• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nirvana is not a place, it's the absence of greed, hatred, and ignorance.
Heaven is not a place either. Lacking greed, hatred and ignorance requires a conscious being. If Nirvana is in another plane beyond this earthly one where we exist and are no longer reborn and there is greed, hatred and ignorance there then there would have to be conscious beings or at least consciousness to be able to lack these experiences somewhere beyond our earthly plane.

This is similar to what heaven is. Its not a place in the material world but rather like a spiritual world. But we still seem to have some awareness and we reach perfection like Nirvana.

It's not analogous because Buddhism is a religion based on Dharma or natural law rather than arbitrary edicts of deities.
As I understand it the natural law Buddhism mentions is beyond the material through experience (consciousness) and Mind.

This is a common understanding where God or whatever existence is like Plato's Forms, Aristotle's 'the Good' and the 'Logos or Word' in Christianity is not an actual physical being but is Mind which implies a Mind behind the order of the material world and our existence.

Though its not exactly the same I think the concepts are similar as far as an immaterial nature behind what we see.

Just because something might be due to an innate predisposition doesn't make it true.
Its not a case of being true or false but rather 'it is what it is'. Humans have a natural instinct to eat. But that doesn't making eating true or false in itself. But humans are also moral creatures so we can take our natural instincts to the extreme and become gluttons and greedy unlike other creatures.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So what do you mean by "whoever is stronger will be the one to impose his view on the other". Are you saying what is determined to be morally right is based on whoever is the strongest to impose or force their view on others.
I’m not suggesting that is the right thing to do, I’m only suggesting it often seem to work out that way which is the answer to your question.
I thought there was no determination of right and wrong under subjective/relative morality. At least no objective determination.
There is individual determination, not objective determination.
They are just two differing views like there are two differing views on what flavor ice-cream is best or is preferred. No one can be morally wrong for liking ice-cream or not.
Though they both come from the same place (thoughts, preferences, and personal views) they cannot be compared because nobody cares about your favorite ice cream flavor because it doesn’t affect your neighbor. But everybody cares about your moral views because THAT does.
So if this is the case then as I mentioned with relative morality. If there are cultures within a dominant culture then the minority views about what is right and wrong are subsumed into the dominant culture.

In that sense you are right that the dominant culture forces the minority cultures to take on their moral views but that is immoral in itself isn't it because it discriminates against the minority cultures right to live out their cultural beliefs.
That’s why having a conversation is so important. The dominant culture shouldn’t just impose their views, they should have a debate on whose culture is better and whoever makes the better argument should win IMO; but that’s just my opinion.

Let me ask you a question; if you believe morality to be objective, what is this objective morality based on? And let’s say your subjective mind tells you action “X” is wrong, but this objective moral base tells you that it is right, what method do you employ to verify this moral base is right and you are wrong?
That's ironic because it seems subjective/relative morality is determined by popularity ie whichever moral determination is mostly agreed upon.
No; laws are determined that way. Subjective /relative morality is based on the individual thought. That’s why morality isn’t legislated, laws are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Heaven is not a place either. Lacking greed, hatred and ignorance requires a conscious being.

Why would it? A lack is not the same as the existence of something, merely a negation. Buddhist metaphysics doesn't require the absolute existence of anything.

If Nirvana is in another plane beyond this earthly one

It's not.

where we exist and are no longer reborn and there is greed, hatred and ignorance there then there would have to be conscious beings or at least consciousness to be able to lack these experiences somewhere beyond our earthly plane.

Does an ocean wave have some kind of independent existence apart from the sea? Neither do persons have independent existence apart from everything else.

This is similar to what heaven is. Its not a place in the material world but rather like a spiritual world.

Buddhism doesn't see a distinction between material and spiritual, those are Aristotilian or Christian categories.

This is a common understanding where God or whatever existence is like Plato's Forms, Aristotle's 'the Good' and the 'Logos or Word' in Christianity is not an actual physical being but is Mind which implies a Mind behind the order of the material world and our existence.

There is one school of Buddhist philosophy that suggests something close to this (Yogacara, the Mind-Only school of philosophy), but it's not a personal being because this storehouse consciousness is beyond personality. Most Buddhists historically have just considered this philosophy only to be of practical religious benefit, a religious phenomenology; Madyamika or Middle Way philosophy is considered superior in terms of metaphysics (where nothing can be said to exist absolutely).

But humans are also moral creatures so we can take our natural instincts to the extreme and become gluttons and greedy unlike other creatures.

Why can't other creatures also be greedy? Why would human beings be free of instinct? Why would something like "free will" apply to humans, but not other beings, like animals?

Buddhism is very clear, the only thing that makes something moral or immoral in principle is whether it causes harm. If it doesn't cause harm, it can't be considered immoral.
 
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
58
Center
✟73,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well, no. Oughts also apply also to attitudes. One ought to desire that which one really needs. If morality is objective (as I believe it is) then it cannot be otherwise.


"It is the fact that man's life, the factual life requirements, are both the standard and the purpose." ?

