On Morality

[ToHoldNothing]

How is my statement above a "red herring"? My response above was to your rather off-point remark about empathy/sympathy being one possible source for an atheist's morality. This may be a source for an atheist's morality, but this doesn't change or challenge my observation that the source for an atheist's morality creates serious problems in asserting that morality in the public sphere. Whether it is empathy or some other source, an atheist's morality has no objective, universally-authoritative grounding.

The misuse or lack of empathy/sympathy does not suggest that it cannot have a proper use. And objectively, it makes sense that empathy/sympathy works as an ethical/moral principle, universally. Difficulties do not imply that it is useless, only that it requires us to think on it deeper. You seem to purposely define an objective, universally authoritative grounding in such a way that it can only apply to God,which is a tautology and hardly conducive to a genuine discussion. Can you justify your defining this type of moral grounding in such a way through an argument?

Morality may be applied in a subjective way, but for a Christian at least, his morality is obtained from an objective, universally-authoritative Source (God). Actually, this is true for all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). An atheist cannot anchor his morality to any such source.

Again, you fail to argue this beyond a presumption that a lack of God belief implies the impossibility of affirming an objective moral principle that happens to not involve God belief, but nonetheless a belief in an objective principle for ethical behavior.

And this is the problem with not being able to ground one's morality in anything objective and universally-authoritative: When different moralities clash, it is not possible to assert that one is better than another, only that they are different from each other.

Difference can imply they are superior or inferior by comparison, but only in regard to a particular principle of what is considered ethical objectively. I don't claim to have a perfect ethics, only an ethics that is accessible.

This is your understanding of morality. It rests upon the practice of virtue (whatever you mean by that) and "getting along reasonably with other people." Other people, however, take different views on what constitutes morality. Who is to say yours is better? On what basis can you assert that your morality is binding upon others? You have no greater authority as a human being than the next person.

It's not always about who says which is better, it's about what demonstrates which is better. If my ethics involves treating people as they wish to be treated then it follows that an ethics that doesn't involve treating people as they wish to be treated would lead to more problems and general conflicts that didn't need to exist. I'm not invoking myself as an authority in my ethics, I'm invoking a principle that can be considered logically and applied to ethical situations as the authority in a consideration of ethics and morality.

So what? Why is the reduction of suffering something to be valued? Why shouldn't personal gratification take precedence over avoiding causing unnecessary suffering for another? One can, from an atheistic standpoint, make a good argument that personal gratification should be the prime directive of a person's life.

Personal gratification as qualified to the exclusion of the consideration of the gratification of others is dangerous in a logical consideration of merely the consequences, let alone the conflict of the intent and motive with a principle that enables people to benefit both themselves and others more often than not. If people just followed their own self directed desires, they would no doubt cause people to suffer losses beyond what can naturally occur, people would therefore become less likely to survive and even feel a need to live, and thus society would crumble by virtue of the innate authoritarian structure that only preserves itself by destroying others.

You explain why rape is bad by explaining what rape entails. This is like explaining how a murder was done by explaining what murder is. This is a kind of circular reasoning, which fails to justify why rape is, in fact, bad or immoral. You are asserting that rape is bad by asserting that "might makes right" and "over-riding a person's choice and consent" are bad. What you have yet to do, however, is establish why the things you are asserting here are, in fact, bad. You appear to assume a priori that they are.

Explaining why something is bad does in part imply explaining what the act is in contrast to other acts that are considered acceptable. Two people having consensual sex is distinct from one person raping another in non consensual sex. The distinction of consent is the principle whereby we see that one act is innately bad because it ignores the other person's natural requirement to assent to an act upon their person which is how we have civil involvement with each other, not just in terms of sexual acts, but through economic or leisurely activities as well.

Again, you're taking it as a given that genocide, stealing, murder, etc are bad. What gives you the right to do so? How can you as an atheist who believes that everything has come into being through mindless, impersonal mechanical, and amoral natural processes assert some basic, over-arching morality? Please show me how such impersonal, amoral processes can manufacture morality.

What gives me the right is the basic consideration that they do more harm than good in an overall consideration. I never said the fact that we come into being in a way that, I never actually said was mindless impersonal, mechanical or amoral, may very well be amoral implies that we should behave as if morality doesn't exist. Morality is something implied within human interactions. It's commonly called the social contract theory. Basically, it says that in order for society to persevere, we have to accept that we have basic rules in place in order that society does not collapse.

But this doesn't mean that there are no potential outcomes of a particular ethic that can be anticipated. Not being able to see all possible consequences of adopting a particular ethical code does not mean one cannnot see any possible consequences.

I never denied we could see possible consequences, but one cannot have absolute certainty that those possibilities will be actualized.

Nonsense. Keeping an eye on the future doesn't lessen one's participation in the present. Not at all. For example, the anticipation of heaven, for a Christian, heightens their involvement in the here-and-now because their present righteous living has a direct bearing on the future rewards they can expect in heaven. And this is more or less the case with all moral actions. They are inevitably performed, consciously or unconsciously, with a view to future results.

Future results as a secondary consideration commonly, not the primary consideration of their present results as far as the present is considered in a progressing state of time and not things that are far into the eventual progression of time, such as a year from now or even a month from now. The effect I have on a person by helping them take their groceries home is not done primarily because I think of what will happen a year from now,but because it makes sense to help someone if you have the capacity to aid them.

There is no religion if its believers are all dead! LOL! There is no more "functional" a consideration than whether or not one's beliefs are fatal! LOL!

You're missing my point. A religion perseveres because people see it as compelling and thus the fact that some people choose to take it to political extremes and die as a result does not negate that the religion will persist because people find it so compelling that it makes a person so courageous in the face of death in relation to the martyr example

How does a faith that at its inception often resulted in one's death gain any traction with people? It is obvious that a horrible death is not a selling point for a religion. So, why were people flocking to the Christian faith even though they ran the very serious risk of being eaten by lions or burned at the stake? Clearly, their prime concern wasn't the religion's "functionality."

Perhaps I should qualify as I tried above that functionality of a religion is moreso how compelling it is to a potential believer. In no way is the functionality of a religion defined as to how much it enables a believer to stay alive, since clearly martyrdom is always a possibility when the religion involves such an explicit belief in an afterlife that is blissful (72 virgins, hm?). People flocked to the Christian faith for the same reason people flock to it now; it functions as a compelling worldview for people who feel that everything else is inadequate for their feelings of anomie.

This is why you think your morality is good, but it doesn't explain why others who have a different view of morality should abandon their morality in favor of yours. They can offer a rationale for their view, too.

Their rationale doesn't necessarily benefit anyone but themselves. I can argue how an ethics of sympathy/empathy benefits everyone within a society in a similar way I can argue for a social contract ethics. If we don't behave in a somewhat empathetic/sympathetic way towards people, we run a demonstrable risk of people behaving in violent tendencies to advance their own agendas and desires they feel haven't been adequately recognized.

Oh no? How are the two practically distinct? If I think murder in principle is wrong, I'm obviously going to think murder in practice is wrong! LOL!

You seem to ignore howone distinguishes a principle from its practice. Murder can be defined in principle as taking of an innocent life,but it can be qualified in practice to only apply to sentient beings as opposed to when you extend it in qualification to zygotes or such rubbish.

Uh huh. And what does this have to do with the difference between disagreeing in principle and practice?

See above

My point wasn't concerned with the example, but with the principle underlying it.

There's no logical principle underlying that that makes any sense. The time of day I decide I should kill some random person walking down the street doesn't negate the fact that I just decided to violate their right to live, whether I do it at midnight or high noon.

Please show me how the Abrahamic religions were "fused in" to theism like atheism is fused to naturalism and materialism, or Buddhism and humanism.

They are fused to theism in the sense that they use theism as a basis for the ethics that would otherwise be derived purely from a cultural preference. They invoke this creator deity in order to justify the religious worldview and ethics implied. We have Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Baha'i all invoking some form of the theistic system. On the other hand, we have Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Satanism and Secular Humanism (distinct from Humanism that can be theistic, such as from the Renaissance) that use atheism as the general metaphysical position that their system in some sense relies upon.

We're talking about a descriptive, albeit tentatively so, way to understand a system, not anything that implies particular teachings. Theism only implies a belief in something like a "God" or "god", not anything like Christianity or Judaism or Islam teaches explicitly. Similarly so with Buddhism and Secular Humanism

Why not? We understand that they are "formalized systems" distinct from one another by the difference in terms we use to identify and describe them. Atheism is atheism and humanism is humanism.

There are atheistic Christians (a minority) and there are theistic Christians, similarly with atheistic Satanists and theistic Satanists. There are Christian humanists, there are secular humanists.

Read the Gospel of John.

One gospel does not justify what is a tradition that says that all the gospels are supposed to line up with each other. John doesn't necessarily line up ideally with the other 3.

God calls Himself my Heavenly Father. He doesn't seem to find the title "ridiculous." I think the idea of God being my Heavenly Father carries tremendous meaning. If anything, my understanding of my God is made more concrete and sensible by placing my relationship to Him within a parent-child framework.

In a scripture written by people who believed the same. Where is an objective consideration for why you should call "God" your father in any sense?

This is silly. Why does this work in only one direction? Why can't calling God my Heavenly Father elevate the human relationship we have with our earthly parents? Why can't I use the perfect example of my Heavenly Father to counteract the bad examples of parenting that exist?

Only if you already assume humans are somehow superior in every way shape and form as opposed to having accidental, albeit significant, distinct abilities from domesticated or wild animals, of which we are technically a part of in genus at least. Genus of animals that is

Yes, I can. Unlike you, I can anchor my morality to an objective, universally-authoritative Source. All you can ultimately argue for in relation to your morality is your personal preference.

Not purely my preference, but an argument from my observations that empathy and sympathy along with social contract ethics benefits everyone moreso than just authoritatively asserting that you should do it because someone else knows what's best for you, e.g. God

 

[Key]

You have failed to argue this point besides begging the question and conclusion of your argument. How is this a natural consequence of being an atheist when clearly this seems to hinge on your presumptuous definition of what an "Atheist" is?

Again. An Atheist, by the nature of what they are, denying divinity, can make no claim to an absloute in the sense of morality, because to make a claim of absloute morality requires that an absloute moral judgment must exist, and no such absloute system can exist without a divinity.

I have said this a few times, and you have offered nothing to show otherwise, thus my point stands as validated and supported.

Prove that it is a fact of life that I have to conform with such a ridiculous thing as people's preferences for politics, sports or entertainment.

Again: IF you want to be a part of that social circle, then you do, you can always choose not to be a part of specific social circle. But just to be blunt, cut it out, your arguing now in spite, you should know that this is grade school common knowledge, this is what we as humans learn in public elementary school when we pick our friends.

I answered that it was a single belief. A religion or worldview involves more than a single belief. Therefore you contradict yourself

Not at all, you picked one that you knew of, and I would wager you are smart enough to know of a few more, just because you activity accept some of the dogma, does not mean you are any less required to.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Again. An Atheist, by the nature of what they are, denying divinity, can make no claim to an absloute in the sense of morality, because to make a claim of absloute morality requires that an absloute moral judgment must exist, and no such absloute system can exist without a divinity.

I have said this a few times, and you have offered nothing to show otherwise, thus my point stands as validated and supported.

First off, a lack of a counter argument doesn't automatically validate the single argument that exists by necessity.

And secondly, you seem to be confusing absoluteness with ultimacy. They are similar, but they are nuanced versions of the ideal of perfection. Absolute is perfection of excellence, whereas ultimacy is perfection of completion.

Also, you seem to assume that divinity is something that theists absolutely have a monopoly on. Atheists only deny divinity in the sense that theists understand it as, which in the vast amount of forms involves transcendence. An atheist can still believe in divinity in the form of immanence, especially if we're talking pantheism, which by most Christian understandings is essentially atheism anyway. One doesn't have to make an absolute morality to have it apply effectively, one only has to make a universal morality in order for it to be accessible to all.

Again: IF you want to be a part of that social circle, then you do, you can always choose not to be a part of specific social circle. But just to be blunt, cut it out, your arguing now in spite, you should know that this is grade school common knowledge, this is what we as humans learn in public elementary school when we pick our friends.

Not so. It's part of a general social idea that isn't reflective of reality that we understand as we mature. Having many friends doesn't make you more acceptable as a person, except in the sense of conforming and being in bondage to that social constraint that more friends or popularity=better person, which it doesn't. Not to say that having friends is bad, but having genuine friends in small quantity and higher quality is better than having low quality friends in high quantity.

Not at all, you picked one that you knew of, and I would wager you are smart enough to know of a few more, just because you activity accept some of the dogma, does not mean you are any less required to.

Not every atheist believes in evolution and I challenge you to prove that allegation. I can present Raelians as well as those like myself who honestly don't hold the issue of creation as terribly important overall.

 

[Key]

First off, a lack of a counter argument doesn't automatically validate the single argument that exists by necessity.

If there is no equally viable counter then the current claim stands as validated - until disproved.

Also, you seem to assume that divinity is something that theists absolutely have a monopoly on.

That is because we do, hence the term "Theist" if you believe in Divinity, then you become a Theist.

Atheists only deny divinity in the sense that theists understand it as, which in the vast amount of forms involves transcendence. An atheist can still believe in divinity in the form of immanence, especially if we're talking pantheism, which by most Christian understandings is essentially atheism anyway.

That would be spirituality, (And that would be me being very accommodating) but not divinity.

One doesn't have to make an absolute morality to have it apply effectively, one only has to make a universal morality in order for it to be accessible to all.

This sounds silly, you realize that.

Not so.

Yes So.

(The rest of what you said was just a personal rant)

Not every atheist believes in evolution and I challenge you to prove that allegation. I can present Raelians as well as those like myself who honestly don't hold the issue of creation as terribly important overall.

Gotta accept we got here "Somehow", and I will admit a slight guilty pleasure in hearing some of the more creative stories, evolution seems to the the "Safe Bet" for most, as it requires the least thought since someone else already wrote the story.

But we both know that Evolution (or the like) is just one of many, so many fun little aspects of the Dogma that needs to be accepted.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That is because we do, hence the term "Theist" if you believe in Divinity, then you become a Theist.

That would be spirituality, (And that would be me being very accommodating) but not divinity.

Divinity in the theistic sense is distinct from divine in the hieratic sense of general sacredness. Theistic sense suggests personality of some sort, whereas an atheist can still hold things sacred and ultimate.

This sounds silly, you realize that.

Only if I don't rephrase myself to clarify that an effective morality is universal moreso than it's absolute. Rigidity is death, flexibility is life. A morality that holds strongly is that which people can find common ground upon in principle even if they disagree in practice.

