Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

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]

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

So are morals normative or not?

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?

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]

So are morals normative or not?

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

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

In my feelings about the event.

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

Sense input? What are fishing after?

 

[Fervent]

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

In any sense. If so, what sense?

In my feelings about the event.

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

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]

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.

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

In me then.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

In me then.

Still not an answer.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.