Do you mean man's factual needs are the standards necessary to live a human life? Objective (moral) standards, as opposed to arbitrary standards, e.g., the length of a meter, are a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge, usually inferred from self-evident premises, is acquired through reason rather than observation. Example:

Man is naturally a social creature.
Social creatures live in organized communities.
Therefore, man needs to live in organized communities.



If true then Objectivism leads to societal chaos requiring the use of governmental force to impose order.

If every thinker defines human nature then no one defines human nature for others.

All men are a thinking animals.
Every man defines his human nature.
No man defines man's nature for all men.


? If true than morality cannot be objective and we're back to the existence of a priori knowledge.



Are not conclusions reached logically rather than empirically a priori knowledge? Of course they are. One does not observe the rules of logic. The rules of logic appeal to reason and the first principles for their validity.

Yes, it is the facts of reality related to man's nature that make morality necessary. An objective moral value is some aspect of reality in relation to man's life, e.g., man needs food to live, then he ought to obtain food if he wants to live. The moral principle that man should eat things that are good for him and support his life is derived from these facts inductively. Moral principles are inductive in nature as are all principles.

Life is the standard of morality because it is the goal of morality. It is the purpose. People always ask "what's the purpose of life?". The answer is life. Life is an end in itself, to be pursued for its own sake and not as a means to another value. It is the source of values. Therefore, logically, it must be the standard of morality, i.e., every action, choice, and value must be judged in relation to it.

You simply can not, in logic, divorce morality from life. Life is the only thing that makes values possible and the only thing that makes them necessary and since no one is born knowing what is good for him or bad, then he needs to discover the values that his life requires. He does not invent them or decide them, he discovers them. They are not determined by society, gods, governments, kings, councils, authorities, religious gurus, or your parents. That's why if you ask an Objectivist where his morality comes from if there is no god, he will say it comes from existence because that's where all knowledge comes from. There's no shortcut. You can't cut corners. Others are not the source of knowledge. Books are not the source of knowledge. The Koran is not the source of knowledge. Ayn Rand, John Locke, Plato, Aristotle, Freud, and your professor in college is not the source of knowledge. Reality is.

Now I understand your reference to apriori knowledge. Objectivism rejects the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy in principle and in all its various forms and offshoots such as the Necessary-Contingent dichotomy and the Rationalism-Empiricism dichotomy and with good reason. It is the result of a flawed understanding of concepts. It treats concepts as shorthand tags for their definitions. In other words, a concept's meaning is its definition which is arbitrarily constructed. This cleaves a concept from reality and makes it a social construct.

I hold to the Objective Theory of Concepts which states that concepts are mental integration of concretes that we perceive directly by looking at reality. A concept's meaning is the concretes that it subsumes. Definitions name the concretes that the concept subsumes in terms of their essence or the essential characteristics of the particular concretes. The purpose of a definition is to tie the meaning of the concept to reality and to differentiate those concretes it subsumes from all others. All of the other characteristics are part of the meaning of the concept including things we have not learned yet learned but they are not included in the definition because this would defeat the purpose of a definition. There is no difference between those characteristics that are included in the definition and those that are not. There is no knowledge that we can gather apriori from applying logic to those characteristics included in the definition as opposed to those synthetic truths that come from empirical experience. There is only logic applied to observed facts. A concept's meaning is its referents and everything about them. Thus the concept "man" means all men and everything about them, not just rationality and animality.

I highly recommend that you read An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for more. I'm sorry that I couldn't provide a more detailed, point-by-point response. My busy season has started early this year and I just don't have the time to devote. Truth be known, this will probably be my last post on these forums. I just don't have the time anymore and frankly, I find this place depressing and I don't like being here. I start to lose hope for the future when I come here and read the posts. I don't want to be depressed, I want to enjoy my life and be happy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I’m not suggesting that is the right thing to do, I’m only suggesting it often seem to work out that way which is the answer to your question.
OK fair enough. Yes that often seems the case. But I don't think that's a good way to determine such an important issue like morality.

There is individual determination, not objective determination.
So how do we work out what is moral then if its such an important issue.

Though they both come from the same place (thoughts, preferences, and personal views) they cannot be compared because nobody cares about your favorite ice cream flavor because it doesn’t affect your neighbor. But everybody cares about your moral views because THAT does.
So if everyone cares more about morals more than ice-cream tastes wouldn't that mean its more important to work out what behaviour is morally right or wrong.

That’s why having a conversation is so important. The dominant culture shouldn’t just impose their views, they should have a debate on whose culture is better and whoever makes the better argument should win IMO; but that’s just my opinion.
But that doesn't happen. The dominant culture wins regardless of what conversations we have have. But if we do have an argument to determine who is right how is the winning argument determined.

Let me ask you a question; if you believe morality to be objective, what is this objective morality based on? And let’s say your subjective mind tells you action “X” is wrong, but this objective moral base tells you that it is right, what method do you employ to verify this moral base is right and you are wrong?
As mentioned we are born with the basic knowledge of right and wrong according to research.

babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' | CNN


Basically the study shows that the basis for morality is how we treat others. So when we argue about what is moral we use human well-being as the measure. Basically treat others with respect, fairness, dignity which form the basis for Human Rights, codes of conduct and societal norms.

