you a question to clarify what you meant by faith. I've also pointed out that you seem to think the biggest part of science is when the scientist tries to get grants.

Now, it seems to me that your plan is to show that scientists are not reliable because they are motivated to produce the results that they are expected to get. If a scientist tries to get a grant to see how Medicine A cures Disease B, then they will cherry pick their data to show that result. I've seen people try to use that argument before, and you are, in my opinion, setting this topic up for the same argument. I'm not going to fall for it.

Oh, and you said that I used an ad hominem argument against you. All I did was point out that you don't understand how science works, and if you think that 1: the biggest and most influential part of science is the grant application process and 2: scientist routinely cherry pick their data to fit the result they want to get, then you really don't understand science.

I seem to understand science at its heart better than others. I’m not afraid of any words. You are afraid of at least one word....faith.

I am not afraid of faith.

You, however, seem to think everything is faith, and that's deeply concerning. If you can't see that there are other ways to reach conclusions about how the world works, then you really don't understand science at all, despite your claims that you do.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In what way was I misrepresenting you?

I said scientists have faith and asked you to admit it. You said they have a different kind of faith which I never addressed at all. That is not misrepresenting mebut answering something I didn’t say. There aren’t kinds of faith in any case except blind faith and faith based on evidence.

You used an argument that I've only ever seen used to disparage science. I was getting in before that could happen.

Please stick to what was actually said.

Sounds like you just want me to agree that you're right so you can show that you're right. If you want to say that they have faith, you should at least be able to DESCRIBE the way they have faith. Seems like you are just trying to set things up so you can say the faith they have is just like religious faith.

Not at all. But if you cannot see that scientists actually believe in their pursuits because the word is repugnant, how can we discuss it? Admit they have faith and we can discuss the details.

That wasn't an ad hominem.

Certainly was. Was against me as a person, not my argument.

Honestly, it seems that you are getting very upset that I'm not playing by your rulebook.

I’m not in the least upset. I actually enjoy talking to you because you are educated and pretty intelligent.

And yet all I've done is make the statement that scientists do not use the same kind of faith that you have in God, and I've asked you a question to clarify what you meant by faith. I've also pointed out that you seem to think the biggest part of science is when the scientist tries to get grants.

I never said that’s the biggest part. I never said their faith is faith in God and laid out what their faith is in, are you getting upset?

Now, it seems to me that your plan is to show that scientists are not reliable because they are motivated to produce the results that they are expected to get. If a scientist tries to get a grant to see how Medicine A cures Disease B, then they will cherry pick their data to show that result. I've seen people try to use that argument before, and you are, in my opinion, setting this topic up for the same argument. I'm not going to fall for it.

I’m afraid I laughed out loud at that one or ar least chuckled. Not true.

Oh, and you said that I used an ad hominem argument against you. All I did was point out that you don't understand how science works, and if you think that 1: the biggest and most influential part of science is the grant application process and 2: scientist routinely cherry pick their data to fit the result they want to get, then you really don't understand science.

I said NONE of the above. We’ve not even begun to discuss my knowledge of science. I only said scientists BELIEVE what they are applying to do will further knowledge. That’s it. Do you disagree with that???

I am not afraid of faith.

You, however, seem to think everything is faith, and that's deeply concerning.

Where did I say that?

If you can't see that there are other ways to reach conclusions about how the world works, then you really don't understand science at all, despite your claims that you do.

We haven’t begun to discuss what I think on reaching conclusions in science. Not a word.

 

[Kylie]

I said scientists have faith and asked you to admit it. You said they have a different kind of faith which I never addressed at all. That is not misrepresenting mebut answering something I didn’t say. There aren’t kinds of faith in any case except blind faith and faith based on evidence.

Okay then, tell em this: What do scientists have faith in?

Please stick to what was actually said.

Okay, but you gotta understand, when I see a Christian apparently setting something up that I've seen plenty of Christians do before, you can't blame me for it, right?

Not at all. But if you cannot see that scientists actually believe in their pursuits because the word is repugnant, how can we discuss it? Admit they have faith and we can discuss the details.

Again, you need to specify: Faith in what?

Certainly was. Was against me as a person, not my argument. I’m not in the least upset. I actually enjoy talking to you because you are educated and pretty intelligent.

No, an ad hominem is when you say something like, "Joe Bloggs doesn't understand science. How could he when he can't even keep his house tidy?"

Ethics Explainer: What is the Ad Hominem Fallacy? - The Ethics Centre

Since I was not attacking you, but pointing out that your claims about science do not seem to match what science actually is, it's not an ad hominem.

If someone claimed to be a pilot, but didn't know what yaw, pitch and roll were, I'd call them out on it too. And that wouldn't be an ad hominem.

I never said that’s the biggest part. I never said their faith is faith in God and laid out what their faith is in, are you getting upset?

