Where does morality come from?

[Speedwell]

But I think we can still determine most wrongs intuitively.

In other words, subjectively.

But OK, you win. There are objective morals, and despite the fact that there is no objective way of determining what they are, we're supposed to admit that they exist and have to be obeyed.. And they way we find out what they are is to let you tell us what the Bible says about it. Got it.

 

[stevevw]

No I wont.

I give the answers your posts deserve.

Fair enough

 

[Ken-1122]

Ummm... "The car worked fine yesterday" is a fact, not an assumption, as you're going to refer to it as such later in this very post. The "reasonable assumption" as you like to call it, is that it will start today. So what do you call the fact that the car started yesterday if not evidence? It's part of the reason you believe it will start again, yes? Whatever good reason you have to justify a belief is evidence, and that's a perfectly normal way people use the word.

Actually the idea that the car was running fine yesterday is more of an assumption; not a fact. I didn’t do an inspection of the car when I parked it, a number of things could have been wrong with the car when I parked it that I would have been unaware of if it didn’t cause any lights on the dash to turn on. So my assumption that the car will start today is based on the assumption that it was running fine when I parked it.

That being said though, look at what you've written:
I concluded X based on the fact Y.

But you're also saying that your conclusion isn't based on facts even though X (the conclusion) is based on Y (the fact).

There is a difference between “based on THE fact” vs based on facts. Based on facts is what people say after a thorough investigation has taken place, based on the fact is what people often say when they are making an assumption

 

[stevevw]

In other words, subjectively.

I keep coming back to the fact that detrmining if a moral act is right or wrong subjectively doesn't work. You cannot determine right from wrong morally under subjective morality so why even suggest it as an option. But the fact that people try to do so shows that they intuitive know we can determine right from wrong objectively.

But OK, you win. There are objective morals, and despite the fact that there is no objective way of determining what they are,

We can determine what they are and I have shown this. First there is lived moral experience. It can be shown to be different from subjective morality (that comes from the person) in that people act and react in contradiction to their own subjective moral position. It is like someone saying there is no such thing as anger and yet they act angrily when provoked in a situation. They are proving that there is such a thing as anger by acting angrily.

Likewise people are proving there is such a thing as objective morality when they act like there are objective morals and contradicting their own claim about subjective morality. They can't help themselves and are a hostile witness against subjective morality.

we're supposed to admit that they exist and have to be obeyed.

We already admit they exist with the way we act and react in situations. I have already provided plenty of everyday examples. Objective morality don't have to be obeyed. Just like we know the law exists we don't have to obey the law.

And the way we find out what they are is to let you tell us what the Bible says about it. Got it.

First we know that objective moral exist because we live them. They are in us and we live them like we would live our natural tendency to protect our children or to source food to eat. Even atheist philosophers and ethicists will acknowledge this, that we all know that certain moral acts are truths and cannot be a matter of opinion because of the need for things like justice.

As far as the Bible telling us about objective morality this is just a message, information that someone can decide for themselves whether it is right. Christians make the claim only. The point is if there is objective morality then it has to exist outside humans and the source has to be a transcendent being. There can only be one moral lawgiver as there is only one truth.

Therefore an argument has to be made for which moral lawgiver. I have already provided a link for that argument. But at the end of the day you are right in that it comes down to faith as there is no direct evidence that can show there are objective morals and God is the moral lawgiver.

 

[stevevw]

Something can be of high quality and still be subjective.

Yes but the type of quality I am talking about is being a witness for the opposition. When in court the lawyer sets out to show that the person acted in a certain way which either supports the evidence for or against. I am saying that subjective witnesses (those that claim subjective morality) are actually acting and reacting objectively thus giving evidence for objective morality and not subjective morality.

And how do you determine the quality of morality? Lemme guess, it's how closely it aligns with the morality you've already decided is the objective one?

All the person has to do is act and react like morality is objective. That certain moral acts are always right or wrong (despite subjective morality). That's the important qualifying element, that certain morals acts are always the right thing to do and that anyone who claims they can come up with a rationalization that can make that moral act good to do is also objectively wrong. Its a qualifier (no subjectivity allowed). It happens all the timer in society and I have given ample examples.

Their morality isn't consistent? GASP! It's almost like their morality is SUBJECTIVE!

But how can it be subjective when they react and say that the act is morally wrong as factual truth and that anyone who disagrees or tries to say otherwise with some subjective view is also objectively wrong. This behaviour is consistent throughout society and the world when you peel back what is really going on.