No; laws are determined that way. Subjective /relative morality is based on the individual thought. That’s why morality isn’t legislated, laws are.
I think you will find the basis of law is morals. Don't steal and kill form the basis for all religions.

But other laws are found in Human Rights which are ratified and made law by most nations such as anti-discrimination laws, freedom from torture, right to not be arbitrarily arrested, right to not have your possessions arbitrarily taken etc. These same laws underpin Codes of Ethics for workers and how organizations treat the public and also in social norms.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would it? A lack is not the same as the existence of something, merely a negation. Buddhist metaphysics doesn't require the absolute existence of anything.
Only a conscious being can lack greed, hatred and ignorance. If there's no conscious beings then there's no greed, hatred and ignorance anywhere.

It's not.
OK so when Nirvana is achieved where do people go.

Does an ocean wave have some kind of independent existence apart from the sea? Neither do persons have independent existence apart from everything else.

Buddhism doesn't see a distinction between material and spiritual, those are Aristotilian or Christian categories.
This sounds like some of the ideas based on Animism where everything is conscious and we are one with nature. This idea is inherent in most beliefs.

But as there is no distinction between the material and immaterial this is still an immaterial metaphysics unlike say the science method which postulates that reality is material matter.

There is one school of Buddhist philosophy that suggests something close to this (Yogacara, the Mind-Only school of philosophy), but it's not a personal being because this storehouse consciousness is beyond personality. Most Buddhists historically have just considered this philosophy only to be of practical religious benefit, a religious phenomenology; Madyamika or Middle Way philosophy is considered superior in terms of metaphysics (where nothing can be said to exist absolutely).
Basically most religions think the same. God is not a material being but like Mind as what we see is a creation of Mind.

Why can't other creatures also be greedy? Why would human beings be free of instinct? Why would something like "free will" apply to humans, but not other beings, like animals?
Humans are moral creatures we have a conscience unlike animals to tell us right from wrong behaviour. If animals were moral creatures then we better start locking them up for murder and other wrongs.

When an ape kills another females baby its not murder but an instinct to survive because that gives them a better chance to mate. When a dog bites someone its an instinct over territory or a threat of some sort.

Buddhism is very clear, the only thing that makes something moral or immoral in principle is whether it causes harm. If it doesn't cause harm, it can't be considered immoral.
That is pretty much similar to most religions. For example the second commandment which all morals are based on is to 'Treat others as you would have them treat you' and 'Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you'.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Only a conscious being can lack greed, hatred and ignorance. If there's no conscious beings then there's no greed, hatred and ignorance anywhere.

A rock lacks greed, hatred and ignorance... don't you agree?

OK so when Nirvana is achieved where do people go.

That question doesn't even make sense from a Buddhist perspective.

When an ape kills another females baby its not murder but an instinct to survive because that gives them a better chance to mate. When a dog bites someone its an instinct over territory or a threat of some sort.

Humans have similar instincts.

That is pretty much similar to most religions. For example the second commandment which all morals are based on is to 'Treat others as you would have them treat you' and 'Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you'.

I disagree. In Buddhist societies, there's no tradition of killing gay people just for being gay, or seeing certain kinds of sex as uniquely sinful, and that's why kathoeys (literally "ladyboys") in Thailand were just left alone. And a Buddhist would never accept something like the Ten Commandments at face value, because good moral principles cannot merely come from a god's decrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A rock lacks greed, hatred and ignorance... don't you agree?
Yes but then how can it lack something it can never have. I know sticks and stone may hurt my bones but I don't think they can call me names.

That question doesn't even make sense from a Buddhist perspective.
The what or where is Nirvana. Even if Nirvana is a state on the earthly plane its still a state beyond what humans can achieve because humans are not perfect. Besides the idea that we can be reborn into another body is an immaterial idea which seems to imply that some sort or spirit or soul beyond our physical bodies exists.

Humans have similar instincts.
Yes but because we are moral creatures we don't act like animals and why we put someone in prison who kills a baby or bites someone over territory.

I disagree. In Buddhist societies, there's no tradition of killing gay people just for being gay, or seeing certain kinds of sex as uniquely sinful, and that's why kathoeys (literally "ladyboys") in Thailand were just left alone. And a Buddhist would never accept something like the Ten Commandments at face value, because good moral principles cannot merely come from a god's decrees.
Christianity supports the idea that morals are within and that we are born with the knowledge of right and wrong and not just a dictate from a God. They also don't support killing gays for being gay.Its more about lust like greed in abusing our natural desires.

I am interested in the Buddhist idea that certain kinds of sex are not sinful. Is there a line to be drawn or is it that any kind of sex is OK.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes but then how can it lack something it can never have. I know sticks and stone may hurt my bones but I don't think they can call me names.

The what or where is Nirvana. Even if Nirvana is a state on the earthly plane its still a state beyond what humans can achieve because humans are not perfect.

If you want to understand something on its own terms, it's best not to read Christian anthropology into it.

Besides the idea that we can be reborn into another body is an immaterial idea which seems to imply that some sort or spirit or soul beyond our physical bodies exists.

Again, only if you insist on imposing Christian metaphysical assumptions.

A good analogy is a butterfly. When a catepillar enters a cocoon to become a butterfly, it's entire body structure is broken down and it becomes something different.

Yes but because we are moral creatures we don't act like animals and why we put someone in prison who kills a baby or bites someone over territory.

Christians actually tried animals for crimes in the Middle Ages, so it's not unprecedented.

Christianity supports the idea that morals are within and that we are born with the knowledge of right and wrong and not just a dictate from a God. They also don't support killing gays for being gay.Its more about lust like greed in abusing our natural desires.

It doesn't really justify oppressive attitudes towards homosexuality. It's hard to see from a Buddhist perspective how homosexuality is inherently immoral if it doesn't involve harm and it benefits peoples happiness. Sure, attaining Nirvana would be the ultimate goal, but Buddhists are also realistic about what that would entail- in most forms of Buddhism it is seen as a very long journey spanning multiple lifetimes.

I am interested in the Buddhist idea that certain kinds of sex are not sinful. Is there a line to be drawn or is it that any kind of sex is OK.

It's not that different from secular humanist accounts of sexual ethics, or most liberal Protestants. If sex is abusive or involves dishonesty and violation of trust, it is wrong. Otherwise, it's a question of what benefits the individual in their circumstances, what religious vows an individual has taken, etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you want to understand something on its own terms, it's best not to read Christian anthropology into it.
Can you explain what you mean by Christian anthropology.

Again, only if you insist on imposing Christian metaphysical assumptions.

A good analogy is a butterfly. When a catepillar enters a cocoon to become a butterfly, it's entire body structure is broken down and it becomes something different.
So can you explain how humans become something different like a cocoon to a butterfly physically. A cocoon becomes a butterfly within the same life cycle.

Christians actually tried animals for crimes in the Middle Ages, so it's not unprecedented.
How did the animals defend themselves and testify to their innocence or guilt. It doesn't matter what some past uniformed practice did, rather science tells us today that animals have no conscience as far as morality is concerned.

It doesn't really justify oppressive attitudes towards homosexuality. It's hard to see from a Buddhist perspective how homosexuality is inherently immoral if it doesn't involve harm and it benefits peoples happiness. Sure, attaining Nirvana would be the ultimate goal, but Buddhists are also realistic about what that would entail- in most forms of Buddhism it is seen as a very long journey spanning multiple lifetimes.
So if it involves multiple lifetimes is it the same person or entity that keeps coming back as a new person or entity.

It's not that different from secular humanist accounts of sexual ethics, or most liberal Protestants. If sex is abusive or involves dishonesty and violation of trust, it is wrong. Otherwise, it's a question of what benefits the individual in their circumstances, what religious vows an individual has taken, etc.
Well I think for secular society there really isn't any vows but rather what makes one subjectively happy. In that sense what one person thinks makes happiness another will think its harmful.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Can you explain what you mean by Christian anthropology.

You assume people are inherently flawed or imperfect, this is part of Christian anthropology, specifically the Augustinian tradition. Buddhism does not assume that. On the contrary, Buddhism assumes human nature is good and people do bad things due to karma, not due to their nature.

So can you explain how humans become something different like a cocoon to a butterfly physically. A cocoon becomes a butterfly within the same life cycle.

Buddhists see the "life cycle" in cosmic, transpersonal terms.

How did the animals defend themselves and testify to their innocence or guilt.

Public defenders were appointed for them.

It doesn't matter what some past uniformed practice did, rather science tells us today that animals have no conscience as far as morality is concerned.

As somebody who studied anthropology in college, I can tell you that's not completely true. Great apes do have moral intuitions, such as fairness, similar to human beings.

So if it involves multiple lifetimes is it the same person or entity that keeps coming back as a new person or entity.

Personhood in Buddhism is seen as fluid, not a substantial reality. So the person both is and isn't the same, depending on ones perspective.

Well I think for secular society there really isn't any vows but rather what makes one subjectively happy. In that sense what one person thinks makes happiness another will think its harmful.

Not really. There is widespread agreement among secular humanists about basic morality - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, sleeping around on your spouse is wrong, etc.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You assume people are inherently flawed or imperfect, this is part of Christian anthropology, specifically the Augustinian tradition. Buddhism does not assume that. On the contrary, Buddhism assumes human nature is good and people do bad things due to karma, not due to their nature.
Christians don't assume people are flawed but rather we are capable of good and evil. This is supported by the fact we have a conscience and know the difference between right and wrong and therefore are tempted to do wrong but are also able to resist doing wrong.

Whether that's human nature it doesn't matter as its within us through our conscience. In fact when God created everything including us He said it was good. As far as I understand Karma is sort of like you reap what you sow. So wouldn't that suggest that Karma is the result of sowing bad actions.

Buddhists see the "life cycle" in cosmic, transpersonal terms.
This is similar to other beliefs and even non-religious ideas like Panpsychism where everything including the cosmos is one Consciousness and Mind.

Public defenders were appointed for them.
Yes they were projecting human thinking onto animals rather than knowing what the animals thought. But studies show that animals are not moral.

As somebody who studied anthropology in college, I can tell you that's not completely true. Great apes do have moral intuitions, such as fairness, similar to human beings.
Then why aren't we prosecuting them for being unfair to other animals. If an ape or a lion kills a human because they see it as a threat that would be regarded as murder. But we respect the fact that they act on pure instinct to protect and survive. Its biological.

The interesting thing is how humans have this higher level of awareness about how our actions harm others and even negate our natural instincts.

Personhood in Buddhism is seen as fluid, not a substantial reality. So the person both is and isn't the same, depending on ones perspective.
I was talking about the physical body. Does that die and is reborn in living out each life to achieve Nirvana.

Not really. There is widespread agreement among secular humanists about basic morality - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, sleeping around on your spouse is wrong, etc.
Which happen to be in the 10 commandments funny enough. I think we all regardless of belief have knowledge of these core morals in us even before the law was implemented. The law just wrote them in stone. This aligns with research that shows we are born with the basic knowledge of morality.

But as for not sleeping around on your spouse I think modern society rationalize this away by making personal happiness and fulfillment the most important thing. This is a common reason cited for infidelity. I don't think the marriage vows are taken as serious nowadays due to easy divorce laws.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Christians don't assume people are flawed but rather we are capable of good and evil. This is supported by the fact we have a conscience and know the difference between right and wrong and therefore are tempted to do wrong but are also able to resist doing wrong.

That's more like modern American Evangelicalism and Semi-Pelagianism than traditional western anthropology. Luther and Calvin would not agree, for instance.

Whether that's human nature it doesn't matter as its within us through our conscience. In fact when God created everything including us He said it was good. As far as I understand Karma is sort of like you reap what you sow.

Karma literally means "action" in Sanskrit. It doesn't refer to justice necessarily, it's more like energy or process, at least in Buddhism. Karmic results can be good or bad, of course, but karma is primarily about causality more than morality. If I kick a ball, it rolls.

This is similar to other beliefs and even non-religious ideas like Panpsychism where everything including the cosmos is one Consciousness and Mind.

Perhaps one could think of the totality of consciousness in the universe as a mind of sorts. We definitely aren't talking about something like the Abrahamic God, who has an existence separate from the universe.

Yes they were projecting human thinking onto animals rather than knowing what the animals thought. But studies show that animals are not moral.

Human moral intuitions evolved from human ancestors, they didn't appear out of nowhere.

Then why aren't we prosecuting them for being unfair to other animals.

Because animals aren't part of a human moral community (so human morality cannot apply to them)?

But we respect the fact that they act on pure instinct to protect and survive. Its biological.

So are human desires. Including the desire to "sin".

The interesting thing is how humans have this higher level of awareness about how our actions harm others and even negate our natural instincts.

Some humans. Universal values are a relatively recent concept to emerge in human evolution, having only existed for about 2500 years or so. And most people who are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. implement them badly.

Which happen to be in the 10 commandments funny enough.

No. There's no requirement to worship a Moabite tribal war god like YHWH in those universalized ethics. Christians tend to think that's part of "being a good person", at least historically. Well, billions of non-Christians don't find that so. They live perfectly good lives worshiping Vishnu or Shiva, the sun, the local mountain, Amitabha Buddha, the Jade Emperor, Confucius, or no deities at all.

But as for not sleeping around on your spouse I think modern society rationalize this away by making personal happiness and fulfillment the most important thing.

You could try reading less fundamentalist Christian polemics. People, even irreligious people, still take a dim view of cheating on ones spouse. They just don't necessarily think premarital sex is some sort of heinous act.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps one could think of the totality of consciousness in the universe as a mind of sorts. We definitely aren't talking about something like the Abrahamic God, who has an existence separate from the universe.
Yes but God really traces back to what John called the 'Word'. The 'Word' was there in the beginning and it, it was God and all creation was made by the 'Word'. In that sense the 'Word' points to something beyond a entity but more a Mind or a truth force. The 'Word' was spoken and created the world.

Human moral intuitions evolved from human ancestors, they didn't appear out of nowhere.
In a sense moral truths like information have always been there as part of reality. The immaterial essence that governs things like laws of nature. We just evolved to discover it.

Because animals aren't part of a human moral community (so human morality cannot apply to them)?
I don't know about that. I think that moral truths apply to everything. When we kill animals out of hatred and destroy the environment we are committing an immoral act against nature.

But if animals have some sense of morality then it must be pretty lax as they do things we would consider immoral as humans. Even if they did have morals how would we ever know what they were to measure this.