Yes So.

(The rest of what you said was just a personal rant)

If you value popularity and fame so much, I fail to see how you can genuinely say you're following Christ's teachings, which were not to follow the ways of the flesh beyond what the basic law says, as long as it doesn't contradict your general beliefs about what God wants. Desiring worldly fame and the like is hardly what Jesus did, now was it? He only became popular because he made people feel like they had a purpose in life, which is different than friendship.

Gotta accept we got here "Somehow", and I will admit a slight guilty pleasure in hearing some of the more creative stories, evolution seems to the the "Safe Bet" for most, as it requires the least thought since someone else already wrote the story.

Someone else already wrote the story of creation, you can't cop out like that and say that evolution is something that hinders thought, since it's quite the opposite as evolution is always in a state of exploring itself deeper as a discipline.

But we both know that Evolution (or the like) is just one of many, so many fun little aspects of the Dogma that needs to be accepted.

You haven't actually elaborated these dogma, nor have you given any significant evidence as to why someone who just happens to not believe in God "has" to believe these things, when there does not seem to be any general accepted beliefs among atheists except the very defining term of what atheism is: that is, not believing in God.

 

[Key]

Divinity in the theistic sense is distinct from divine in the hieratic sense of general sacredness. Theistic sense suggests personality of some sort, whereas an atheist can still hold things sacred and ultimate.

But I did not use the word "precious" or even "sacred", but that no longer matters, we have lost touch to the original point at this impasse.

Only if I don't rephrase myself to clarify that an effective morality is universal moreso than it's absolute.

an effective morality is either absloute, or subjective to the moment. Ergo, it is either eternally right or it is right for the situation.

We would be deluding ourselves to think there is a third option.

Rigidity is death, flexibility is life.

Ah, so we finally see the seeds of subjective morality coming to birth. I agree that this is what an Atheist should think when it comes to morality.

A morality that holds strongly is that which people can find common ground upon in principle even if they disagree in practice.

"Common ground", I like that phrase, it is by which we establish cultures, nations, gatherings of people... hummm.

If you value popularity and fame so much, I fail to see how you can genuinely say you're following Christ's teachings, which were not to follow the ways of the flesh beyond what the basic law says, as long as it doesn't contradict your general beliefs about what God wants.

Your manners are falling out, we are not discussing what a Christian should value, we are discussing what an Intelligent Athirst would.

Someone else already wrote the story of creation, you can't cop out like that and say that evolution is something that hinders thought, since it's quite the opposite as evolution is always in a state of exploring itself deeper as a discipline.

I said it was "Safe Bet" as someone else already wrote it, and it is. Your assumptions are flying now and your are making straw-men.

You haven't actually elaborated these dogma

And I should not need to, nor should I be asked to. Honestly, your going to ask me to explain the finer details of what you're supposed to believe? What next? Will you ask Jewish people to teach you Hinduism?

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

But I did not use the word "precious" or even "sacred", but that no longer matters, we have lost touch to the original point at this impasse.

The original point is that the two terms are interrelated by nature, but are also ambivalent because of disagreements even among theists as to how to define divinity.

an effective morality is either absloute, or subjective to the moment. Ergo, it is either eternally right or it is right for the situation.

We would be deluding ourselves to think there is a third option.

But there are options if you get out of this repulsive black and white thinking and reflect that not every killing is necessarily evil, though murder itself is evil as a type of killing, and similarly for virtually any unethical action in a sense, albeit it becomes questionable with regards to invalidating marital fidelity unless it is to enlighten the person as to other more important truths perhaps.

Ah, so we finally see the seeds of subjective morality coming to birth. I agree that this is what an Atheist should think when it comes to morality.

It's not advocacy of subjective morality, it's advocacy of contextual morality. THey are not equivalent, for one says that any subjective understanding is equal, whereas the other says that the context is important to consider the interpolation of intent and consequence within any particular series of events.

"Common ground", I like that phrase, it is by which we establish cultures, nations, gatherings of people... hummm.

Common ground can be found amongst even people of different faiths. You try to suggest again it would appear that atheism can be understood as a religious doctrine with multiple beliefs, but you have yet to say anything beyond what you think every atheist will say. Not every atheist is guaranteed to agree with another atheist on anything more than that "God" doesn't exist.

And I should not need to, nor should I be asked to. Honestly, your going to ask me to explain the finer details of what you're supposed to believe? What next? Will you ask Jewish people to teach you Hinduism?

There are no standards for what an atheist should believe about other matters, just as there aren't necessarily any particular stringent standards about what a theist should believe about various matters. Both of them fragment due to various existential considerations as well as environmental and cultural factors. You as a Christian theist don't absolutely agree with Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or Baha'i theists. THe only thing you all share is a belief in a "God"

 

[Key]

The original point is that the two terms are interrelated by nature, but are also ambivalent because of disagreements even among theists as to how to define divinity.

Divinity, is purely a Theist thing, because the only requirement to be a Theist is to believe in Divinity.

But there are options if you get out of this repulsive black and white thinking and reflect that not every killing is necessarily evil, though murder itself is evil as a type of killing, and similarly for virtually any unethical action in a sense, albeit it becomes questionable with regards to invalidating marital fidelity unless it is to enlighten the person as to other more important truths perhaps.

You realize all you did was explain how Absolute and Subjective Morality can clash.

It's not advocacy of subjective morality, it's advocacy of contextual morality. THey are not equivalent, for one says that any subjective understanding is equal, whereas the other says that the context is important to consider the interpolation of intent and consequence within any particular series of events.

Subjective, Temporal, relative, and now, contextual, morality, are all the same thing.

Not every atheist is guaranteed to agree with another atheist on anything more than that "God" doesn't exist.

Some seem even a little fuggy on that too.

There are no standards for what an atheist should believe about other matters,

Sure there are, it's called a ripple effect. Just because you don't see it, or don't realize it, does not change what it is.

In simple form, to give you one example, an Atheist must, at the very least, passively accept that they came from naturals origins.

Which is why Theist, ask the very basic question, "So if there is no divinity, how it is we are here?"

Some of us sit back and enjoy the show, while others pick apart their stories.

To each their own.

You as a Christian theist don't absolutely agree with Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, or Baha'i theists. THe only thing you all share is a belief in a "God"

Correction: A belief in Divinity, Lets not leave out the Polytheist, and Deist which also make up the Theist camp.

But yes, that is the only thing that makes someone a Theist. And yet I see Atheist making all kinds of assumptions about what a Thiest needs to believe, that too is rather funny at times and a bit grating.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Divinity, is purely a Theist thing, because the only requirement to be a Theist is to believe in Divinity.

Except I see no definition of divinity that isn't subject to debate or questioning even by other believers in what they also term divinity.

You realize all you did was explain how Absolute and Subjective Morality can clash.

I clarified that morality has various considerations as to its nature: including, but not limited to, intent/motive, context, consequences and relations

Subjective, Temporal, relative, and now, contextual, morality, are all the same thing.

I don't see how subjective, relative and contextual are all the same. Christians have to admit the varied contexts with regard to Jesus as opposed to people that aren't Jesus, as well as tjhe Jewish context of the law versus the Christian context of the new covenant. Consideration of context seems to not be something negative in a Christian perspective, why should it not be important about the context of a person using force; the difference between using force in a purely hostile situation on their part as opposed to using it in self defense to others' hostility seems to be of large import.

