Morality without Absolute Morality

Fervent · Thursday at 11:26 PM

partinobodycular said:
Thanks to evolution, almost all humans have been ingrained with an innate sense of acceptable human behavior.

We can then use this 'innate sense' of acceptable human behavior as an OBJECTIVE standard.

In other words, morality is that which falls within acceptable human behavior, and humans are specifically endowed by nature with an ability to recognize and apply this standard.

You're welcome, you now have an objective standard for morality.

That's a whole lot of assertion, and nothing really substantive.

Fervent · Thursday at 11:29 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
I never argue like this "I feel A, therefore you should feel A".

So are morals normative or not?

Stopped_lurking said:
I don't even understand the difference when it comes to moral feelings, something is wrong when it feels wrong.

What does "wrong" mean to you? Where is the wrongness located?

Stopped_lurking said:
Feelings come to me immediately, I don't understand your question.

The issue isn't the feelings, but what goes through your mind to trigger the feelings.

Stopped_lurking · Thursday at 11:34 PM

Fervent said:
So are morals normative or not?

In any objective sense, no. I thought I said that.

Fervent said:
What does "wrong" mean to you? Where is the wrongness located?

In my feelings about the event.

Fervent said:
The issue isn't the feelings, but what goes through your mind to trigger the feelings.

Sense input? What are fishing after?

Fervent · Thursday at 11:49 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
In any objective sense, no. I thought I said that.

In any sense. If so, what sense?

Stopped_lurking said:
In my feelings about the event.

Your feelings aren't a location. Your feelings are what I am looking for location.

Stopped_lurking said:
Sense input? What are fishing after?

Simply trying to get a coherent idea about what "wrong" means to you, since you claim it's just a subjective preference but appear to deny that it's like your feelings about ice cream or sports affiliations.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-07T00:11:57-0600

Fervent said:
In any sense. If so, what sense?

They influence my behaviour, could you then call them normative for me? That was why I used objectively.

Fervent said:
Your feelings aren't a location. Your feelings are what I am looking for location.

In me then.

Fervent said:
Simply trying to get a coherent idea about what "wrong" means to you, since you claim it's just a subjective preference but appear to deny that it's like your feelings about ice cream or sports affiliations.

The feeling itself is different, as in feeling good because you're eating an ice cream you like is different from feeling good because Sweden beat Finland in hockey. It is akin to preferences about music, ice cream and sports affiliations, just slightly different.

partinobodycular · 2025-11-07T00:39:22-0600

Fervent said:
That's a whole lot of assertion, and nothing really substantive.

Are you sure that you want to question whether humans have an innate sense of right and wrong?

Okay, then in Genesis chapter 3, who told Adam and Eve that they were naked?

o_mlly · 2025-11-07T06:55:07-0600

partinobodycular said:
It's not about what we prefer, it's about what survival prefers. We're just involuntary passengers.

Ah, we didn't die. That's pretty much it.

Exactly what does "survival" prefer? What moral claims of Christians limit or impede survival? None.

I suspect some, if not many, non-believers are antagonistic to Christian morality because adherence limits their licentious acts. Take for example, deviant sex acts, i.e., any sex act not open to orderly procreation. Does not survival (both partners and possible children) require the moral use of sex between a man and a woman in a committed relationship, i.e., married to each other? Yes.

Fast Facts: HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men

Information and data on HIV among gay and bisexual men in the US.

www.cdc.gov

Fervent · 2025-11-07T08:06:46-0600

partinobodycular said:
Are you sure that you want to question whether humans have an innate sense of right and wrong?

It's not the "innate sense" that I'm questioning, it's your attribution to evolution. I know that's the atheist's automatic fallback, but it's not a magic bullet. Besides that, our innate sense is hardly a viable guide given how wildly divergent people are in what they sense to be right and wrong.

Fervent · 2025-11-07T08:10:44-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
They influence my behaviour, could you then call them normative for me? That was why I used objectively.

Another non-answer. You call the cops, that's not just normative to you. You expect others to follow your morals to some extent.

Stopped_lurking said:
In me then.

Still not an answer.

Stopped_lurking said:
The feeling itself is different, as in feeling good because you're eating an ice cream you like is different from feeling good because Sweden beat Finland in hockey. It is akin to preferences about music, ice cream and sports affiliations, just slightly different.

And what is that difference? Why do you call the cops on your child abusing neighbor, but not on your neighbor who makes his child cheer for Canada or makes his child eat Pralines and Pecans instead of Cookies and Cream? Why do you think others should comply to your sense of morality to the point that you would call the cops on violators?

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-07T08:19:40-0600

Fervent said:
Another non-answer. You call the cops, that's not just normative to you. You expect others to follow your morals to some extent.

No, I'm perfectly fine with them thinking I had no justification for calling the cops.

Fervent said:
Still not an answer.

Then rephrase your question, it's in the feeling (answer: that is not a location), it's in me, which is a location apparently not an answer. What is it you are asking for then?

Fervent said:
And what is that difference? Why do you call the cops on your child abusing neighbor, but not on your neighbor who makes his child cheer for Canada or makes his child eat Pralines and Pecans instead of Cookies and Cream? Why do you think others should comply to your sense of morality to the point that you would call the cops on violators?

Seeing someone hitting a child creates a moral feeling in me. Seeing someone eating an ice cream or cheering for a sports team doesn't. They don't need to comply to my morals, I'll still call the cops.

Fervent · 2025-11-07T08:26:10-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
No, I'm perfectly fine with them thinking I had no justification for calling the cops.

But you still expect them to comply. Otherwise you would live and let live.

Stopped_lurking said:
Then rephrase your question, it's in the feeling (answer: that is not a location), it's in me, which is a location apparently not an answer. What is it you are asking for then?

I'm asking where the wrongness rests, in you doesn't answer that question because that's what is supposed to be explained.

Stopped_lurking said:
Seeing someone hitting a child creates a moral feeling in me. Seeing someone eating an ice cream or cheering for a sports team doesn't. They don't need to comply to my morals, I'll still call the cops.

That doesn't explain the difference, just that there is one. What is it that is different? Why do you feel the need to act and intervene in the one case, and in the other you're fine with the diversity?

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-07T08:47:08-0600

Fervent said:
But you still expect them to comply. Otherwise you would live and let live.

When I feel moral outrage, I feel a need to try to counteract it, additionally not acting on it feels bad itself. The morals of the perpetrator don't concern me.

Fervent said:
I'm asking where the wrongness rests, in you doesn't answer that question because that's what is supposed to be explained.

Where do YOU feel feelings? I can't pinpoint a specific location, they come to me as parts of me.

Fervent said:
That doesn't explain the difference, just that there is one. What is it that is different? Why do you feel the need to act and intervene in the one case, and in the other you're fine with the diversity?

The specific feeling, as I have said multiple times. Some feelings gives me an impetus to act (among them moral feelings), and others don't.

partinobodycular · 2025-11-07T10:29:07-0600

o_mlly said:
Exactly what does "survival" prefer?

You'll have to ask evolution... I don't know. However, you can take a look around and get a fairly good idea about what it preferred yesterday, but I can't guarantee you anything about today or tomorrow.

o_mlly said:
What moral claims of Christians limit or impede survival? None.

You're right, apparently none. However it seems to have given equally beneficial traits to non Christians as well. So it isn't necessarily they're belief in God that evolution finds so valuable, it's more likely to be something that's concomitant with it. Quite possibly morals. But those seem to be common to just about everybody.

o_mlly said:
I suspect some, if not many, non-believers are antagonistic to Christian morality because adherence limits their licentious acts.

I would tend to lean far more toward the 'some' side than the 'many' side. But I haven't counted. Although these people have, and it seems that Christians aren't as opposed to 'licentious acts' as you might think.

People who are gay or lesbian | Religious Landscape Study (RLS) | Pew Research Center

The Religious Landscape Study is a comprehensive survey of more than 35,000 Americans’ religious identities, beliefs and practices that’s been conducted in 2007, 2014 and 2023-24. Pew Research Center.

www.pewresearch.org

o_mlly said:
Does not survival (both partners and possible children) require the moral use of sex between a man and a woman in a committed relationship, i.e., married to each other? Yes.

Apparently not, because non-heterosexual traits seem to have been around for quite some time. Evolution is a pretty clever and complex thing, and it doesn't really care about what you or I think. It only cares about what survives, and somehow atypical traits survive. Just another example of something that's beyond my pay grade.

partinobodycular · 2025-11-07T11:05:02-0600

Fervent said:
It's not the "innate sense" that I'm questioning, it's your attribution to evolution.

Fair enough, but from my perspective as a solipsist, attributing it to a God as popularized in Christianity would seem to be much more of a stretch. I could see my way clear however, to a variation on God that reconciles the two.

Fervent said:
Besides that, our innate sense is hardly a viable guide given how wildly divergent people are in what they sense to be right and wrong.

I find this to be quite an odd statement, because theists often point to the 'commonality in our innate sense of morality' as evidence for God. Now you're pointing out the noncommonality in our innate sense of morality. So which is it? Do humans have a common sense of morality or don't they. People can always point to the outliers, but our laws and religions would seem to suggest that we do indeed have a common sense of morality.

As for being a viable guide, would you prefer one backed by might alone?

o_mlly · 2025-11-07T12:50:58-0600

partinobodycular said:
You'll have to ask evolution... I don't know.

You posted:

partinobodycular said:
It's not about what we prefer, it's about what survival prefers. We're just involuntary passengers.

Looks like your insight is, well, just plain vacuous.

partinobodycular said:
However it seems to have given equally beneficial traits to non Christians as well. So it isn't necessarily they're belief in God that evolution finds so valuable ...

Evolution has given sexually reproducing animals the experience of pleasure in the act. The value in the pleasure of the experience insures the survival of the species. Of course, irrational animals do not believe in God either.

partinobodycular said:
... and it seems that Christians aren't as opposed to 'licentious acts' as you might think.

Did you not read the "Bisexual" data? So-called traditional Christians who identify as bisexual hedonists discloses them as non-Christians.

partinobodycular said:
... and somehow atypical traits survive.

Really? What sexually reproducing species can you site that survive without reproducing?

More importantly, since you claim to be solipsistic, further exchanges on the issue of absolute morality will not be productive.

partinobodycular · 2025-11-07T13:48:29-0600

o_mlly said:
Looks like your insight is, well, just plain vacuous.

How so? My insight is simply that the stuff that we see, is the stuff that survived. You may not find that incredibly helpful, but it's amazingly accurate.

o_mlly said:
Evolution has given sexually reproducing animals the experience of pleasure in the act. The value in the pleasure of the experience insures the survival of the species.

Precisely. From evolution's viewpoint sexual pleasure is a very useful thing. From my own personal viewpoint, not so much. It tends to make some people exceptionally irrational. Try not to concern yourself with the fact that you're so easily manipulated.

o_mlly said:
Of course, irrational animals do not believe in God either.

Hmm, somehow I've found no clear connection between a belief in God and rationality. Irrationality seems to be rather ubiquitous. Which would seem to suggest that evolution isn't really concerned with how rational we are.

o_mlly said:
So-called traditional Christians who identify as bisexual hedonists discloses them as non-Christians.

I'm kind of afraid to ask where you pulled that pearl from.

o_mlly said:
What sexually reproducing species can you site that survive without reproducing?

I'm afraid that you're confused. There's no such thing as a 'gay' gene that must somehow get passed on. Homosexuality is the result of a combination of genes that exist throughout the population. So go take a good look in the mirror, you're a homosexuality carrier... congratulations.

o_mlly · 2025-11-07T14:08:55-0600

partinobodycular said:
How so? My insight is simply that the stuff that we see, is the stuff that survived. You may not find that incredibly helpful, but it's amazingly accurate.

Nope. Unless you claim to be all-seeing. Are you omniscient?

partinobodycular said:
Precisely.