Everyone knows that rape is wrong, everyone knows that child abuse is wrong, that DV, stealing, assault, violence, discrimination, cheating on your partner or wife, and a number of other moral acts are always wrong. They may try to rationalize that they are OK but people know and unless the person is unreasonable also know that it is really wrong. That's because we see this in action when people react like its always wrong when it happens in society to someone and especially to themselves.

Okay, let's leave aside the fact that Article 11 is basically just saying that Americans aren't going to hassle Muslims (see how that's turned out though?) by saying, "Hey, America isn't a Christian nation, so we've got no beef with you," which still depends outright on claiming that the US of A wasn't founded as a Christian nation. Seriously, how do you think that bit, "not founded on the Christian religion" can be cancelled out by anything that follows?

But as I said, let's leave that aside, okay?

Is there anything else that shows that America was not intended to be A Christian nation?

Well, yes.

The Constitution is a completely secular document. There's no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. The word "religion" itself is only mentioned twice. The first time is in the First Amendment, where it says that people are to be free to establish any religion, and no one can stop them from practicing their religion. The second time is in Article VI, where it says that you can't make a religious test a requirement for holding any public office. And that was despite the fact that some representatives WANTED to push for Christianity as the official religion.

And yes, many of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but that doesn't mean that America is a Christian nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of having a church-state union, and were specifically seeking to avoid that. Doesn't seem like they'd be saying that the best way to do that was to base their new country on the Bible, does it?

Even in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used the vaguest words possible when talking about anything religious. When he spoke of the Creator, he intentionally avoided any terminology that would indicate any specific religion.

And the whole freedom of religion thing doesn't just mean that you can be any kind of Christian you want. In 1985, Justice John Paul Stevens said that freedom of religion didn't mean, "...merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another..." which "would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism." He clearly stated that freedom of religion meant, "...the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

There have been many attempts to push for a Christian Nation and clear references to Christianity in the Constitution. In 1864, the National Reform Association pushed for a "Christian nation" amendment which would have acknowledged "...Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." The Judiciary Committee voted against this.

Such efforts happened several times over the years, such as the one in the 1950s which attempted to add to the Constitution a recognition of Jesus as the bestower of liberties, but that never got voted out of committee. Efforts to revive it in the 1960s likewise failed.

So the only way you could even try to argue that America is a Christian nation is by saying that there are lots of Christians living there. But the majority of the American population is female (50.8 percent according to a census in 2010). But would we say that American is a female nation? Of course not.

So unless you can point to a specific point in which one of the Founding Fathers said that they thought America should be founded on the basis of Christian ideals specifically, you're claim falls flat.

I never said that American was a Christian nation nor that the founding fathers wanted to make it a Christian nation. The whole idea of the Constitution was not just about religion but a political statement as well. It was about the separation of church and state. As American was the land of the free they knew that they could not impose any particular religion or political view for that matter on anyone.

What I am talking about is how America took up Christian values in the way they lived. They based their law system and many of society's normas on Christian values. Like I said Christianity has gradually been diminishing. But if you go back in time and the further you go back the more it was about Christian values. In fact, it still is today really despite people moving away from Christianity. You don't have to be a Christain to practice Christain values.

I mean look at all the presidents and great leaders of the past like Kennedy, Martin Luther King, even Bush, and Obama have referred to God and Jesus' teachings as the guiding principles. Like I said we use to be against divorce, made the Sabbath holy, were against abortion, getting pregnant outside marriage, sex outside marriage, etc. These were Christian values.

Here is an interesting observation. In the court of law for a long time and up until recently everyone use to swear on a bible that they were telling the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. Now we allow other to swear on other religions or a non-religious version which still stipulates truth. But each of these versions still claims one truth. But under a subjective system what is truth. There is no way to measure truth because a person's view of what is true would be varied.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually the idea that the car was running fine yesterday is more of an assumption; not a fact. I didn’t do an inspection of the car when I parked it, a number of things could have been wrong with the car when I parked it that I would have been unaware of if it didn’t cause any lights on the dash to turn on. So my assumption that the car will start today is based on the assumption that it was running fine when I parked it.

You kill me, man. You just can't stop, can you? First it's a fact, then it's an assumption... You just can't stick to your own story, can you?

There is a difference between “based on THE fact” vs based on facts. Based on facts is what people say after a thorough investigation has taken place, based on the fact is what people often say when they are making an assumption

hahaha no.

 

[Moral Orel]

So any reasonable person will see that certain acts are always morally wrong.

Now you're saying that I'm unreasonable again.