Some seem even a little fuggy on that too.

Like I said above, it's only because theists hardly seem to agree on what to call the "divinity" that atheists are perspectively dependent on to say that they don't believe in.

Sure there are, it's called a ripple effect. Just because you don't see it, or don't realize it, does not change what it is.

You can't suggest that lacking a God belief suggests you have to conclude something else absolutely unless you yourself could consider all the possible variants that constitute beliefs that don't consider God.

In simple form, to give you one example, an Atheist must, at the very least, passively accept that they came from naturals origins.

Even if I granted you that, which doesn't necessarily follow anyway, that leaves a pretty wide variety anyway. But not everyone that lacks God belief is an atheist in the sense you qualify of someone disbelieving that God exists. I prefer to call myself either a theological noncognitivist or an apatheist. Either way, I don't automatically say that I disbelieve in a God that is defined by theism. Instead I either regard the term God as ill defined and thus pointless to discuss as automatically recognized or I basically reject the question of God's existence or nonexistence as meaningless and/or irrelevant.

Which is why Theist, ask the very basic question, "So if there is no divinity, how it is we are here?"

The question is simpler than that and doesn't necessarily require divinity as the solution anyway. The simpler version of the philosophical question you pose is "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Correction: A belief in Divinity, Lets not leave out the Polytheist, and Deist which also make up the Theist camp.

But yes, that is the only thing that makes someone a Theist. And yet I see Atheist making all kinds of assumptions about what a Thiest needs to believe, that too is rather funny at times and a bit grating.

Again, as I said above,this is due to the either obscurantist or otherwise cryptic notions a theist communicates in general about the divinity they believe in. The fact that a theist can believe that God is one, two, three, or more, or even three or two in one,makes the whole atheist belief system fragmented in nature of what divinity they're specifically rejecting, if any as opposed to all.

 

[aiki]

The misuse or lack of empathy/sympathy does not suggest that it cannot have a proper use.

I never said otherwise.

And objectively, it makes sense that empathy/sympathy works as an ethical/moral principle, universally.

But as I pointed out in an earlier response, empathy is not universally equal in every person. One also tends to have greater empathy for those who are most like oneself. "Birds of a feather" and all that. It seems pretty evident to me that empathy cannot therefore serve effectively as a universal base for ethics/morality. It is far too subjective a source for that.

Difficulties do not imply that it is useless, only that it requires us to think on it deeper.

But why should one "think on it deeper" if they believe they have a better alternative?

You seem to purposely define an objective, universally authoritative grounding in such a way that it can only apply to God,which is a tautology and hardly conducive to a genuine discussion.

Tautological or not, God is a perfect example of a truly objective and authoritative Source for morality.

Can you justify your defining this type of moral grounding in such a way through an argument?

I think I have already done so, to a certain degree. Here are 4 basic reasons why God is the perfect grounding for morality:

1.) God is not human; He is the Creator of humans; He is infinitely superior to humans. One does not, therefore, have the same issues of authority with God as the Source for morality that one does when morality issues from a human source.
2.) God's rules governing our morality issue from His holy, just, loving nature and as such can be trusted to be likewise holy, just, and loving. Humans have no such nature, but demonstrate in their history a powerful, natural, penchant for selfishness and destruction.
3.) God asserts a moral code for us from outside our human experience and preferences. He is a truly objective Source for morality.
4.) God is the perfect explanation for why all people in all places and times have the same basic sense of morality. A Moral Law requires a Moral Law Giver. Impersonal, unguided, natural processes, which is all that remains as an explanation for our sense of morality when God is excluded, cannot account for our basic sense of right and wrong.

Again, you fail to argue this beyond a presumption that a lack of God belief implies the impossibility of affirming an objective moral principle that happens to not involve God belief, but nonetheless a belief in an objective principle for ethical behavior.

No, I have demonstrated why subjective human origins for morality are flawed. That you disagree with them doesn't mean they haven't been given.

On what basis can you assert that your morality is binding upon others? You have no greater authority as a human being than the next person.

It's not always about who says which is better, it's about what demonstrates which is better.

But what constitutes "better"? An Arab thinks it is better to chop off the hand of a thief. An American thinks such a punishment is barbarian and takes a different - he thinks, better - approach. They both have arguments for their view. They are both equally convinced their way is better. Who says what goes, then? It isn't as simple as saying, "Look my way is obviously better." Even providing proof is insufficient; for the other fellow may do the same in favor of his position.

If my ethics involves treating people as they wish to be treated then it follows that an ethics that doesn't involve treating people as they wish to be treated would lead to more problems and general conflicts that didn't need to exist.

Sure. But a lot of people don't really care that this is true. Its more important that they serve themselves. They aren't persuaded as you are that the Golden Rule is always a useful moral guide.

I'm not invoking myself as an authority in my ethics, I'm invoking a principle that can be considered logically and applied to ethical situations as the authority in a consideration of ethics and morality.

But the ethical base you use is what you regard as authoritative and universally applicable. Others have different ethical and moral motives. And they can argue in favor of their view, too. So, whose morality wins?

Personal gratification as qualified to the exclusion of the consideration of the gratification of others is dangerous in a logical consideration of merely the consequences, let alone the conflict of the intent and motive with a principle that enables people to benefit both themselves and others more often than not.

Again, you may think that this is grounds to rule out personal gratification as a basis for morality, but others may not.

If people just followed their own self directed desires, they would no doubt cause people to suffer losses beyond what can naturally occur, people would therefore become less likely to survive and even feel a need to live, and thus society would crumble by virtue of the innate authoritarian structure that only preserves itself by destroying others.

You have a problem with being wordy at the expense of being clear.

How do you define what "natural" is? What is a natural source of loss, exactly?

People suffer loss all the time - sometimes very significant loss - but they nonetheless survive.

Why do you equate "self-directed desires" with an "innate authoritarian structure"? How are the two connected?

You explain why rape is bad by explaining what rape entails. This is like explaining how a murder was done by explaining what murder is. This is a kind of circular reasoning, which fails to justify why rape is, in fact, bad or immoral. You are asserting that rape is bad by asserting that "might makes right" and "over-riding a person's choice and consent" are bad. What you have yet to do, however, is establish why the things you are asserting here are, in fact, bad. You appear to assume a priori that they are.
​

Explaining why something is bad does in part imply explaining what the act is in contrast to other acts that are considered acceptable. Two people having consensual sex is distinct from one person raping another in non consensual sex.

Yes, but making this distinction doesn't explain why rape is bad.

The distinction of consent is the principle whereby we see that one act is innately bad because it ignores the other person's natural requirement to assent

"Innately bad" suggests that it is bad as a fact of its nature, like a rock is innately hard, or water is innately wet. But rape in other countries, in other cultures, is not viewed as bad. In some cultures, what we in the west consider to be rape is merely a man's right and a woman's place. A rock, though, is hard no matter what country or culture it is in. You see, then, that the "innate badness" of rape that you assume is not actually as "innate" as you think.

Morality is something implied within human interactions. It's commonly called the social contract theory. Basically, it says that in order for society to persevere, we have to accept that we have basic rules in place in order that society does not collapse.

Ah, the Social Contract. This is where your morality ultimately rests? How do we know that the moral values and duties derived from the social contract are true? Termites have a sort of social contract as well, but theirs is significantly different from ours. They are cannibalistic, eat each others feces, and serve one queen in rigidly-defined roles. On the atheist view, the same natural processes that brought us and our particular Social Contract into being also brought into being the termites and their Social Contract. But the social framework that maintains an efficiently-running termite mound is different, even repugnant, to us. Does this make the termites social contract bad? No. Only different.

Humans could just as easily have developed a completely different Social Contract, perhaps more like that of the termite, than the one you espouse. Which one would reflect what is actually morally true? It is impossible to say, on the atheist view.

The root purpose of the Social Contract is the survival of the species but that survival can be accomplished in a variety of ways - as the termite mound reveals. One can only say, then, that it establishes a kind of morality, but not true morality. In a Godless universe where natural processes are all that ultimately governs our behaviour, the social contract amounts to nothing more than social conditioning and biological imperative rather than an objective, authoritative and true morality.

There is no religion if its believers are all dead! LOL! There is no more "functional" a consideration than whether or not one's beliefs are fatal! LOL!
​

You're missing my point. A religion perseveres because people see it as compelling and thus the fact that some people choose to take it to political extremes and die as a result does not negate that the religion will persist because people find it so compelling that it makes a person so courageous in the face of death in relation to the martyr example

Do you know what a run-on sentence is? Your statement above is a good example of one.

Jim Jones' followers thought his religion was very compelling - and now they're all dead (they drank the Kool-Aid, remember?). Obviously, then, being compelling is not tantamount to being functional.

Perhaps I should qualify as I tried above that functionality of a religion is moreso how compelling it is to a potential believer.

See above.

In no way is the functionality of a religion defined as to how much it enables a believer to stay alive, since clearly martyrdom is always a possibility when the religion involves such an explicit belief in an afterlife that is blissful (72 virgins, hm?).

Christians aren't promised 72 virgins when they get to heaven. That's Islam.

Oh no? How are the two practically distinct? If I think murder in principle is wrong, I'm obviously going to think murder in practice is wrong! LOL!

You seem to ignore how one distinguishes a principle from its practice. Murder can be defined in principle as taking of an innocent life,but it can be qualified in practice to only apply to sentient beings as opposed to when you extend it in qualification to zygotes or such rubbish.

If I don't think a zygote qualifies as a human being, then an objection to murder of a human being in principle doesn't apply to it, does it? So where does the principle diverge from its practice in this instance? I don't see that it does...

My point wasn't concerned with the example, but with the principle underlying it.
There's no logical principle underlying that that makes any sense. The time of day I decide I should kill some random person walking down the street doesn't negate the fact that I just decided to violate their right to live, whether I do it at midnight or high noon.

LOL! You missed the point entirely!

Better do a re-read.

Read the Gospel of John.
One gospel does not justify what is a tradition that says that all the gospels are supposed to line up with each other. John doesn't necessarily line up ideally with the other 3.

Yes, it does.

Selah.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

But as I pointed out in an earlier response, empathy is not universally equal in every person. One also tends to have greater empathy for those who are most like oneself. "Birds of a feather" and all that. It seems pretty evident to me that empathy cannot therefore serve effectively as a universal base for ethics/morality. It is far too subjective a source for that.

There is a nuance between sympathy and empathy. Empathy follows from sympathy. We feel similarly to people suffering even if we ourselves are not suffering what those people are suffering because first we understand that the feelings of others are likened to our own

But why should one "think on it deeper" if they believe they have a better alternative?

Thinking you have a better alternative requires that you defend it against objections

Tautological or not, God is a perfect example of a truly objective and authoritative Source for morality.

If something is tautologically constructed, it has less value because you have just designed the definition of the thing to include existence automatically, which is just begging the question logically.

1.) God is not human; He is the Creator of humans; He is infinitely superior to humans. One does not, therefore, have the same issues of authority with God as the Source for morality that one does when morality issues from a human source.

Being infinitely superior seems to imply something different than merely being as excellent as possible. Infinite creates a difficulty of interaction between creator and creation. Highest excellence only implies a like relationship between a human and ant, a human needing to be careful not to harm an ant.

2.) God's rules governing our morality issue from His holy, just, loving nature and as such can be trusted to be likewise holy, just, and loving. Humans have no such nature, but demonstrate in their history a powerful, natural, penchant for selfishness and destruction.

Abusus non tollit usum yet again. Humans misusing free will doesn't mean they can't properly use that free will.

3.) God asserts a moral code for us from outside our human experience and preferences. He is a truly objective Source for morality.

If God was a truly objective source for morality, then the difficulty would not exist since people disagreeing on God implies that God is not self evident or objectively extant except as people believe it is so.

4.) God is the perfect explanation for why all people in all places and times have the same basic sense of morality. A Moral Law requires a Moral Law Giver. Impersonal, unguided, natural processes, which is all that remains as an explanation for our sense of morality when God is excluded, cannot account for our basic sense of right and wrong.

Same basic sense of morality does not require a guided process beyond the human ability to sympathize and reason out why sympathy is beneficial to humanity.

No, I have demonstrated why subjective human origins for morality are flawed. That you disagree with them doesn't mean they haven't been given.

Human origins for morality are demonstrably subjective to begin with even if they attempt to defend the claim that the origin they believe in is objective. Objectivity is a matter of faith primarily it would appear as opposed to something that is logically determined such as that of the law of identity.

But what constitutes "better"? An Arab thinks it is better to chop off the hand of a thief. An American thinks such a punishment is barbarian and takes a different - he thinks, better - approach. They both have arguments for their view. They are both equally convinced their way is better. Who says what goes, then? It isn't as simple as saying, "Look my way is obviously better." Even providing proof is insufficient; for the other fellow may do the same in favor of his position.

Perhaps I could substitute better for a term that works "better" in this context, "adequate" or "sufficient". Defending a position isn't just about defending it in theory, but also in application.

Sure. But a lot of people don't really care that this is true. Its more important that they serve themselves. They aren't persuaded as you are that the Golden Rule is always a useful moral guide.

Like I said above, defense in theory is not always superior to defense by application. One can consider that always following self serving principles will negatively affect you overall.

But the ethical base you use is what you regard as authoritative and universally applicable. Others have different ethical and moral motives. And they can argue in favor of their view, too. So, whose morality wins?

It's not about a competition, it's about a dialectical defense. If you treat this like a game where there are winners and losers in the sense of such different teams that are polarized against each other, it seems to insult the discussion of ethics as something trivialized.

Again, you may think that this is grounds to rule out personal gratification as a basis for morality, but others may not.

Demonstrating through application of personal gratification as a problematic conclusion is what I was pointing out.

How do you define what "natural" is? What is a natural source of loss, exactly?

People suffer loss all the time - sometimes very significant loss - but they nonetheless survive.

Why do you equate "self-directed desires" with an "innate authoritarian structure"? How are the two connected?

I would point out natural as something that comes about without premeditation or planning beforehand of such things. A person naturally dies of old age or of purely accidental means, such as disasters or disease. I never said people couldn't survive significant loss, but the people themselves suffering that loss that others suffer, such as the death of a loved one, don't "survive" technically.

Yes, but making this distinction doesn't explain why rape is bad.

Rape is bad in the same way murder is bad, it violates people's consent to accept sex or innate right to live.