So are human desires. Including the desire to "sin".
Except humans know when to draw the line between instinct and sin. That's why as a norm we don't go around having sex in the streets and killing babies. We prosecute those who do.

humans. Universal values are a relatively recent concept to emerge in human evolution, having only existed for about 2500 years or so. And most people who are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. implement them badly.
That's why universal values are like laws because it took some time to refine them. But people already knew the laws but there was no articulation of them until we lived them out.

I don't think for Christians anyway that they try to implement their moral laws for society today. That has been made clear by secularists refuse to allow any one religion to rule.

But as a religion I think we do a pretty good job in how we help the needy and sacrifice our lives for others. If it wasn't for the church charities throughout history I think many people would have suffered as governments relinquished their duty to help the disadvantaged especially today.

No. There's no requirement to worship a Moabite tribal war god like YHWH in those universalized ethics. Christians tend to think that's part of "being a good person", at least historically. Well, billions of non-Christians don't find that so. They live perfectly good lives worshiping Vishnu or Shiva, the sun, the local mountain, Amitabha Buddha, the Jade Emperor, Confucius, or no deities at all.
The idea of worshiping God was because there were many gods and idols. So if there was a God of creation and the moral law it could not be many gods but one God as many gods would undermine the idea that there is one truth for all.

It seems to be a fundamental requirement as Christ said all the laws were based on loving God with all your heart and loving others as you love yourself.

You could try reading less fundamentalist Christian polemics. People, even irreligious people, still take a dim view of cheating on ones spouse. They just don't necessarily think premarital sex is some sort of heinous act.
I rarely read fundamental Christian articles but rather look for the facts in most matters. For example

Relationship breakup statistics in the Journal of Marriage and Divorce report that 70% of Americans will engage in some form of infidelity at some point during their marriage.
20 Common Reasons for Relationship Break-Ups
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes but God really traces back to what John called the 'Word'. The 'Word' was there in the beginning and it, it was God and all creation was made by the 'Word'. In that sense the 'Word' points to something beyond a entity but more a Mind or a truth force. The 'Word' was spoken and created the world.

Christians co-opted that Greek concept to use in their religion, no doubt, but I don't see how such a notion really points to Evangelical Pietism so common in America as the "one, true faith". Quite the contrary. I think Christianity as you understand it is a rickety hodge-podge of different notions and sentiments.

In a sense moral truths like information have always been there as part of reality. The immaterial essence that governs things like laws of nature. We just evolved to discover it.

I don't believe those "moral truths" are anything but human conventions that are useful and conducive to human flourishing. I don't think they necessitate a "moral lawgiver". I certainly don't believe they are "a part of reality" in the sense of something like gravity or the weak force.

I don't know about that. I think that moral truths apply to everything. When we kill animals out of hatred and destroy the environment we are committing an immoral act against nature.

An ugly act, a self-sabotaging act, perhaps... but the Christian worldview doesn't necessarily ascribe value to nature as anything but a resource.

But as a religion I think we do a pretty good job in how we help the needy and sacrifice our lives for others. If it wasn't for the church charities throughout history I think many people would have suffered as governments relinquished their duty to help the disadvantaged especially today.

The old "but Christianity does so much good" argument? I'm not buying it. What is given with one hand, is taken away with the other. What religion has adherents that vote overwhelmingly for reactionary austerity policies in the US? It's not Buddhists or Hindus, it's Evangelical Christians. And which religion routinely supports politicians that engage in spreading lies, denigration, and hate against vulnerable minorities?

The idea of worshiping God was because there were many gods and idols. So if there was a God of creation and the moral law it could not be many gods but one God as many gods would undermine the idea that there is one truth for all.

Not really true in practice or in theory. Judaism became monotheistic because it was a way to centralize the Hebrew/Canaanite religion on Jerusalem so the temple priesthood would hold supreme spiritual power. This is not different from whan Akhenaten did in Egypt by instituting monolatry of Aten in his kingdom and banning worship of other gods.

Relationship breakup statistics in the Journal of Marriage and Divorce report that 70% of Americans will engage in some form of infidelity at some point during their marriage.
20 Common Reasons for Relationship Break-Ups

That doesn't prove what people value or idealize, merely what they do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
OK fair enough. Yes that often seems the case. But I don't think that's a good way to determine such an important issue like morality.

So how do we work out what is moral then if its such an important issue.
We should be careful not to confuse morality with laws. Though laws my origin from morality, morality is not enforced so if my neighbors morals are different from mine, I don’t care as long as he doesn’t impose them on me.
So if everyone cares more about morals more than ice-cream tastes wouldn't that mean its more important to work out what behaviour is morally right or wrong.
I don’t think it is all that important to work out moral issues. If my neighbor believes interracial relationships are wrong, as long as he keeps his views to himself why should I care?
But that doesn't happen. The dominant culture wins regardless of what conversations we have have. But if we do have an argument to determine who is right how is the winning argument determined.
Laws originate from morality, but they is usually quite a bit of compromising before they become law because too many people do not agree on a lot of moral issues. These compromises are usually the result of having a conversation with each allowed to present his argument. Who wins? The one who can convince the other to change his views. If nobody change their views; nobody wins.
As mentioned we are born with the basic knowledge of right and wrong according to research.
Yes but what we believe to be right vs wrong will vary from person to person; thus subjective.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is the facts of reality related to man's nature that make morality necessary. An objective moral value is some aspect of reality in relation to man's life, e.g., man needs food to live, then he ought to obtain food if he wants to live. The moral principle that man should eat things that are good for him and support his life is derived from these facts inductively. Moral principles are inductive in nature as are all principles.
Yes, one needs food to live and one has a personal moral obligation to sustain one's own life. But this obvious conclusion as a guiding moral principle is not helpful in organizing society.