 

[Ken-1122]

You kill me, man. You just can't stop, can you? First it's a fact, then it's an assumption... You just can't stick to your own story, can you?

The phrase "based on the fact" is a figure of speech! not a claim of a thorough investigation. C'mon you're american; you know how we talk!

 

[Moral Orel]

The phrase "based on the fact" is a figure of speech! not a claim of a thorough investigation. C'mon you're american; you know how we talk!

You should choose your words more carefully, then you wouldn't have to backpedal all the time.

 

[Ken-1122]

You should choose your words more carefully, then you wouldn't have to backpedal all the time.

What on earth are you talking about? I just explained why I used the words that I do. I stand by the way I used my words, and I backpedal on nothing.

 

[Moral Orel]

What on earth are you talking about? I just explained why I used the words that I do. I stand by the way I used my words, and I backpedal on nothing.

You've backpedaled on a mountain of things, and I've demonstrated it. Now you're doing it again. It's tiresome.

 

[Ken-1122]

You've backpedaled on a mountain of things, and I've demonstrated it. Now you're doing it again. It's tiresome.

Nonsense. I stand by my belief that my car will start is based on assumption, not fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nonsense. I stand by my belief that my car will start is based on assumption, not fact.

Nope. It isn't an assumption because you have evidence; that evidence is a fact, as you (accidentally) admitted. Just because that evidence isn't proof, doesn't make your belief an assumption. Your conclusion is still based on facts. You believe your car will start tomorrow because of the fact that you started it yesterday. That's what "based on the fact" means, not your nonsense.

 

[Ken-1122]

Nope. It isn't an assumption because you have evidence; that evidence is a fact, as you (accidentally) admitted. Just because that evidence isn't proof, doesn't make your belief an assumption. Your conclusion is still based on facts. You believe your car will start tomorrow because of the fact that you started it yesterday. That's what "based on the fact" means, not your nonsense.

Wrong. There has been various times when my car started one day, and would not start the next. Care to try again?

 

[Moral Orel]

Wrong. There has been various times when my car started one day, and would not start the next. Care to try again?

I acknowledged it wasn't proof, so there's nothing wrong with what I said.

 

[Ken-1122]

I acknowledged it wasn't proof, so there's nothing wrong with what I said.

You said the fact that my car started one day is evidence that it will start the next day. That is not true; I don't need evidence to take the default position.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said the fact that my car started one day is evidence that it will start the next day. That is not true

It is true. All you've countered with is, 'But it might not! You don't know for certain!' and you think that means it's an assumption. Even though the last thing you said about assumptions is that proof isn't necessary. Gosh only knows what your position on the definition of that word is now, I can't keep up with all the flip-flopping.

Your car is more likely to start today if it started yesterday; your car is less likely to start today if it did not start yesterday. Those are facts, and that is what you are basing your conclusion that "my car will start today" on, because your car did, in fact, start yesterday. If your car did not start yesterday, then you wouldn't believe it will start today. That's how you know what you are basing it on.

I don't need evidence to take the default position.

This statement has no bearing on whether or not the car starting before is in fact evidence. I know that you don't need evidence to believe things, I've never said you were incapable of believing things without evidence, that's apparent. If you don't need evidence then you're the sort of person who will believe anything. What we are determining is what is in fact evidence, not whether a person requires it to attain a belief.

Remember, that what you are trying to prove is that it's normal to believe things without evidence so that you can justify the old "nobody treats ice cream flavor as a moral issue". But instead you offered an example of something that people use evidence to believe, so it isn't analogous. I know that you believe that "nobody treats ice cream flavor as a moral issue", and I know that you have zero evidence for it, so I know that you can believe anything because your only standard for attaining belief is your personal whims. Your non-sequitur fails. Please don't try again, this is getting really sad.

 

[Kylie]

Yes but the type of quality I am talking about is being a witness for the opposition. When in court the lawyer sets out to show that the person acted in a certain way which either supports the evidence for or against. I am saying that subjective witnesses (those that claim subjective morality) are actually acting and reacting objectively thus giving evidence for objective morality and not subjective morality.

Uh, no. The nature of reality can not be figured out the way innocence or guilt can be decided in a court of law.

All the person has to do is act and react like morality is objective. That certain moral acts are always right or wrong (despite subjective morality). That's the important qualifying element, that certain morals acts are always the right thing to do and that anyone who claims they can come up with a rationalization that can make that moral act good to do is also objectively wrong. Its a qualifier (no subjectivity allowed). It happens all the timer in society and I have given ample examples.