"Innately bad" suggests that it is bad as a fact of its nature, like a rock is innately hard, or water is innately wet. But rape in other countries, in other cultures, is not viewed as bad. In some cultures, what we in the west consider to be rape is merely a man's right and a woman's place. A rock, though, is hard no matter what country or culture it is in. You see, then, that the "innate badness" of rape that you assume is not actually as "innate" as you think.

Rape as occurring in nature doesn't mean it is innately right, but that it naturally occurs. I wasn't arguing that natural=moral, but that natural is something relevant to considering ethics in relation to good/bad alongside good/evil as dichotomies. Innate badness of rape applies to a society involving animals able to consent.

Ah, the Social Contract. This is where your morality ultimately rests? How do we know that the moral values and duties derived from the social contract are true? Termites have a sort of social contract as well, but theirs is significantly different from ours. They are cannibalistic, eat each others feces, and serve one queen in rigidly-defined roles. On the atheist view, the same natural processes that brought us and our particular Social Contract into being also brought into being the termites and their Social Contract. But the social framework that maintains an efficiently-running termite mound is different, even repugnant, to us. Does this make the termites social contract bad? No. Only different.

You're confusing a morality applied to people as individuals and the termite or ant contract which is more appropriately a collective/hive mind. The termites don't have the capacity to rebel.

Humans could just as easily have developed a completely different Social Contract, perhaps more like that of the termite, than the one you espouse. Which one would reflect what is actually morally true? It is impossible to say, on the atheist view.

I'm only positing a general social contract as in respecting human freedom to the exclusion of people disrespecting human freedom. I wasn't giving you a detailed explanation.

The root purpose of the Social Contract is the survival of the species but that survival can be accomplished in a variety of ways - as the termite mound reveals. One can only say, then, that it establishes a kind of morality, but not true morality. In a Godless universe where natural processes are all that ultimately governs our behaviour, the social contract amounts to nothing more than social conditioning and biological imperative rather than an objective, authoritative and true morality.

The root purpose of the social contract is survival of humanity and society in general. I wasn't boiling it down to evolutionary theory or social darwinism.

Jim Jones' followers thought his religion was very compelling - and now they're all dead (they drank the Kool-Aid, remember?). Obviously, then, being compelling is not tantamount to being functional.

Compulsion is just how the religion survives, not how it enables the followers to survive or not.

Christians aren't promised 72 virgins when they get to heaven. That's Islam.

I was joking, I'm well aware. Christians are hardly consistent on their idea of hell if Dante's any indication.

If I don't think a zygote qualifies as a human being, then an objection to murder of a human being in principle doesn't apply to it, does it? So where does the principle diverge from its practice in this instance? I don't see that it does...

THe principle is how we determine what something is, the practice is how we consider variations and additions or subtractions to what we determined initially as a principle. Example with murder, we initially start with a definition of personhood in the general sense of reasoning, sentience and volition. People reconsider the definition of personhood and then extend the practice of abortion that wasn't considered murder with the other definition and now claims it is. Practice considers context and application of the initial principle. The principle of defining murder suggests defining personhood, but more importantly, what murder is in relation to the general act of killing.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't, because each narrative differs and honestly, people have derived different understandings of the basic ideas about Christianity from each gospel.

 

[Harry3142]

There is a vast difference between the morality which dictates that we not take our neighbors' goods and the morality that dictates that we are to share our own goods with them.

 

[aiki]

But why should one "think on it deeper" if they believe they have a better alternative?
Thinking you have a better alternative requires that you defend it against objections

And if they can?

Tautological or not, God is a perfect example of a truly objective and authoritative Source for morality.
If something is tautologically constructed, it has less value because you have just designed the definition of the thing to include existence automatically, which is just begging the question logically.

Are you asking for reasons for why I believe God exists? If so, here are a few:

1.) The Argument from Contingency. (Ala Gottfried Liebniz)
2.) The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
3.) The Teleological Argument. (The initial fine-tuning of the universe for life)
4.) The Argument from the historicity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
5.) Personal experience of God.

1.) God is not human; He is the Creator of humans; He is infinitely superior to humans. One does not, therefore, have the same issues of authority with God as the Source for morality that one does when morality issues from a human source.
Being infinitely superior seems to imply something different than merely being as excellent as possible. Infinite creates a difficulty of interaction between creator and creation.

God is infinitely superior in His various aspects (knowledge, power, holiness, love, etc.). If anything, this makes it profoundly easy for Him to interact with us. He is infinitely knowledgeable, so He knows and understands us perfectly; He is infinitely wise, so He knows perfectly how to interact with us; He is infinitely powerful, so nothing can prevent Him from doing as He wishes, which, among other things, is to love us and save us from ourselves.

Highest excellence only implies a like relationship between a human and ant, a human needing to be careful not to harm an ant.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why does "highest excellence" - a phrase I never used, by the way - "only imply" this careful relationship between a human and an ant? Also, I think your parallel between us and God and a human and an ant doesn't do justice to the impossibly wide gap between who God is and who we are relative to Him.

2.) God's rules governing our morality issue from His holy, just, loving nature and as such can be trusted to be likewise holy, just, and loving. Humans have no such nature, but demonstrate in their history a powerful, natural, penchant for selfishness and destruction.
Abusus non tollit usum yet again. Humans misusing free will doesn't mean they can't properly use that free will.

I never said otherwise. You are reading this into what I wrote rather than drawing it from what I wrote. Noting the penchant humans have for selfishness and violence doesn't necessarily mean I think they are unable to be selfless and peaceable. In fact, I don't think that. I do think, though, you are perhaps too eager to demonstrate your knowledge of Latin phrases...

3.) God asserts a moral code for us from outside our human experience and preferences. He is a truly objective Source for morality.
If God was a truly objective source for morality, then the difficulty would not exist since people disagreeing on God implies that God is not self evident or objectively extant except as people believe it is so.

People disagreeing about God doesn't necessarily imply that He is not self-evident. If God was not in some measure evident, we would not be disagreeing about Him, would we? It is because there is evidence - good evidence, I believe - for His existence that a debate about Him exists at all.
And if He exists, then He is a truly objective Source for morality.

4.) God is the perfect explanation for why all people in all places and times have the same basic sense of morality. A Moral Law requires a Moral Law Giver. Impersonal, unguided, natural processes, which is all that remains as an explanation for our sense of morality when God is excluded, cannot account for our basic sense of right and wrong.
Same basic sense of morality does not require a guided process beyond the human ability to sympathize and reason out why sympathy is beneficial to humanity.

So, the human ability to reason from sympathy to a basic moral code is a guided process? Guided by what, exactly?

You must explain how natural, mechanical (and thus morally void) processes can produce a moral sense in us and why one particular morality is better, or more true, than another since, as I explained in my last post, the natural processes that ultimately gave us our moral sense did not impart the same sense to lions, or baboons, or termites.

No, I have demonstrated why subjective human origins for morality are flawed. That you disagree with them doesn't mean they haven't been given.
Human origins for morality are demonstrably subjective to begin with even if they attempt to defend the claim that the origin they believe in is objective.

So, you do understand that your source for your morality is essentially subjective - and thus no more reliable or authoritative than the next person's morality. I think you've had a breakthrough!

Objectivity is a matter of faith primarily it would appear as opposed to something that is logically determined such as that of the law of identity.

Huh? I may suspect my own objectivity, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be known objectively. For instance, 2+2=4 is objectively true. I can know this objectively; it isn't subject to my personal biases, psychological or emotional filters, etc.

Like I said above, defense in theory is not always superior to defense by application. One can consider that always following self serving principles will negatively affect you overall.

I don't see that. Many politicians succeed mainly because they are viciously self-serving. Stalin was, essentially, a self-serving man yet he ruled Russia. Drug dealers are abhorrently self-serving and yet they live opulent, indulgent lives. How many African dictators have demonstrated virulent selfishness, living in high style while their people waste away in poverty and disease, or are murdered by the order of that dictator? I could go on...

But the ethical base you use is what you regard as authoritative and universally applicable. Others have different ethical and moral motives. And they can argue in favor of their view, too. So, whose morality wins?
It's not about a competition, it's about a dialectical defense. If you treat this like a game where there are winners and losers in the sense of such different teams that are polarized against each other, it seems to insult the discussion of ethics as something trivialized.

Oh, there are very much winners and losers when it comes to whose morality shapes a society. I am all for dialectical discussion, as my posts here ought to make clear to you, but outside the realm of dialectics, some form of morality wins out over others whether that morality has been dialectically sifted or not. Sometimes, if the wrong kind of morality is established, people can lose a great deal - even their lives. What we're talking about isn't just theory or fuel for debate, but the stuff on which whole societies rise and fall.

"Innately bad" suggests that it is bad as a fact of its nature, like a rock is innately hard, or water is innately wet. But rape in other countries, in other cultures, is not viewed as bad. In some cultures, what we in the west consider to be rape is merely a man's right and a woman's place. A rock, though, is hard no matter what country or culture it is in. You see, then, that the "innate badness" of rape that you assume is not actually as "innate" as you think.

Rape as occurring in nature doesn't mean it is innately right, but that it naturally occurs. I wasn't arguing that natural=moral,

I wasn't arguing that because rape occurs in nature it is right. Where did I write that? And I wasn't asserting that you were arguing that way, either.

Innate badness of rape applies to a society involving animals able to consent.

I think you missed my point. The word "innate" means something inherent to a thing - like the hardness of a rock or wetness of water. To say that rape is innately bad means that rape is bad like a rock is hard. No matter who holds the rock in whatever time and under whatever circumstances, the rock is always hard. In the same way, if rape is innately bad, it must be bad in all times, cultures, and circumstances. But this isn't how it seems. As I said, some cultures don't view rape as we do in North America. Rape isn't bad like a rock is hard, it appears. So, then, how can you say that it is?

On the atheist view, the same natural processes that brought us and our particular Social Contract into being also brought into being the termites and their Social Contract. But the social framework that maintains an efficiently-running termite mound is different, even repugnant, to us. Does this make the termite's social contract bad? No. Only different.

You're confusing a morality applied to people as individuals and the termite or ant contract which is more appropriately a collective/hive mind. The termites don't have the capacity to rebel.

It doesn't matter if the termites can rebel or not. My point was about two different but successful social structures (or Social Contracts, if you like) produced by the same natural, mechanical processes defying the idea that one particular social/moral ethic is better or more true than any other. And just as one cannot condemn the cannibalistic, feces-eating "Social Contract" of the termites as morally inferior, one cannot condemn as inferior a human morality that is different from one's own (in a Godless universe, that is). At best, one can only say such a morality is different - even if it involves cannibalism or eating feces. And this is the problem with not being able to ground one's morality in anything more, ultimately, than natural, mechanical and morally-void processes.

Christians are hardly consistent on their idea of hell if Dante's any indication.

Dante doesn't establish the doctrine of hell for Christians. The Bible does that. Where he departs from the Scriptural teaching concerning hell, he is no longer representative of the Christian view.

If I don't think a zygote qualifies as a human being, then an objection to murder of a human being in principle doesn't apply to it, does it? So where does the principle diverge from its practice in this instance? I don't see that it does...

THe principle is how we determine what something is, the practice is how we consider variations and additions or subtractions to what we determined initially as a principle.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all with your definition of practice. Practice is simply the physical enactment, or application, of a particular principle. "Variations, additions, or subtractions" are all ultimately to the principle, which in turn shapes its practice; for there is no practice without an underlying principle. But, this is all rather beside the point of the broader discussion about morality, I think, so I'll say no more about it.

Selah.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

And if they can?

Then the practice of the morality is a further test if it can work or not.

Are you asking for reasons for why I believe God exists? If so, here are a few:

1.) The Argument from Contingency. (Ala Gottfried Liebniz)
2.) The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
3.) The Teleological Argument. (The initial fine-tuning of the universe for life)
4.) The Argument from the historicity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
5.) Personal experience of God.

The first 4 are all essentially subject to debate because they're a posteriori, after the fact and thus are not necessarily always following from the inferences and principles you set up in the arguments. And personal experience of God already begs the problem of defining God as a term to begin with

God is infinitely superior in His various aspects (knowledge, power, holiness, love, etc.). If anything, this makes it profoundly easy for Him to interact with us. He is infinitely knowledgeable, so He knows and understands us perfectly; He is infinitely wise, so He knows perfectly how to interact with us; He is infinitely powerful, so nothing can prevent Him from doing as He wishes, which, among other things, is to love us and save us from ourselves.

Are the aspects part of God itself or are something consequent of God's supposed divine simplicity? This is why theology and philosophy tends towards the significant possibility of making people less or more likely in various degrees to beleive or disbelieve.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why does "highest excellence" - a phrase I never used, by the way - "only imply" this careful relationship between a human and an ant? Also, I think your parallel between us and God and a human and an ant doesn't do justice to the impossibly wide gap between who God is and who we are relative to Him.

Highest excellence would be the greatest possible, I would posit. The greatest possible power is different than just regular power, like my power to say, like 75 pounds or some other minor amount of weight. But even a bodybuilder has a necessary physiological limit to their power. If there is a general limit to which power is subject, then even God, assuming power is in its nature, cannot supersede that, it would appear.

I never said otherwise. You are reading this into what I wrote rather than drawing it from what I wrote. Noting the penchant humans have for selfishness and violence doesn't necessarily mean I think they are unable to be selfless and peaceable. In fact, I don't think that. I do think, though, you are perhaps too eager to demonstrate your knowledge of Latin phrases...

I'm quoting one, I'm not terribly familiar with more than 4 as I'm aware of them. My brother's taking Latin seriously as a language, not me. The principle of that phrase seems important to this discussion, hence why I'm referencing it.

People disagreeing about God doesn't necessarily imply that He is not self-evident. If God was not in some measure evident, we would not be disagreeing about Him, would we? It is because there is evidence - good evidence, I believe - for His existence that a debate about Him exists at all.

The problem with the idea of God's self evidence through an effect is assuming God is able to interact and effect time and space even though it also transcends it, which would imply it can't, in the same way I can't interact with say subatomic particles and if I did, it would potentially do more harm than good. My basic idea of God at least from a Deistic sense is that God doesn't interact with the universe beyond initializing it from afar, because interacting with the universe utilizing the immense power would quite probably destroy the universe because of the sheer immensity of this God's power.

And if He exists, then He is a truly objective Source for morality.

Only if you think everyone would take what you mean by God to be the same. It's not as if you're going to agree with even a fellow theist on how God relates to morality and its practice as concerns humans.

So, the human ability to reason from sympathy to a basic moral code is a guided process? Guided by what, exactly?