Does the fact that man needs food obligate others to provide, if they are able to do so, to those who cannot provide for themselves, i.e., the mother to her new born, the rich man to the poor man? Does the fact that man is intelligent and capable of reasoning give men the right to be told the truth by others and not to be lied to? Or does the objectivist system only instruct one as to personal morality, that is their obligations to themselves? If so then objectivism seems a narcissistic and egoistic system that does not offer much for organizing a societal moral framework.

Life is the standard of morality because it is the goal of morality. It is the purpose. People always ask "what's the purpose of life?". The answer is life. Life is an end in itself, to be pursued for its own sake and not as a means to another value. It is the source of values. Therefore, logically, it must be the standard of morality, i.e., every action, choice, and value must be judged in relation to it.

If every choice must have as its end in view the sustaining of one's own life then we are at an impasse. Are there no limits to sustaining one's "life" as an end in itself? May I sacrifice your life to save mine, e.g., shoot you in the leg or simply trip you as we both run from the charging grizzly bear in order to save myself? May I deceive or steal from you if doing so improves the quality or length of my life? It seems unless objectivism instructs us as to the moral standard necessary to obtain social harmony that it does not offer society much.

If life is the end purpose of life then we are all losers for we all die. Where is the drama in that? A life of materialism seems a shallow life to live.


You simply can not, in logic, divorce morality from life. Life is the only thing that makes values possible and the only thing that makes them necessary and since no one is born knowing what is good for him or bad, then he needs to discover the values that his life requires. He does not invent them or decide them, he discovers them. They are not determined by society, gods, governments, kings, councils, authorities, religious gurus, or your parents. That's why if you ask an Objectivist where his morality comes from if there is no god, he will say it comes from existence because that's where all knowledge comes from. There's no shortcut. You can't cut corners. Others are not the source of knowledge. Books are not the source of knowledge. The Koran is not the source of knowledge. Ayn Rand, John Locke, Plato, Aristotle, Freud, and your professor in college is not the source of knowledge. Reality is.

We do not discover all moral standards. Reality is hearing an infant cry, "That's not fair!" We have innate ideas of morality that we are hard wired with -- one being the notion of justice.

I agree, reality is singular. However, we come to know reality subjectively. Do all objectivists agree on a singular moral system? I think not. Do obectivists change their minds or is their "discovery" of a moral principle once and forever? I think not.

Truth is knowledge that conforms to reality. Not all knowledge is true. If objectivists disagree on the truth of a moral principle then the source of truth is not limited to one's own existence. Truth, like reality, is singular. To say, "That may be true for you but not for me" is nonsensical.

Now I understand your reference to apriori knowledge. Objectivism rejects the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy in principle and in all its various forms and offshoots such as the Necessary-Contingent dichotomy and the Rationalism-Empiricism dichotomy and with good reason. It is the result of a flawed understanding of concepts. It treats concepts as shorthand tags for their definitions. In other words, a concept's meaning is its definition which is arbitrarily constructed. This cleaves a concept from reality and makes it a social construct.

I hold to the Objective Theory of Concepts which states that concepts are mental integration of concretes that we perceive directly by looking at reality. A concept's meaning is the concretes that it subsumes. Definitions name the concretes that the concept subsumes in terms of their essence or the essential characteristics of the particular concretes. The purpose of a definition is to tie the meaning of the concept to reality and to differentiate those concretes it subsumes from all others. All of the other characteristics are part of the meaning of the concept including things we have not learned yet learned but they are not included in the definition because this would defeat the purpose of a definition. There is no difference between those characteristics that are included in the definition and those that are not. There is no knowledge that we can gather apriori from applying logic to those characteristics included in the definition as opposed to those synthetic truths that come from empirical experience. There is only logic applied to observed facts. A concept's meaning is its referents and everything about them. Thus the concept "man" means all men and everything about them, not just rationality and animality.

The principles of logic employed to discern universals are purely rational and devoid of observations. This notion of "concepts" as the essentials of concretes stripped of their accidents could not occur absent the application of the a priori principles of logic.

I highly recommend that you read An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for more. I'm sorry that I couldn't provide a more detailed, point-by-point response. My busy season has started early this year and I just don't have the time to devote. Truth be known, this will probably be my last post on these forums. I just don't have the time anymore and frankly, I find this place depressing and I don't like being here. I start to lose hope for the future when I come here and read the posts. I don't want to be depressed, I want to enjoy my life and be happy.

