Morality is Non-Rational

[jackcv]

I think the problem with this is that morals cannot be derived from reason alone. Logic and empirical data alone cannot tell us what's right or what's wrong. We've got to bring moral assumptions to the table.

A moral assumption would be something like: "we ought to treat others like we would want to be treated." I think that this is a fantastic moral assumption. We can certainly reason from moral assumptions like this. This assumption, combined with reason, can tell us a great many things about what we should or should not do.

But no amount of brute reason can get us to this assumption. We must simply begin with it.

Thank you for beginning this thread, Tree of Life. I have been pondering it, and just read your initial few entries again; perhaps I missed both your and Hume's points. I certainly agree that morals are based on higher-than-man reasoning.

This does not, however, make them non-rational. "Morals are Non-Rational" is distracting from the real issue. I would suggest "Morals are Supra-Rational."

"we ought to treat others like we would want to be treated." I think that is is a fantastic moral assumption.

If we accept this moral assumption, commonly called the Golden Rule, then I come face-to-face with the following fruitful question: How does the Golden Rule apply to an eternal sociopath who believes in God, fears and hates Him? One who fixates on Nietzche's "that which does not kill me makes me stronger" and, believing that "that which is eternal cannot be harmed, and that which is not eternal does not exist" has an unconquerable spirit, pride and will to power, and who therefore desires testing of himself in order to become stronger in order to conquer?

Do you think there are such individuals? I do.

Do you think God made their eternal souls - that is, their individual wills? I certainly do not.

Should they follow the Golden Rule?

The Golden Rule, important words carefully chosen by God himself, seems to direct that sociopaths ought to treat others on the assumption that they all love the appearing of predatory evolution, sadism, and all have an insatiable will to power, like they would want to be treated

What is our God-given action step when such sociopaths prey on innocent, peaceful, God-loving people? We should be careful not to fight God, right?

 

[jackcv]

Let me make the key issue in this post a bit clearer:
The Golden Rule, important words carefully chosen by God himself, seems to direct that sociopaths ought to treat others The Golden Rule, important words carefully chosen by God himself, seems to direct that sociopaths ought to treat others cruelly on the assumption that they all love the appearing of predatory evolution, sadism, and all have an insatiable will to power, like they would want to be treatedon the assumption that they all love the appearing of predatory evolution, sadism, and all have an insatiable will to power, like they [the sociopaths] would want to be treated.

If that is God's commandment to sociopaths, then how do we who are not sociopaths serve God when we see such cruelty? What positive examples do we find in His word, His prophets, His angels?

 

[paulm50]

The problem is always going to be shifting morals. When the OT was written morals were different to when the NT was written, they had to be as they changed the laws based on morals.

Those laws are out of date now and we have changed them again.

In a lot of religions or dub sects women are regarded as second class, given less freedom, allocated certain tasks and banned from others. Only allowed to wed one husband and a man allowed to have many wives. A women has to act and dress a certain way.

How does that fit in with "Do unto others"?

This is why allowing religions to set morals is wrong. Only secular society can do that. They come at the situation with a more level view.

 

[Tree of Life]

This is why allowing religions to set morals is wrong. Only secular society can do that. They come at the situation with a more level view.

Is this moral also subject to change?

 

[Blank Stair]

I was in a discussion once at lunch with a woman who self-identified as an atheist. Somehow our discussion entered into a talk about morality and how it isn't universal but very often a matter of cultural programming and other factors as well.

This atheist woman said that, and while paraphrasing this is very close to her exact words because the impact of them actually shut down five women's conversations afterward and we all departed and busied ourself until it was time to go back to our desks, she didn't believe morality was anything but a myth. Imparted across society generation after generation as a way to band-aid carnal lust and carnal impulses when they are acted upon and then judged by others.
That being a mouthful we decided to ask her to elaborate.
For instance , she said, she didn't see a thing wrong with having sex with her brother. Her full blood brother, not a step brother. As long as it was a consensual union. And that was the passkey that allows the go-around for what is societies mock idea of controls; morality and moral principles.
Anything is permissible as long as it is consented upon because when you think about it, and this is still her thoughts, morality is not rational because it is impossible to sustain as a rule based way of life.

Rules describing right conduct is irrational.
Would you ever ever let someone who believed that babysit? Watch your home? Borrow your car if they didn't have a ride to the doctor? Borrow money? Keep a secret? Would you ever ever want to know someone like that as someone you saw and interacted with as anything more than in passing and giving a polite, hello?

Yes, moral codes change. But there must be rules for conduct in any society. Religious rules just make sense. Societal rules are imparted by law.
But if someone has to , or only can, operate morally under threat of law they're in a far darker hole than what any man made confines applied to describe right behavior can help.