Guided by the innate ability we have as advanced animals, developed brains and such. Our own ability to think in varied and complicated/composite fashions is how we even developed proto versions of the morality we use today in one form or another.

You must explain how natural, mechanical (and thus morally void) processes can produce a moral sense in us and why one particular morality is better, or more true, than another since, as I explained in my last post, the natural processes that ultimately gave us our moral sense did not impart the same sense to lions, or baboons, or termites.

The basic reason is that we are able to think of things in deeper ways because of how advanced our brain function is. And we see how a particular morality is better through observing its benefits, along with losses, in a practical and habitual sense.

And the obvious reason why non human animals don't have the capacity/sense is because they don't have enough brain capacity to perform the actions of thinking about it. They act virtually on instinct.

So, you do understand that your source for your morality is essentially subjective - and thus no more reliable or authoritative than the next person's morality. I think you've had a breakthrough!

It's existentially subjective, that is, each subject experiences it differently, but objectively, these principles work in any situation where there are organisms capable of that kind of ethical thought. Being subjective doesn't infer that it is absolutely relative. The fact that I reach the conclusion that war is less useful than negotiation and you reach a similar conclusion (hypothetically), it only means that we reached it in different ways by virtue of being different individuals. Many identical ethical conclusions we reach are incidental and don't suggest that we are deriving these accidentally, as we acquire our culture by mere accident as to where we are born. People deriving similar conclusions seems to imply to me that there is indeed an objective source for morality, but that it is impartial to any particular belief system, atheistic or theistic.

Huh? I may suspect my own objectivity, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be known objectively. For instance, 2+2=4 is objectively true. I can know this objectively; it isn't subject to my personal biases, psychological or emotional filters, etc.

Mathematical objectivity is quite distinct from ethical objectivity, or epistemological objectivity in the sense of our interaction with the physical world, including the computers we're using. That kind of objectivity implies a trust in our sensory inputs being accurate. The objectivity of mathematics is so because it doesn't make sense otherwise for numbers to imply quantity and forms of combination of those numbers makes similar sense. 2+2=4 makes sense because of how we understand the relation of the quantities 2 and 4, that is, 4 is twice the quantity of 2. Which also explains why 2 squared is 4.

I don't see that. Many politicians succeed mainly because they are viciously self-serving. Stalin was, essentially, a self-serving man yet he ruled Russia. Drug dealers are abhorrently self-serving and yet they live opulent, indulgent lives. How many African dictators have demonstrated virulent selfishness, living in high style while their people waste away in poverty and disease, or are murdered by the order of that dictator? I could go on...

There are different ways of things affecting you negatively. One of the ones we forget most commonly is our ethical/moral character. Someone behaving in such a way may not fail in fiscal matters or such, but their continued failing virtue will eventually in some sense negatively affect them, either physically, psychologically or just in terms of fortune eventually turning on them as she is prone to do (using Boethius' feminization of fortune). Consider it from your own position as a Christian, albeit it's different from say the more karma/vipaka position ethics I tend to use. You and I could both technically behave by similar virtues, but the primary importance to you is righteousness before God, so the negative impact you see for me is that I am separated from correct relationship to God, not so much my apparent fortune and virtuous behavior that I can share alongside you.

Oh, there are very much winners and losers when it comes to whose morality shapes a society. I am all for dialectical discussion, as my posts here ought to make clear to you, but outside the realm of dialectics, some form of morality wins out over others whether that morality has been dialectically sifted or not. Sometimes, if the wrong kind of morality is established, people can lose a great deal - even their lives. What we're talking about isn't just theory or fuel for debate, but the stuff on which whole societies rise and fall.

That's moreso successes adn failures than winners and losers in the narrowed sense of you and I playing a game of Monopoly or Candyland, or for a simple example, tic tac toe. But in virtually any instance of many games coming to mind there is the problem with your analogy in that there are draws. I didn't deny that morality has effects on people's well being and fortunes by virtue of other people's vicious behavior, but the game comparison I find to trivialize the seriousness of ethics and morality as something that affects everyone.

I think you missed my point. The word "innate" means something inherent to a thing - like the hardness of a rock or wetness of water. To say that rape is innately bad means that rape is bad like a rock is hard. No matter who holds the rock in whatever time and under whatever circumstances, the rock is always hard. In the same way, if rape is innately bad, it must be bad in all times, cultures, and circumstances. But this isn't how it seems. As I said, some cultures don't view rape as we do in North America. Rape isn't bad like a rock is hard, it appears. So, then, how can you say that it is?

The quality of goodness or evil usually doesn't exist at all in terms of actions, since they necessarily are treated as such in relation to how they affect human well being. Disease, on the other hand, is primarily bad because it negatively affects us. But disease can be considered good in that we develop immunity over time and can even develop cures from the disease with medical science. If rape is innately bad, indeed, it is bad at all times. This doesn't mean that everyone will judge it the same. That's a matter of people's incapacity or poor capacity to judge. For you to say that just because there are instances of people judging rape to be not bad or some other judgment about it, means that apparently rape is not innately or objectively bad, seems to be mistaken particularly in a distinction between beneficial/nonbeneficial and good/evil. Good/bad as a dichotomy is more flexible usually since something being bad is less serious than it being evil. Bad actions can still be good in the more ethical sense if placed in the right context. In short, this is a difficulty of language that we simplify at first when teaching children. We say it's bad, not that it's evil, for them to behave in certain ways, because initially, they don't know any better.

It doesn't matter if the termites can rebel or not. My point was about two different but successful social structures (or Social Contracts, if you like) produced by the same natural, mechanical processes defying the idea that one particular social/moral ethic is better or more true than any other. And just as one cannot condemn the cannibalistic, feces-eating "Social Contract" of the termites as morally inferior, one cannot condemn as inferior a human morality that is different from one's own (in a Godless universe, that is). At best, one can only say such a morality is different - even if it involves cannibalism or eating feces. And this is the problem with not being able to ground one's morality in anything more, ultimately, than natural, mechanical and morally-void processes.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Termites don't have a capacity for individual thought, therefore, your example already fails because it's something that's worked because it's simple and works for the almost nonexistence insect brain/mind that commonly functions either as a hive mind or simply on very basic sensory instincts (which is why moths go to a flame and don't learn from it)

Dante doesn't establish the doctrine of hell for Christians. The Bible does that. Where he departs from the Scriptural teaching concerning hell, he is no longer representative of the Christian view.

I never said he did, yet again. You seem to take everything I say in terms of general statements about religious doctrines so seriously that you can't discern when I'm simply joking or making a passing statement. People still take him seriously in terms of images. Even if it's inaccurate, it's the same problem that happens with the propagation of any religious meme, such as the equally ridiculous notion about a supposed war in heaven. Similarly, with Dante, it's just a simplified idea of concentric circles that was probably derived from a similar medieval idea about the universe being a bunch of concentric circles.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all with your definition of practice. Practice is simply the physical enactment, or application, of a particular principle. "Variations, additions, or subtractions" are all ultimately to the principle, which in turn shapes its practice; for there is no practice without an underlying principle. But, this is all rather beside the point of the broader discussion about morality, I think, so I'll say no more about it.

Variations, additions and subtractions exist as relates to the application. Not everyone agrees with the practices in law or such with relation to a general principle we hold apart from legal applications. The differences, variations, additions and subtractions exist in application in relation to jurisprudence then, it would appear. Though also, in general ethics, to the discipline of applied ethics in contrast with meta ethics