Sorry, I don't recall when you said what scientists have faith in.

I’m afraid I laughed out loud at that one or ar least chuckled. Not true.

I shall hold you to that.

I said NONE of the above. We’ve not even begun to discuss my knowledge of science. I only said scientists BELIEVE what they are applying to do will further knowledge. That’s it. Do you disagree with that???

Ah, so THAT'S what you claim they have faith in?

I wouldn't say it is FAITH, since that word brings with it connotations of religious faith.

How about we say they expect to find information about the thing they are studying. I'd agree to that.

Where did I say that?

You didn't SAY it, but that's certainly the impression I've got from your posts.

Anyway, as I've said, I will agree that when a scientist writes a grant proposal, they do so with the expectation that study in that particular area will result in information and knowledge being found that wasn't known before. Is that good enough? They expect to learn things that weren't known before.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I dunno because I don't know what you're trying to get at by pointing it out.

Really? One poster point blank refuses to admit scientists BELIEVE in the work they are doing cause of the word believe. She has an aversion to the word. That’s all Im getting at.

There is no 100% certainty for basically everything.

Nonsense. I’m 100 % certain the sun is shining. I can name a hundred things I’m 100 % certain of.

Maybe it isn't raining, maybe you're dreaming.

Sorry but I work in science, not metaphysics.

It's a fallacy? Why isn't "belief without absolute proof" an acceptable definition for "faith"?

Because defining something by what it lacks or is not tells us nothing. Faith is accepting the evidence for something that cannot yet be completely seen but will be at some point.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Okay then, tell em this: What do scientists have faith in?

Do you admit that scientists have any faith at all first?

Okay, but you gotta understand, when I see a Christian apparently setting something up that I've seen plenty of Christians do before, you can't blame me for it, right?

Ok, fair enough.

Again, you need to specify: Faith in what?

Sigh! You really won’t admit they have any faith in anything at all, will you?

No, an ad hominem is when you say something like, "Joe Bloggs doesn't understand science. How could he when he can't even keep his house tidy?"

That’s what you said about me except the tidy bit (that connection makes no sense, btw.). An a hominem doesn’t focus on the argument but on the person. We haven’t discussed science itself at all but you nevertheless spoke negatively about my knowledge of science. You haven’t a clue as to what I know. You didn’t focus on the argument but my education.

Since I was not attacking you,

Yes you did.

but pointing out that your claims about science do not seem to match what science actually is, it's not an ad hominem.

You never addressed my claim that when a scientist propose a project they believe their work will add to understanding. You will need to address how this argument is false. I repeat, please address how that scientists don’t believe that their work will advance understanding. That’s the argument.

If someone claimed to be a pilot, but didn't know what yaw, pitch and roll were, I'd call them out on it too. And that wouldn't be an ad hominem.

Please start presenting how my argument is false.

Sorry, I don't recall when you said what scientists have faith in.

That their project will aid in understanding.

Ah, so THAT'S what you claim they have faith in?

I wouldn't say it is FAITH, since that word brings with it connotations of religious faith.

That’s a personal prejudice. Get over it.

How about we say they expect to find information about the thing they are studying. I'd agree to that.

Knowing about a number of proposals that is not correct. They don’t all suggest they will find information. A library or google offers information.

You didn't SAY it, but that's certainly the impression I've got from your posts.

Admit you were wrong and try to stick to what I actually say.

Anyway, as I've said, I will agree that when a scientist writes a grant proposal, they do so with the expectation that study in that particular area will result in information and knowledge being found that wasn't known before. Is that good enough? They expect to learn things that weren't known before.

They have faith. I could go
back and erase the above but it’s some work and i’m on a mobile phone. So you agree that scientists write proposals with expectations in knowledge being found.

Can I describe my position on God as one where I have expectations that He be as He describes Himself? Not trying to pull a fast one but just applying that working around the faith word in a different context. Makes a discussion interesting.

You sure you’re not afraid of that word, btw?

 

[Kylie]

Do you admit that scientists have any faith at all first?
Ok, fair enough.
Sigh! You really won’t admit they have any faith in anything at all, will you?
That’s what you said about me except the tidy bit (that connection makes no sense, btw.). An a hominem doesn’t focus on the argument but on the person. We haven’t discussed science itself at all but you nevertheless spoke negatively about my knowledge of science. You haven’t a clue as to what I know. You didn’t focus on the argument but my education.

Yes you did.
You never addresses my claim that when a scientist propose a project they believe their work will add to understanding. You will need to address how this argument is false. I repeat, please address how that scientists don’t believe that their work will advance understanding. That’s the argument.Please start presenting how my argument is false.
That their project will aid in understanding.

That’s a personal prejudice. Get over it.Knowing about a number of proposals that is not correct. They don’t all suggest they will find information. A library or google offers information. Admit you were wrong and try to stick to what I actually say.