Acting like morality is objective doesn't make morality objective.

But how can it be subjective when they react and say that the act is morally wrong as factual truth and that anyone who disagrees or tries to say otherwise with some subjective view is also objectively wrong. This behaviour is consistent throughout society and the world when you peel back what is really going on.

Because once again you are insisting that people use words in a strictly technically correct way when communicating via that language.

But people don't do that.

Everyone knows that rape is wrong, everyone knows that child abuse is wrong, that DV, stealing, assault, violence, discrimination, cheating on your partner or wife, and a number of other moral acts are always wrong. They may try to rationalize that they are OK but people know and unless the person is unreasonable also know that it is really wrong. That's because we see this in action when people react like its always wrong when it happens in society to someone and especially to themselves.

Everyone knows it? Are you assuming this in order to prove your point?

I never said that American was a Christian nation nor that the founding fathers wanted to make it a Christian nation. The whole idea of the Constitution was not just about religion but a political statement as well. It was about the separation of church and state. As American was the land of the free they knew that they could not impose any particular religion or political view for that matter on anyone.

What I am talking about is how America took up Christian values in the way they lived. They based their law system and many of society's normas on Christian values. Like I said Christianity has gradually been diminishing. But if you go back in time and the further you go back the more it was about Christian values. In fact, it still is today really despite people moving away from Christianity. You don't have to be a Christain to practice Christain values.

I mean look at all the presidents and great leaders of the past like Kennedy, Martin Luther King, even Bush, and Obama have referred to God and Jesus' teachings as the guiding principles. Like I said we use to be against divorce, made the Sabbath holy, were against abortion, getting pregnant outside marriage, sex outside marriage, etc. These were Christian values.

Here is an interesting observation. In the court of law for a long time and up until recently everyone use to swear on a bible that they were telling the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. Now we allow other to swear on other religions or a non-religious version which still stipulates truth. But each of these versions still claims one truth. But under a subjective system what is truth. There is no way to measure truth because a person's view of what is true would be varied.

When you say that it is based on Christian values, do you realise that many religions support the same values? It's not exclusive to Christianity, it's just plain old human decency.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is true. All you've countered with is, 'But it might not! You don't know for certain!' and you think that means it's an assumption. Even though the last thing you said about assumptions is that proof isn't necessary. Gosh only knows what your position on the definition of that word is now, I can't keep up with all the flip-flopping.

Your car is more likely to start today if it started yesterday; your car is less likely to start today if it did not start yesterday. Those are facts, and that is what you are basing your conclusion that "my car will start today" on, because your car did, in fact, start yesterday. If your car did not start yesterday, then you wouldn't believe it will start today. That's how you know what you are basing it on.


This statement has no bearing on whether or not the car starting before is in fact evidence. I know that you don't need evidence to believe things, I've never said you were incapable of believing things without evidence, that's apparent. If you don't need evidence then you're the sort of person who will believe anything. What we are determining is what is in fact evidence, not whether a person requires it to attain a belief.

Remember, that what you are trying to prove is that it's normal to believe things without evidence so that you can justify the old "nobody treats ice cream flavor as a moral issue". But instead you offered an example of something that people use evidence to believe, so it isn't analogous. I know that you believe that "nobody treats ice cream flavor as a moral issue", and I know that you have zero evidence for it, so I know that you can believe anything because your only standard for attaining belief is your personal whims. Your non-sequitur fails. Please don't try again, this is getting really sad.

As I said before, for me the default position is that my car will start because it has been running fine for a while now. Evidence would be needed for me to suspect it will not start. The default position does not need evidence.
What do you mean that you treat Ice cream flavor as a moral issue? Do you feel chocolate is morally good where as vanilla immoral? What do you mean by this?

 

[Moral Orel]

As I said before, for me the default position is that my car will start because it has been running fine for a while now. Evidence would be needed for me to suspect it will not start. The default position does not need evidence.

The default position would be where you are with no knowledge about your car at all. The default position is, "I dunno". You already have evidence in that your car has started, and you would require new evidence to change your mind. See that bolded part? That justifies your belief that it will start, that is evidence. You're labelling a position where you already have evidence "the default position". Your "default" position starts with evidence to support it.

What do you mean that you treat Ice cream flavor as a moral issue? Do you feel chocolate is morally good where as vanilla immoral? What do you mean by this?

Do you believe that it is morally good to maintain your own happiness as well as the happiness of others? I do. I should be concerned for my own happiness. That's a moral statement just as much as "I should be concerned for the happiness of others". Is there anything wrong with what I've said so far?