I highly recommend when your affairs give you time that you read Veritas Splendor. The philosopher pope, St. John Paul II summarizes the 2000 year history of Christianity's examination of the principles that substantiate morality. I also want to enjoy life and be happy. To do so, I must first be free. The truth sets us free.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We should be careful not to confuse morality with laws. Though laws my origin from morality, morality is not enforced so if my neighbors morals are different from mine, I don’t care as long as he doesn’t impose them on me.
But we do impose morals socially through norms. Take social media and how movements like Me Too. This stipulates how men should behave, whats good and bad behavior which then influences moral norms. Anyone misbehaving socially is called out and condemned and often lose their reputation and job or suffer personally as a result. I think its call 'shaming'.

Or Ethical Codes which are not laws can dictate how we should behave in the workplace even as far as our relationship behavior which can lead to job termination. How many times have we seen politicians and workers sacked for inappropriate behavior.

I don’t think it is all that important to work out moral issues. If my neighbor believes interracial relationships are wrong, as long as he keeps his views to himself why should I care?
I thought you said we determine what is moral or not by arguing the case. Why bother arguing the case if its not that important.

I think morality for the most part does matter and I think moral views do have an effect on others and society. It shapes our behavior. For example using your example if we assume that your position was that interracial relationships are moral the right thing and your view represents the society your both living in then your subjective view is affecting your neighbor. He is denied living in a society that aligns with his beliefs and way of living.

We could turn it around and say your neighbors moral view was societies view and then you would be denied living out your moral beliefs.

So in some ways we are imposing morals on people who hold different moral views. Someone is always going to be oppressed morally because we inevitably will have some subjective moral system as a society.

Laws originate from morality, but they is usually quite a bit of compromising before they become law because too many people do not agree on a lot of moral issues. These compromises are usually the result of having a conversation with each allowed to present his argument. Who wins? The one who can convince the other to change his views. If nobody change their views; nobody wins.
But if its not that important to work out moral issues then why matter.

Yes but what we believe to be right vs wrong will vary from person to person; thus subjective.
I understand this is the definition of subjective morality But if we are born with the basic moral cores then they are innate and not subjective. They come before family or cultural influences.

And it just so happens these core morals underpin most of our institutions, world organizations, filtering down in most individuals regardless of race, belief, and culture.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,015
1,745
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Christians co-opted that Greek concept to use in their religion, no doubt, but I don't see how such a notion really points to Evangelical Pietism so common in America as the "one, true faith".
I think that's what they call fundamentalism.
Quite the contrary. I think Christianity as you understand it is a rickety hodge-podge of different notions and sentiments.
Don't you mean as you understand it.

I don't believe those "moral truths" are anything but human conventions that are useful and conducive to human flourishing. I don't think they necessitate a "moral lawgiver". I certainly don't believe they are "a part of reality" in the sense of something like gravity or the weak force.
Why not. I think its not just about 'matter' but what 'Matters'. Like you said human flourishing is important to us. We spend countless amounts of time thinking about all through history. Trying to articulate something real and truthful about how we behave. Its taken us thousands of years to work this out or at least come to a greater truth about behaviour and how we treat others.

An ugly act, a self-sabotaging act, perhaps... but the Christian worldview doesn't necessarily ascribe value to nature as anything but a resource.
Actually yes it does. The environment or what is called creation is not just there for us like some commodity but part of Gods creation and to destroy that or treat it without respect (though we often do) is actually treating God with disrespect. After-all God said it was good and we are treating it badly. I think that's why we are having such chaos with the planet.

The old "but Christianity does so much good" argument? I'm not buying it. What is given with one hand, is taken away with the other.
That's a bit cynical.
What religion has adherents that vote overwhelmingly for reactionary austerity policies in the US? It's not Buddhists or Hindus, it's Evangelical Christians.
You obviously have a thing for US Evangelical Christians.
And which religion routinely supports politicians that engage in spreading lies, denigration, and hate against vulnerable minorities?
Not sure but maybe US Evangelical Christians.

But I have to stick up for Christian churches and charities themselves, the ones in the grass roots of society. I live in OZ and we are not Evangelical Christians. In fact where a pretty secular society. But if it wasn't for the churches we would be in a lot of trouble especially in this time of economic crisis and mental illness, addiction, homeless hitting hard.

Not really true in practice or in theory. Judaism became monotheistic because it was a way to centralize the Hebrew/Canaanite religion on Jerusalem so the temple priesthood would hold supreme spiritual power. This is not different from whan Akhenaten did in Egypt by instituting monolatry of Aten in his kingdom and banning worship of other gods.
The Jews were monotheistic well before any thought of them being Jews or entering Jerusalem. They were known as the nomads of Yahweh while under Egyptian rule and even the Egyptian Kings called them so.

That doesn't prove what people value or idealize, merely what they do.
and what we do is often reflected by what they believe and value.
 
Upvote 0