Thank you.

partinobodycular said:
From evolution's viewpoint sexual pleasure is a very useful thing. From my own personal viewpoint, not so much. It tends to make some people exceptionally irrational.

So, you admit to being "exceptionally irrational"?

partinobodycular said:
Hmm, somehow I've found no clear connection between a belief in God and rationality.

That's because you are so easily manipulated by atheists.

partinobodycular said:
I'm kind of afraid to ask where you pulled that pearl from.

Don't be afraid. Christian are not.

partinobodycular said:
There's no such thing as a 'gay' gene that must somehow get passed on. Homosexuality is the result of a combination of genes that exist throughout the population. So go take a look in a mirror, you're a homosexuality carrier... congratulations.

Got evidence of that ridiculous claim? I fear your imagination is just working on wannabetrue overtime.

partinobodycular · 2025-11-07T14:56:13-0600

o_mlly said:
Nope. Unless you claim to be all-seeing. Are you omniscient?

Nope I'm not omniscient, but fortunately evolution is. It always knows exactly which things should survive. It's never, ever, made a mistake.

o_mlly said:
So, you admit to being "exceptionally irrational"?

Actually, no. I'm one of those outliers who's never understood what it is that people see in this whole sex thing. But from my observations, people do seem to do some pretty irrational stuff because of it. Hence, I do my best to avoid them.

Despite that, I make no claims as to the extent of my rationality, after all, I'm a solipsist.

o_mlly said:
That's because you are so easily manipulated by atheists.

Ahh, is that it. Never mind the fact that I'm a self-professing Christian. Don't let that "Agnostic" in my profile fool you. I realize that people are going to judge me, which they have every right to do, no matter what the heck I stick in that profile.

o_mlly said:
Got evidence of that ridiculous claim? I fear your imagination is just working on wannabetrue overtime.

Here you go. I'd gather more links, but I'm pretty sure that it'd be pointless. I'd also attempt to explain to you how gene pools work, but that would no doubt be pointless as well.

There’s (Still) No Gay Gene | Harvard Magazine

Genes seem to play a role in determining sexual orientation, but it’s small, uncertain, and complicated.

www.harvardmagazine.com

Fervent · 2025-11-07T17:20:48-0600

partinobodycular said:
Fair enough, but from my perspective as a solipsist, attributing it to a God as popularized in Christianity would seem to be much more of a stretch. I could see my way clear however, to a variation on God that reconciles the two.

A solipsist? So do you think you're arguing with yourself right now?

partinobodycular said:
I find this to be quite an odd statement, because theists often point to the 'commonality in our innate sense of morality' as evidence for God. Now you're pointing out the noncommonality in our innate sense of morality. So which is it? Do humans have a common sense of morality or don't they. People can always point to the outliers, but our laws and religions would seem to suggest that we do indeed have a common sense of morality.

I prefer the Roman's route, that human morality is a broken clock that, when it hits the mark in an unbeliever, confirms that they are rightly condemned because they should have been able to recognize where the moral senses have their root.

partinobodycular said:
As for being a viable guide, would you prefer one backed by might alone?

Nope, but that's ultimately what and morality that rests in human hands leads to. Either the might of violence, the might of wealth, or the might of the mob.

Fervent · 2025-11-07T17:49:45-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
When I feel moral outrage, I feel a need to try to counteract it, additionally not acting on it feels bad itself. The morals of the perpetrator don't concern me.

And why do you feel a need to try to counteract it? If it's just a subjective preference, then what justification do you have for acting to counteract it? Do you think other people have to abide by your subjective preferences?

Stopped_lurking said:
Where do YOU feel feelings? I can't pinpoint a specific location, they come to me as parts of me.

I am not asking where you feel your feelings but where the wrongness lies.

Stopped_lurking said:
The specific feeling, as I have said multiple times. Some feelings gives me an impetus to act (among them moral feelings), and others don't.

Saying that they're different doesn't explain the difference. What about the feelings gives you an impetus to act? Or are you just blindly being led by pure emotion, and never seek to justify your actions in any way?

Morality without Absolute Morality

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads