Morality Question

[bulldog86]

So many people dont murder or steal not necessarily because of the bible, but because of "the golden rule" -- do unto others -- something that anyone could understand with or without ever hearing the bible.

The irony is killing me....

The "golden rule" came from Scripture....

Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

[Crusader]

The irony is killing me....

The "golden rule" came from Scripture....

Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

this was not uniquely spoken by Jesus. prophets and philosophers had said this many times in many ways for years before Jesus. Jesus did live it though.

 

[bulldog86]

[/color][/font] this was not uniquely spoken by Jesus. prophets and philosophers had said this many times in many ways for years before Jesus. Jesus did live it though.

In any case, our American "golden rule" is a direct excerpt from Scripture. The irony was just killing me. "We don't live by Scripture. We live by the Golden Rule... which happens to be Scriptural." Anyway, I don't know if that came off like I was making fun of him. Didn't intend to sound that way... just very ironic. I apologize if it did or does sound like I'm making fun of you, Zara.

 

[ZaraDurden]

I know the golden rule is in scripture, but my point was that even if the bible never existed many people would end up following it... because it if you want to live as a society, it makes a really lot of sense...

And as Crusader said, Jesus was not the only nor the first to teach this rule.

I guess i should not have said "do unto others" because that sounds scriptural... i should have said "treat others like you want to be treated".

 

[ZaraDurden]

Well our genes and diets have changed a great deal over the years. Does that means genes are relative? Does that mean diet is relative?

So I can eat grass and live a long and healthy life?

Our height has changed a great deal over the years, does that mean height is a fiction, that we can merely say that the idea of height is a social construct?

That means I can say "I am 6 feet tall" and another can say "No you are eighty feet" and we can both be right.

Or that I can change my height just by changing my opinion?

The examples you raise are all physical things that we can actually measure.

Morality is an abstract with no possible measure or value judgement... but i dont claim to be solving a debate which continues to rage on today.

 

[ZaraDurden]

DialecticMaterialist:


Do you suppose that morality is innate?

If so, is there a universal moral code, or do we all have our own morality?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The examples you raise are all physical things that we can actually measure.

Morality is an abstract with no possible measure or value judgement... but i dont claim to be solving a debate which continues to rage on today.

And what of emotions like love? What of taste? Just because you can't measure something does not make it cease to be physical.

Morality to me is something we can only measure by means of approximation, but it is physical.

Also if morality is abstract, what is it abstracted from? And why is it so universal?

And why do lower animals demonstrate behaviors that can be considered precursors to morality? Are they perhaps capable of abstract thought?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

DialecticMaterialist:


Do you suppose that morality is innate?

Somewhat. By innate I would mean it more in the sense of Liebniz or an instinct somewhat molded by enviroment then some Platonic idea one is born with.

It's kind of like our ability to pick up language, part of that is innate, but many of these innate tendencies are molded and triggered by enviromental stimuli.

If so, is there a universal moral code, or do we all have our own morality?

No, I don't think there is a universal moral code. Even if there was a code for all humans, animals would largely be outside of it.

I think there is a general code though among humans, as we are all pretty similiar biolgically and even our enviroments don't differ that much (we all have families, need to grow food, need to get along with others, live under the same laws of physics etc.) And even in regards to enviromental impact I would say morality is something more developed for social reasons, then climatic, hence what enviromental stimuli triggered it would be social, as in that conductive to society and aiding invidual survival within a group, not climatic. (And since our basic social groups are even more uniform then climate, morality seems even more general.)

Now I'm not saying there is no variation. People may be born without a moral sense or perhaps have no moral sense due to retardation in development. (Just like some people do not have a language.)

But the vast majority of times morality tends to remain the same, and if it does vary it's irrelevant. Just because another person might be ok with murder, it does not mean I have to be ok with it.
I am innately inclined to dislike murder, to want to prevent it, even if they are inclined to pursue it. At this point then all we can do is use conflict and resort to force. Something I don't have a problem with. (I'm sure cows don't want to be eaten, but that doesn't mean I care.)

Not to say might makes right, but one needs might to establish what is right. (Hitler was very wrong, but IF he won the war, there would be very little to stop him.)




But let me ask you, if morality is an abstraction Zara why follow it?

Also if you give merely a pragmatic reason, or say "we shouldn't really", let me ask you, would you, if offered 5 grand to molest/torture and then kill a four year old child, do it? Lets say there would be no punishment, nobody would really even know about it, and you knew there was no strings attached. Would you do it?


I sure as hell would not. I bet you would not.

I bet even if a Christian was asked by God to do the above they likely would not. And even if God ordered them to do it, many would not, or would do so very reluctantly(and feel rotten about it afterwards. )

Most of us, even those who claim not to believe in the "abstraction" would still be reluctant to commit the above, the mere thought of it repulses us. But if morality is merely an abstraction or order by God, why is this? Why not do it, and why feel bad about it?

The simplest answer is it isn't. Morality is more then an abstraction, more then a commandment; morality is something innate. Something we can no more reject or turn off then our need for air, our aging or our ability to feel pain.

 

[ZaraDurden]

"And why is it so universal?

And why do lower animals demonstrate behaviors that can be considered precursors to morality? Are they perhaps capable of abstract thought?"

I was not aware morality was universal. It is?

I am not above the idea that animals are capable of abstract thought... i myself put humans on the same level as animals...

But im interested in this, could you put some examples of animal morality?

 

[ZaraDurden]

I agree with most of the things you are saying in that last post.

I would not because i was raised with christian morals, which i feel it is not really possible for me to wholly dispose of.

I think a person outside of any morals would still object, but i can not be sure. Do you consider the possibility of objection out of logic, or out of other feelings besides morality? Feelings like empathy?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

"And why is it so universal?

And why do lower animals demonstrate behaviors that can be considered precursors to morality? Are they perhaps capable of abstract thought?"

I was not aware morality was universal. It is?

I am not above the idea that animals are capable of abstract thought... i myself put humans on the same level as animals...

But im interested in this, could you put some examples of animal morality?

Morality is not universal, but when I said "so universal" I meant that every society has a form of morality, and we tend to share basic moral norms. Tell me, if we met an undiscovered tribe, would you proceed to kill of them, or steal their stuff?

Not if you expect to survive. Because you would assume that they would be angered by that.

Also the idea of animals capable of abstract thought...is improbable. I mean wouldn't it be simpler to just attribute the behavior to innate and emotional mechanisms?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Do you consider the possibility of objection out of logic, or out of other feelings besides morality? Feelings like empathy?

Well pure logic would have nothing to say on the matter. And as for empathy, that is possible. I do not deny that empathy plays a strong role in morality.

But replace the murder of child with "sleeping with your mother" and you will find similiar reservations/condemnations.

Also the idea of cheating, lying and betrayel is also condemned by almost everyone, even if it does not cause much harm.

 

[ZaraDurden]

"I meant that every society has a form of morality, and we tend to share basic moral norms."

What would you consider moral norms? I would say yes, many agree that say killing and stealing are wrong... but those things fall under the golden rule-- treat others as you wish to be treated-- this is the basics of living in a society. There are some things, such as cannibalism, that we consider to be wrong whereas others find to be the norm.

I wouldnt kill them and steal there stuff... but i dont see where this has to do with the possibility of innate morality... i see it has more to do with commonsense and logic, and again, the golden rule.

"I mean wouldn't it be simpler to just attribute the behavior to innate and emotional mechanisms?"

Haha maybe it would be simplier, but if i was looking for the simpliest answer, i would just say "God did it."

 

[ZaraDurden]

"But replace the murder of child with "sleeping with your mother" and you will find similiar reservations/condemnations."

Condemnations from you and I, but at some times and places in this world incest in certain societies has been accepted as a norm.

 

[ZaraDurden]

My friend i am very sorry... i am enjoying this debate very much, but i have to get up for work in less than 3 hours... keep posting ill get back to you as soon as i can.

Thanks, Zara

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

What would you consider moral norms? I would say yes, many agree that say killing and stealing are wrong... but those things fall under the golden rule-- treat others as you wish to be treated-- this is the basics of living in a society. There are some things, such as cannibalism, that we consider to be wrong whereas others find to be the norm.

Very seldom is cannibalism ever practiced. In fact the exceptions when they do occur prove the rule, as rationalizations are made like "they weren't really human" or when it is done, it is done during periods of emergencies or as a terror tactic, then not done anymore.

You in fact picked a good example of a universally held taboo.

I wouldnt kill them and steal there stuff... but i dont see where this has to do with the possibility of innate morality... i see it has more to do with commonsense and logic, and again, the golden rule.

But how does one justify the Golden rule? Also not everyone knows about it. Many in fact would see the above as wrong without knowing of the Golden Rule. Or logic.

(BTW how does pure logic show us that murder is wrong?)

The Golden rule seems insufficient, as people practiced morals for a long time after before the Golden Rule was established. And the Golden rule is merely an abstraction, I reject it, but then why would I still feel bad about doing certain things?

Does one simply not have a conscience until one hears about the Golden Rule?

The Golden Rule lastly is merely an abstract concept, but there are emotions connected to morality, not just thoughts. So again the Golden Rule hardly serves as a foundation, let alone a sufficient one.

As for common sense I agree, but I'm getting more specific. I am saying why it is common sense, and just what sense we are talking about.




[

Haha maybe it would be simplier, but if i was looking for the simpliest answer, i would just say "God did it."

No you wouldn't because God would be a new type of entity. And explaining things by means of a new entity is not parsimonious as explaining things via entities we are already aware of.

Also that wouldn't even answer the question. the question keep in mind asks why would you feel bad even if God told you to do it?

Saying "God did it" would not even make sense.

Condemnations from you and I, but at some times and places in this world incest in certain societies has been accepted as a norm.

Yes but you are failing to realize that if it is just a matter of belief, why is it you feel bad about it, when you don't believe it? Simply saying "Because I live in a christian society" is not sufficient, because you reject the belief (i.e. think it is not true), so you then shouldn't feel a nasty reaction when violating the norm if the norm is merely an abstract thought.

Secondly, incest taboos like cannibalism are also one of the most universally upheld things among humans, among all mammals even, especially mother-son incest. In fact you are far more likely to find a society that's ok with theft, rape or murder, then one that's ok with mother-son incest.

http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.miele-immoral.html

While evolutionary theory predicts a certain level of parent-child and sibling rivalry, its predictions are contrary to another mainstay of social science--the Freudian Oedipus Complex. Under evolutionary theory, fathers have a strong vested interest in their son's well-being; provided, of course, it is their son. As sons mature, they may in fact compete with their fathers for status and for females (as daughters may compete with their mothers for males), but not for their own mother (or father). Many evolutionists argue that, given the decreased viability of children born out of incest, selection has created an incest taboo, especially against mother-son incest. The comparative ethnographic data support the existence of the incest taboo, not the Oedipus complex.

And where incest is committed it is again one of those exceptions that proves the rule, as it is only done for extraordinary reasons, like keeping power.

It's like any other instinct, can you find instances where it is ignored? Yes. Almost in every society. Catholic priests refrain from sex, Hindu followers sometimes abstain from eating, certain people for health benefits refrain from sweets, certain parents don't love their kids, certain people cannot see because they are born blind.

But do these exceptions by themselves disprove the notion of innate behavior?

No. Just because a behavior is innate does not mean it is inevitable. Evolutionary psychologists have abandoned that line of reasoning a long time ago. Environment for example plays a strong role, as do beliefs on how to satisfy an innate value.

Also there isn't really as neat a divide as one might think between instinct and enviroment.

Take height for instance, such is undoubtedly influenced by genes, but keep that man half starved and he will never reach his full height.

Likewise obesity is influenced by genes, but put that man in a third world country and he will not get obese.

So even if a behavior is innate, it can be influenced a great deal by enviroment, beliefs, and other motives/innate behaviors.

A case of the third example would be if I could eat poisoned food. I sure may be hungry, I sure may want food, but my survival instinct this point may outweigh my innate desire to satisfy my hunger.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Double post

 

[royboy]

Atheists have morals but do bad, Christians have morals but do bad.

If christians still commit regular and horrible crimes, even though they believe in christ and the bible, then they are worse if only because they rate themselves higher than atheists.

 

[bulldog86]

Atheists have morals but do bad, Christians have morals but do bad.

If christians still commit regular and horrible crimes, even though they believe in christ and the bible, then they are worse if only because they rate themselves higher than atheists.

I don't believe Christians "rate themselves higher than atheists." Some do, to be sure... but that's just because they are arrogant and hypocritical.

In any case, I do believe that Christians are held to a higher standard, because we have been freed from slavery to sin...

 

[ZaraDurden]

DialecticMaterialist:


I think you make a very good case for innate morality. Still i find we disagree on many things...

My point about the golden rule is that you dont need to first hear it to understand it. Animals before humans practiced it for a very long time, doing so by traveling in herds. They dont kill each other not necessarily because its wrong, but because they realize the benefits of traveling in herds for survival.

But, on the other hand, i could see how you could use this arguement for your own case. Where do you suppose this innate morality came from? Was it instilled by a supernatural being, or possibly a product of evolution?

Have you reached this view on your own, or are their others who subscribe to it? I would like to learn more about it.

I asked you before, but i think it got lost in the discussion... Can you show me examples of animals acting moral? I know you agree to a degree that morality is a product of culture, but i think that would be good evidence for your case.