They have faith.

You sure you’re not afraid of that word??

Why are you so determined to have me use that word? You claim I am afraid of it. You, however, seem to have an obsession with it.

I've made my position clear. If you don't like my position, that's on you, not me.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why are you so determined to have me use that word? You claim I am afraid of it. You, however, seem to have an obsession with it.

Shall I respond that have mortal fear of writing that scientists believe? It’s a word and you seem to be in deep angst over using it in any way, shape or form. You won’t suddenly (horror or horrors) believe in God be suse you type out f a i t h, you know.

I've made my position clear. If you don't like my position, that's on you, not me.

You have. You’re scared to death to type out faith.

I have found that atheists do tend to be more fearful on the whole, but fear of a word is a new one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really? One poster point blank refuses to admit scientists BELIEVE in the work they are doing cause of the word believe. She has an aversion to the word. That’s all Im getting at.
Nonsense. I’m 100 % certain the sun is shining. I can name a hundred things I’m 100 % certain of.
Sorry but I work in science, not metaphysics. Because defining something by what it lacks or is not tells us nothing. Faith is accepting the evidence for something that cannot yet be completely seen but will be at some point.

I think I agree with you, sister Dorothy Mae. Quite so, really, especially on that last bit where you say, "Faith is accepting the evidence for something that cannot yet be completely seen but will be at some point."

However, if I may, I'd mildly suggest that we should probably further vet out any respective epistemic properties within various modes of "having faith" which are situationally operational in different kinds of instances in life.

And if we can do this, then we'll probably need to differentiate and reclassify [taxonomize] the notion of faith as it may operate in the scientific realm from that of the Christian life since they have some different properties.

I appreciate ya! Peace.

 

[Ken-1122]

Would you please acknowledge that when a scientist writes a grant proposal they have faith?
Please condense what you think they are saying into one sentence explaining why they should get funds.

Science is a branch of study and knowledge of the physical world gained through experiment and observation.
Definition of science | Dictionary.com
People who are a part of that branch of study are scientists. Do any of these scientists practice faith? Of course! Many scientists are religious and practice faith on a regular basis; it would be absurd to suggest scientists are engaging in science 24 hrs per day 7 days a week! Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player ever used to play golf on his days off. Does this mean basketball players hit balls with a stick? (LOL) IOW just because a scientist might practice faith on his day off, doesn’t make faith a part of the system of science. Just like when a basketball player takes off his basketball shoes and puts on a pair of golf shoes, he is no longer playing basketball, when a scientist employs faith, he is no longer practicing science.

 

[stevevw]

Some people would say that they will NEVER take an action which would take a life, and so if they are true to that, then they'll take no action.

As the trolley problem has the trolley heading for the track towards the 5 people in the first place those who do nothing are really saying I will kill the 5 people. What I am saying is for any other option besides going down the track with the one person on it can be shown to be morally wrong.

So though people may choose to do nothing or choose to go down the track with 5 people they are taking the morally wrong option. It may be OK for them but it is not the morally best thing to do as killing 1 is better than mass murder. This can be logically established IE killing more people has worse outcomes with more lives lost, more grief and sorrow, more parentless families, more partners lost, more sons and daughters lost, more of everything negative.

Two problems here. This is a binary situation. Either the trolley is diverted or not. Also, once again, the fact most people would do the same thing does not make it objective.

The point isn't that most people would do the same thing doesn't prove objective morality. The point is it can be shown that going down the track with 1 person is the objectively best thing to do as logically argued above. Someone who chooses to kill the 5 cannot justify that it is a better thing to do than killing the one.

Then why doesn't it happen? Why do we see such differing views about things like the death penalty or marriage equality if there really is an objective moral position on these things?

Because people are expressing their subjective views. But is two people both have an objective view of the moral situation then they will come to the same conclusion. That is why Christians agree that abortion is wrong except if the mother's life is at risk. They all agree on the fundamental laws of God.

So? I make a decision based on my own subjective morality. That doesn't mean I see both options as equal, and it doesn't mean I won't find it a difficult choice. Why are you confused by this?

Because in the overall system of subjective morality both options are equal and one is not more right than the other because you have no independent reference point to determine that apart from the personal opinion which cannot determine if one option is better than the other overall.

Put it this way whatever option you choose which you think is the more moral one to you do you think if a person next to you choose the other option you think is worse morally that he is wrong. That he should not have that moral position even though you think its wrong.

Then let me put it as simply as I can. You are told by some entity which is God (not claiming to be God but actually IS God, and you are utterly convinced that it is God) that you are required to kill a particular person.
Would you do it or not?

I guess if this was like God speaking directly to the prophets then I guess I would have to kill as part of God's command. The same as God commanded Joshua to kill in the battle of Jericho.

You keep saying it's an unreal situation. Once again, I will point out that this issue is one that is facing the people developing driverless cars. It has also ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Your claim that it is unreal is demonstrably false, and your continued insistence that it is unreal only serves to show you are ignoring me. If you continue to ignore what I say, I don't see how a rational discussion is possible with you.

I intuitively felt there wasn't something right about the Trolley problem and especially applied to automated cars as they are automated and no human drives them so how can a machine be moral in deciding what to do in a real-life situation on the road. That skepticism seems to be backed up by most of the articles I have read and your position that it is a realistic example seems to be in the minority where many ethical experts say automated cars ios not a good example of the Trolley problem. For example

Why the Trolley Dilemma is a terrible model for trying to make self-driving cars safer
The Trolley Dilemma has also been applied to autonomous vehicles, since in the face of a potential accident, the software may be required to decide between several courses of action. That’s despite the fact that it’s considered an extremely flawed way to think about a complicated problem by prominent ethicists and researchers. (In addition to the most obvious problems with the paradigm, which are clear to any sentient being: Outside of cartoons, who is tying people to train tracks? And why wouldn’t you go untie them, instead of redirecting the oncoming train?).

In 2014, in an article for Social and Personality Psychology Compass, researchers wrote that such sacrificial dilemmas as the Trolley Dilemma are unrealistic and “unrepresentative of the moral situations people encounter in the real world.” They warned that the absurdity and artificial settings of such paradigms may “affect the way people approach the situation and decide what to do.” In other words, someone influenced by the Trolley Dilemma may make some dangerous choices when faced with a real-world scenario.

In the real world, you almost never get these types of “forced-choice dilemmas,” explains Anthony. “The trolley dilemma can be useful when you’re picking apart people’s intuitions, where you can isolate one or two factors, but it’s a mistake to think that you can really apply that to the real world in all its complexity.”

As illustrated in my driving anecdote, the Trolley Dilemma doesn’t apply because it requires a “perfect 50-50 chance of killing each individual in the same amount of time, with no other location to steer the vehicle, and no other possible steering maneuver but driving head-on to a death,”
Why the Trolley Dilemma is a terrible model for trying to make self-driving cars safer

And
The problem with the trolley problem
As this article points out the Trolley thought experiment is irrelevant for self-driving cars as they don’t have emotions. Intentions are important in moral choices through our free will. But machines like automated cars don’t have free will.

The Trolley problem specifically disregards just about every aspect of ethical behavior that is relevant to self-driving cars. For example, the trolley runs on tracks so the driver knows for sure they will hit 1 or 5 people on those tracks. Whereas the automated car must navigate the environment with uncertainty continually guessing how others will react. Humans are good at anticipating what will happen like unpredictable driver and pedestrian behavior. Machines cannot do this.

The trolley problem also suffers a catastrophic brake failure, so that its driver faces no blame for the deaths that would result from his inaction. However, self-driving cars must continuously monitor their performance and decide what risk of suffering such a failure would be acceptable. As there is a driver in the Trolley experiment, they will struggle with their choice no matter whether they hit the 1 or 5 people and feel guilt and distress. Self-driving cars have no emotion and in human terms would seem like emotionless monsters.
The problem with the trolley problem

So your objective morality tells you that it is better to kill a five-year-old rather than 5 ninety-year-olds?

Yes on the bases that mass murder regardless of age and status is still wrong. The entire idea that we should start discriminating about who lives and dies is a dangerous slippery slope to acting immoral. Should we take out 5 sick and disabled people over 1 healthy one? This opens the door for personal bias to come in where people will be saying I don't like certain ethnic races so it's better if they are wiped out or because the 5 have criminal histories they don't deserve to live etc.

So what? Someone was still being faced with the trolley problem. What sets the events in motion does not change the fact that SOMEONE had to make the decision whether to reroute or not.

But they were not blamed alone for the injuries caused, the outcome of the inquiry found it was a joint responsibility and no one person was to blame. Therefore we cannot hold the track controller guilty for the final outcome. Whereas in the Trolley problem there is only one person to blame and there is a direct link between their actions and the killing of someone.

But here's the other difference from the Trolley problem. In the Trolley problem, the person controlling the track knows for sure that there are people on the track and that someone will be killed for sure as a result of their choice. In a real-life example, there are no certainties. As far as the track controller believes its a 50/50 chance at the very least and maybe a very good chance that no one will be even hurt let alone killed. So he is not sending a carriage to anyone certain death.

 

[Ken-1122]

More like unwilling to admit an obvious defeat.

Maybe the problem is that a christian has no aversion to the word faith and having experienced this, knows that faith is the same and only the objects change. Those who have an aversion to christ don’t want to touch faith of any kind with a ten foot pole. So all faith in anything or anyone is removed from their vocabulary. They don’t understand what the word means but think the object of faith defines what faith is. It doesn’t.

How do you define faith?