Morality is Non-Rational

[DogmaHunter]

[What if my wellbeing causes you suffering? Is that ok?]

What about if I were out of money and I broke into your house and stole some money? Moral? If not why? If so why?

So you're asking me if an action that is literally defined as immoral, is moral or immoral? lol.

It would be immoral considering you live in a western country where you have options available like getting a job, getting welfare, getting food stamps, charities,...
Allowing people who have little to take from people who have more would be detrimental to overall security, safety, freedom, rights of property,....

If you live in a society where the poor are thrown in the sewers to rot without such options, then that is another story.

There's really no substance to debate here. Maybe your own words are intended for you.

Maybe if you replied with substance, I could do the same...
I only responded in kind.

You didn't explain it very well because it still sounds like majority rules. Unless of course the minority rules. Wouldn't it necessarily be one or the other?

No. Read it again.
The key part is to formulate a conclusion without identifying with either one of the groups.


[Why is murder wrong?]
Just saying "you can't just go around killing people without proper justification" is not an answer.[/quote]

That's not "just" what I said. I also said "In a free society where freedom and well-being for all and the least amount of suffering possible, is important"

You don't see how murdering someone doesn't benefit freedom, well-being, safety, security... but rather increases insecurity, fear, suffering,...?

If you don't, then I don't know what to tell you.

The animals go around killing and we don't throw them in jail.

What kind of slavery are you talking about? Indentured servants who are working off debt or illegally forcing labor without just recompense? One is wrong and one isn't.

The kind where humans beings are considered the private property of other human beings - no matter the circumstances.

A lot of people choose to force their well-being on others by stealing, rape or murder. They don't care about your well-being.

Yes and we call those people immoral. Derp.

Their well-being is not dependent on yours or my well-being.

Except that it is... They depend on the productivity of others just like the rest of us.
The only reason they prosper (until they are put in jail or killed) is because not everybody is like them. World economies and productivity would collapse if everybody did act like that.

They live in our societies and thrive there. They are very happy and laugh at the do-gooders who are idiots in their opinion. Why is their behavior wrong or immoral?

Because their behavior increases overall suffering.

So the majority rules?

For the gazillionth time: no.

What is best for most sentient creatures in certain parts of the Middle East is to strap bombs of their children and kill innocent people.

And ironically, they do that with an "objective morality" of a "holy book" in their hand.

Checkmate?

That is what that society has chosen as "best" for their people. Is this wrong? Why?

Ironically again, it is wrong because it isn't a reasoned moral conclusion based on an understanding of reality. Rather, it is a mere assertion of a perceived authority. The very type of "objective morality" you argue for here...

The ONLY argument you can give to condemn this behaviour is "well, they have the wrong god". If they had the right god, then what they are doing would be MORAL.

See how that works?
This is why "religious morality" is really moral bankrupcy.

You see the problem is not that we necessarily disagree with what is best for society, in fact we probably agree on most of it, the problem is I have a basis on which I place this morality. It is God and His nature. What is your basis?

Your basis is the exact same basis as the ISIS terrorists!!!!

MY basis is: well-being is more preferable to suffering.

Morality is connected to all of the things that you mentioned but you are very vague as to what you are basing these things on. Personal happiness? General hygiene? What?

well-being vs suffering.

Well-being, as mentioned, is a broad term. It includes hygiene, hapiness, security, freedom, health, rights of property, etc.

Suffering is the same, but then the flip side of all those coins: sickness, death, depression, war, violence, pain,...

God forbid that you are ever in the minority. As for me I will stick to the character of God, He is just, loving and merciful. You shall not murder because God is life, you shall not be a false witness because God is truth. And God will hold us accountable to His commands.

ISIS says the exact same about Allah.

[Lying should be judged by the Justice Dept.]
Really? It's Ok to lie in Court? Is this one of your "morals"?
For brevity I didn't repost your examples of "harmless lies" which probably do not fall under the category of bearing false witness. A witness can do harm to the guilty or the innocent. It bears much weight in the course of justice. That is what is being discussed.

Already dealt with that in another post.

Lying in court is not okay, but NOT because of the principle of lying. Rather because of the consequence thereof: deliberatly boycotting investigations.

Lying is not regulated by justice departments. Consequences are.

I can lie to my friend's wife when she asks me if he is at the bar that she doesn't like him to frequent without going to jail.

I can not lie to my friend saying that I will invest his money and then go on a cruise with it instead.

At that point, I'm not sued for "lying". I'm sued for stealing his money.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have severe mental illness, trauma, and am also on pain killers by the way. Of course well being is good. Thanks DH for the wisdom.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have a concept "distributed rationality", i.e. people working for the common good. When the group works together for shared interests etc...

We see it all over when people go to work in specialised jobs, be they dustmen, child rearers, accountants or painters (and so on)...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The issue is we people are often ignorant, and so social rules like "dont steal", "avoid lying" are mythologised. Theres a common fallacy, mythology is akin to fiction, so therefore also is morality.

Rather social rules are probablistic laws, which conjointly lead to an emergent "order on the edge of chaos" to use a popular phrase. Chaos meaning that systems are unpredictable and non linear, like a "social weather" or "social climate" - changable. Yet ordered, in that people are predictable to a certain degree, we go to work, eat, they pass on greetings etc.

People have talked in the elementary terms for ages, I am not sure what good scientific jargon will do the common man.

 

[Dig4truth]

The issue is we people are often ignorant, and so social rules like "dont steal", "avoid lying" are mythologised. Theres a common fallacy, mythology is akin to fiction, so therefore also is morality.

Rather social rules are probablistic laws, which conjointly lead to an emergent "order on the edge of chaos" to use a popular phrase. Chaos meaning that systems are unpredictable and non linear, like a "social weather" or "social climate" - changable. Yet ordered, in that people are predictable to a certain degree, we go to work, eat, they pass on greetings etc.

People have talked in the elementary terms for ages, I am not sure what good scientific jargon will do the common man.

So then you would not subscribe to DogmaHunter's bunch of morality myths? Gee, I wonder if anyone else would feel the same way in his utopia?

If there are no moral absolutes then everyone does what is right in their own eyes, something that God has expressed doesn't fly too well with Him.

 

[Lukamu]

Yes. Which is exactly why secular morality is superior.



Only to the one who actually believes and follows the religion of said scripture.
Understand that to someone like me, the bible is about as relevant as the illiad or the bagavad ghita is to you...



That's just your religious belief.
And it doesn't change anything, because god is not on this planet laying down the law. It's humans that are on this planet laying down the law.

No matter how this "god" get his moral standards - human followers of that religion are still simply making assertions from perceived authority. It's still mere obedience to a perceived authority.

It changes nothing.




This is again just what you believe (on faith - of all things)
Again, it changes nothing.

Thanks for your perspective. I realize that this world is far from perfect, and some religious people make it worse by "upholding the scriptures" in a way that is close-minded or hypocritical. But the Bible is the ultimate description of morality (kindness, patience, forgiveness, helping others, putting others first, humility, truthfulness - just to name a few... you'll have to read the whole thing to get the whole picture). If everyone abided by this morality, the world would prosper. As it is, people do not agree on the Bible, and therefore governments must step in and create a code of morality by reason which people will agree to follow.

A hypothetical question: If there is a good and perfect God, wouldn't he/she have arrived at morality through reasoning? Or if there was a good and perfect God, would he have just chosen whatever morality he/she preferred, regardless the consequences? In other words, is the morality of the Bible be arrived at through a rational process? If not, why, specifically (examples)?
Again, thanks for your post!
- Lukamu

 

[quatona]

If there are no moral absolutes then everyone does what is right in their own eyes

And since you believe there are moral absolutes this attitude can´t and doesn´t exist, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks for your perspective. I realize that this world is far from perfect, and some religious people make it worse by "upholding the scriptures" in a way that is close-minded or hypocritical. But the Bible is the ultimate description of morality (kindness, patience, forgiveness, helping others, putting others first, humility, truthfulness - just to name a few... you'll have to read the whole thing to get the whole picture). If everyone abided by this morality, the world would prosper.

You are literally suggesting to cherry pick the good bits from the bible.
To do that, your moral standard does not come from the bible.

I don't require a book to tell me that kindness etc is better and preferable to cruelty.
And neither do you.

A hypothetical question: If there is a good and perfect God, wouldn't he/she have arrived at morality through reasoning? Or if there was a good and perfect God, would he have just chosen whatever morality he/she preferred, regardless the consequences? In other words, is the morality of the Bible be arrived at through a rational process? If not, why, specifically (examples)?
Again, thanks for your post!
- Lukamu

Everything "could" be.
But when we are talking about the god of the bible, I'ld say that that's a definite "no".

The morals in the bible on the one hand clearly revolutionary - in the sense that it introduced a few good ideas (note: i don't consider the bible to be the source of those - they are rather ideas of people who then included it in this book).

On the other hand, the bible also exhibits clear signs of "morals" from the bronze age. The occasional good thing to be found in their takes a backseat to all the horrible, barbaric bits. Public executions, slavery, genocide, etc.... these are all things the bible is perfectly fine with. Just as we would expect from a "philosophy" from the bronze age.

If a similar book would be written today in western secular society, it would be a MUCH better book.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There are moral requirements, but they need not be met in an absolute fashion. There are many ways to keep fit for an analogy. Likewise, deciding what to tax people, or what to fine a thief, can vary from case to case. The problem is optimisation, we dont know exactly how to calculate soooooo many parameters, and then include people and then decide on the best system. You may say "God says so, therefore its cool", or you may not. The idea "God does not exist, therefore all is permissible" is one big non sequitir. Probably used for rhetoric and wnning debates rather than clarifying the truths we can know.

 

[Lukamu]

You are literally suggesting to cherry pick the good bits from the bible.
To do that, your moral standard does not come from the bible.

I don't require a book to tell me that kindness etc is better and preferable to cruelty.
And neither do you.



Everything "could" be.
But when we are talking about the god of the bible, I'ld say that that's a definite "no".

The morals in the bible on the one hand clearly revolutionary - in the sense that it introduced a few good ideas (note: i don't consider the bible to be the source of those - they are rather ideas of people who then included it in this book).

On the other hand, the bible also exhibits clear signs of "morals" from the bronze age. The occasional good thing to be found in their takes a backseat to all the horrible, barbaric bits. Public executions, slavery, genocide, etc.... these are all things the bible is perfectly fine with. Just as we would expect from a "philosophy" from the bronze age.

If a similar book would be written today in western secular society, it would be a MUCH better book.

While it doesn't require a book to understand kindness vs. cruelty, there is something to be said for revolutionary Christian ideas such as "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", "put others first", "don't be selfish", "don't be greedy", and "it's better to suffer for doing good". This is some of God's morality that we don't find in our own secular morality. But I do understand the idea that the human race should be able to decide it's own morality through reasoning. It's just that I disagree with the idea that morality is something that should be changeable based on the circumstances. I mean, morals and values are supposed to be the foundation on which we build our lives - you don't try to move a foundation when there's already a building on it! The true "Bronze Age" morals of the Bible are timeless.

Some people mistakenly believe that we are "cherry picking" the best lines in the Bible and ignoring the others. The lines that we are "ignoring" (e.g., slaughtering women and children, marrying many wives, extravagant lifestyles, etc.) are not condoned in the Bible in the sense that Christians should be doing these things today. These lines are merely a record of the history of the Israelites - both good and bad. In fact, God spends most of the Bible being mad at the Israelites for these things! Just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it's condoned by the Bible. Here's a great example of someone who doesn't understand this concept:

Thanks for the conversation DogmaHunter.
- Lukamu

 

[DogmaHunter]

While it doesn't require a book to understand kindness vs. cruelty, there is something to be said for revolutionary Christian ideas such as "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", "put others first", "don't be selfish", "don't be greedy", and "it's better to suffer for doing good".

Sure. Eventhough I seriously disagree with some of those.
How is this really relevant though?

None of these good bits remove any of the horrible bits. And you can find some seriously good ideas in just about any culture and religion.

This is some of God's morality that we don't find in our own secular morality.

I very much disagree with that as well. Do you really think that secular morality can't lead you to saying that selfishness is a bad thing?

Also part of "God's morality" by the way: genocide is not always bad, slavery is okay, public stoning is okay, killing homosexuals is okay,...

But I do understand the idea that the human race should be able to decide it's own morality through reasoning. It's just that I disagree with the idea that morality is something that should be changeable based on the circumstances.

But that is demonstrably the case. It is incredibly easy to imagine a certain specific action that would be horribly immoral in one specific setting, while the exact same action would be the only moral option in another specific setting.

I mean, morals and values are supposed to be the foundation on which we build our lives - you don't try to move a foundation when there's already a building on it! The true "Bronze Age" morals of the Bible are timeless.

Then why don't we keep slaves anymore?

Some people mistakenly believe that we are "cherry picking" the best lines in the Bible and ignoring the others. The lines that we are "ignoring" (e.g., slaughtering women and children, marrying many wives, extravagant lifestyles, etc.) are not condoned in the Bible in the sense that Christians should be doing these things today.

You mean......... according to a 21st century "interpretation" of these texts.
Do you know how many "witches", homosexuals, heretics, blasphemers and apostates were burned in London alone, only a couple centuries ago?

These lines are merely a record of the history of the Israelites - both good and bad.

Among those "lines" are the 10 commandments (along with the other 603).

In fact, God spends most of the Bible being mad at the Israelites for these things!

Errr.... God didn't order the israelites to go on genocidal rampages and didn't condone brutal, horrible treatment of humans?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 32:27&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 21:20-21&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 17:13&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 21:3&version=KJV

It took me 4 seconds to come up with those 4 passages. Do you want more?

This is not the "israelites" doing things against the will of this god...
This is this god literally condoning and ordering the israelites to engage in genocidal practices and keep slaves.

 

[Dante116]

Exodus 21:20 is for the striking of the slave. 21 says if the slave survives from being beaten, not that they die after a few days (the 20 implies they die as a consequence, with no time limit).

In the historical context, slavery was rife (in that it was a regionally totally culturally accepted norm) and that it actually had a consequence for beating a slave to death would be groundbreaking at the time. Using something like that as justification (which the pre-abolition plantation owners would have) to keep slaves in this age would be asinine, especially in light of Paul's letter to Philemon.

 

[pshun2404]

So if everyone agrees that child rape is okay then it is moral?

 

[quatona]

So if everyone agrees that child rape is okay then it is moral?

No, it´s only moral when God says it´s ok.

 

[Lukamu]

Sure. Eventhough I seriously disagree with some of those.
How is this really relevant though?

None of these good bits remove any of the horrible bits. And you can find some seriously good ideas in just about any culture and religion.


I very much disagree with that as well. Do you really think that secular morality can't lead you to saying that selfishness is a bad thing?

Also part of "God's morality" by the way: genocide is not always bad, slavery is okay, public stoning is okay, killing homosexuals is okay,...


But that is demonstrably the case. It is incredibly easy to imagine a certain specific action that would be horribly immoral in one specific setting, while the exact same action would be the only moral option in another specific setting.

Then why don't we keep slaves anymore?

You mean......... according to a 21st century "interpretation" of these texts.
Do you know how many "witches", homosexuals, heretics, blasphemers and apostates were burned in London alone, only a couple centuries ago?

Among those "lines" are the 10 commandments (along with the other 603).

Errr.... God didn't order the israelites to go on genocidal rampages and didn't condone brutal, horrible treatment of humans?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 32:27&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 21:20-21&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 17:13&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 21:3&version=KJV

It took me 4 seconds to come up with those 4 passages. Do you want more?

This is not the "israelites" doing things against the will of this god...
This is this god literally condoning and ordering the israelites to engage in genocidal practices and keep slaves.

I'm noticing a trend here, that all of your "bad bits" come from the Old Testament. Can you find any from the New Testament (which is what Christians adhere to). On closer inspection of the New Testament, there is plenty of discussion about how the Old Testament was written for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Not that the Old Testament is useless - it should be studied and understood for what it is. But the reason why Jesus is so important is that He gives us the "new covenant" as the Old Testament predicted (Jeremiah 31:31-34), explained further in the New Testament (Hebrews 9:25), and declared by Jesus himself (Luke 22:20).
As for the darker moments in Christian history, couldn't the same be said for every other group and nation? Didn't early Americans loot and pillage Native American tribes? Didn't Germans exterminate Jews? This doesn't mean that Americans still believe in killing Native Americans, or that Germans still want to exterminate the Jews. It just means that humans are less than perfect (even Christians), and that people in history have made big mistakes. Nothing new here. I am ashamed of the things that Christians have done in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't mean that all Christians should share in the guilt to the nth generation.
Thanks again for the conversation. It is thought provoking!
- Lukamu

No, it´s only moral when God says it´s ok.

Said with tongue-in-cheek or truly with malicious intention? God has never said that it is okay to rape children, so this statement, if taken at face value, is foolish. What are you getting at?

 

[quatona]

Said with tongue-in-cheek or truly with malicious intention? God has never said that it is okay to rape children, so this statement, if taken at face value, is foolish. What are you getting at?

The implications of appeals to absolute authority.

Your "if everybody agreed..." was entirely hypothetically, so you didn´t seem to have a problem with such hypotheticals.

 

[Lukamu]

The implications of appeals to absolute authority.

Your "if everybody agreed..." was entirely hypothetically, so you didn´t seem to have a problem with such hypotheticals.

What about the implications of appeals to an absolutely good, holy, and perfect absolute authority? This is the God in whom Christians believe. Indeed, it would be a frightening thought to appeal to absolute authority if the authority were less than good and perfect!

 

[quatona]

What about the implications of appeals to an absolutely good, holy, and perfect absolute authority? This is the God in whom Christians believe. Indeed, it would be a frightening thought to appeal to absolute authority if the authority were less than good and perfect!

The question is: What criteria do you apply when judging an authority "good", "holy" or "perfect"?
It´s basically the same question as "What criteria do you apply when judging an action 'good'?".
So with postulating a "good" God no progress is made when it comes to moral questions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you postulate a green tree, you must first know what green is.

 

[Lukamu]

The question is: What criteria do you apply when judging an authority "good", "holy" or "perfect"?
It´s basically the same question as "What criteria do you apply when judging an action 'good'?".
So with postulating a "good" God no progress is made when it comes to moral questions.

Postulating a "good" God makes no progress if your morality is rational by human standards, which is the main point of this discussion thread. Some people require the explanation before they'll believe. "Show me, and then I'll believe," they say. But Christians operate on faith in a good, holy, and perfect God (His definition of "good," "holy", and "perfect", not ours). In a sense, I am not applying criteria to judge whether God is these things. First, I believe that He is these things, and then by studying the Bible I come to a understand His definition of what "good," "holy" and "perfect" mean. Ultimately, God is the judge of these things, not I. Hope this helps you understand my viewpoint,
- Lukamu