 

[paulm50]

Is this moral also subject to change?

We we changed to this, so we can change back. They have done this in parts of the Middle East.

I think if the Church was to gain real power again, they would try to impose their morals on us even more.

 

[jackcv]

allowing religions to set morals is wrong. Only secular society can do that. They come at the situation with a more level view.

With all due respect, Paul m50, allowing society set morals is a wild ride through hell.

However, gospel buffet churches are not the answer either. The only rational solution is continuing revelation through prophets, and continuing revelation to individuals confirming that the prophets are right.

If society will not listen to God's laws from his mouth, then trusting them to set their own morals is foolish.
I think blank stairs made that point very cogently.

 

[asherahSamaria]

With all due respect, Paul m50, allowing society set morals is a wild ride through hell.

However, gospel buffet churches are not the answer either. The only rational solution is continuing revelation through prophets, and continuing revelation to individuals confirming that the prophets are right.

If society will not listen to God's laws from his mouth, then trusting them to set their own morals is foolish.
I think blank stairs made that point very cogently.

Where I live churches don't set the law - society does. No sign or burning brimstone yet ....

 

[paulm50]

With all due respect, Paul m50, allowing society set morals is a wild ride through hell.

However, gospel buffet churches are not the answer either. The only rational solution is continuing revelation through prophets, and continuing revelation to individuals confirming that the prophets are right.

If society will not listen to God's laws from his mouth, then trusting them to set their own morals is foolish.
I think blank stairs made that point very cogently.

We would listen to god's laws from his mouth. I was talking about religions setting them. The problem would be identifying false prophets. They would need 100% proof.

You are assuming the religion you follow would be the one setting the laws, what if it wasn't?

 

[jackcv]

Where I live churches don't set the law - society does. No sign or burning brimstone yet ....

Point taken, AsheraSamaria. Like the fellow who jumped off a skyscraper, and as he passed the 4th floor was heard to say, "So far, so good!"

Brimstone is so rare as to be near zero risk. What is usual is escalating stress, fear, robbery of various sorts, then wars, famine, pestilence. It appears to me from the scriptures that "the wrath of God" is Him being wrenched, wrestled and wrangled away from His preferred role of provider and savior. Absent his protection, hostile humans provide the great, vast bulk of the punishment to the wicked, just as they provide purifying, softening abuse to the innocent. That's what happens when society decides what the morals are.

Paulm50, your looking for proof from God is spot on. He has no problem making promises and saying "prove me now herewith." The heavens are still open; our Father still loves and is eager to commune with his willing children. Prophets teach through precept and example that revelation almost always comes in answer to a question, and generally an urgent question. Not always, but most of the time. I've tried it, and found that it is true even for lesser humans like myself. I think that's why it is that I have noted personally over the years the great majority of faithful followers of all the great world religions are very similar in nature. Remarkably uniform. Beautiful.

I find that the great religions share a common trunk and roots. Their leaves and branches are different, and we will all be surprised in the end. But if all Christians were faithful to the Bible, and all Hindus faithful to the Bhagavad Gita, and all Muslims to the Koran, and Baptists, Taoista, Sikhs, etc. were likewise faithful to their scriptures, then society's laws would reflect the moral laws of God, for He is the source of revelation to all of them. From his own mouth.

 

[paulm50]

Point taken, AsheraSamaria. Like the fellow who jumped off a skyscraper, and as he passed the 4th floor was heard to say, "So far, so good!"

Depending which prophet one reads. The man has landed and walked away.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Logic versus rationality. Logic is for geeks, whack.

 

[jackcv]

Is this moral also subject to change?

It struck me again this morning that a false premise in the question necessarily leads to false conclusions. Also, much confusion in the process. The productive axiom that comes to me again and again in life is, "the answers are in the questions."

The term "moral assumptions" is a false premise. It leads down a dead end street. Certainly on a Christian forum, the proper term is "commandments of God."

So, I conclude today that arguing about which moral assumptions are best, and where they come from is like arguing about which recreational drugs are best or where they come from. The faithful of the great world religions don't care about these subjects. Thanks for asking, though.

 

[Colter]

Morality is indigenous to human personality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Problem is theres so many systems and possible zoomifications, its mind boggling.

 

[Dig4truth]

For those who believe that morality is not rational I submit the following video.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What logic is he using?

 

[Davian]

What logic is he using?

"Faulty".

 

[Dig4truth]

Sound logic, otherwise you would have refuted it I suspect.

 

[Davian]

Sound logic, otherwise you would have refuted it I suspect.

Nothing really to refute. He has simply descended into presuppositional apologetics, which amounts to declaring oneself right in the face of any and all contradictory information.

"Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian"

Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia