Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[stevevw]

Good example of what I said, about making things up.
A bit of lead in about " reason" and then the made up
fact.
"....will fail".

Followed immediate by the next made up fact,
" The only way..."

I need read no more.

But its not making things up. Its a principle we live by especially in science, law, even psychology for determining objectivity and truth from arbitrary personal views. Its self evident that subjective morality is arbitrary. So therefore you need an independent source to determine what is moral or not.

We do that with Ethical codes of conduct, Human Rights, and social norms which have standards that are not subject to arbitrary determination.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

We have (or had) a point of agreement that the basis for human rights is our human nature. A human right proceeds from a human need. All human beings have the same specifically human needs necessary to live a human life.

We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something. The words "ought" and "ought not" apply only to wants, never to needs. If a natural need exist then a natural right exists. As opposed to an acquired want to which we have no natural right.

Human needs (not wants) are determined by our nature, our natural desires, and the word "wants" for the desires we acquire. Not so?

The oughts apply to actions, not needs. It's not that we ought to need things, it's that by our nature we do need things if we want to live.

 

[stevevw]

If that were true, everybody would have the same moral standard. The fact that we don't proves your claim wrong.

Ah the argument for moral difference. Actually we do all know the same sense of right and wrong as we are born with it. The moral life of babies

Its later that we take on variations of how that applies in the world through culture. But primarily all cultures have the same core beliefs about some supreme agent behind what we see, moral standards, life after death and a soul or consciousness.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Exactly who is/are the genius(es) that have disclosed the principles of morality that enlightened average men and women? Without awareness of those moral principles, it would seem objectivism cannot move forward as nothing can be validated a posteriori that is not a priori known.

I have no idea what you mean. We have no a priori knowledge. We start our careers as knowers with our first perception that something exists. We proceed to learn what exists by perceiving and conceptualizing what we perceive. That's it. You seem to be saying that if we are not born with knowledge already in our heads that we can't acquire and validate new knowledge. That's just not how our minds work. There's no innate knowledge because knowledge is not in the mind apart from reality and it is not in reality apart from the mind. Knowledge exists in the subject/object relationship.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Can you explain how self-sacrifice causes war, crime, poverty and hatred.

Because it rejects individual rights and sanctions the initiation of force. Because it pits men against each other as the sacrificer vs. the collectors of sacrifice. It splits man into two camps, the eaters and the eaten and most importantly it is irrational and the irrational is the evil.

Can you verify with logic and reason why logic and reason are the only way we can know reality. Yet we live by faith and abstract truths everyday. All that logic proves is that we can know what a rock on the other side of the galaxy may be like, that's it. Though there's still an element of faith in that we have not actually gone there to test that.

Of course. Validation is a conceptual process and if my conceptual faculty isn't working then I couldn't form the concept of validation. Are you suggesting that reason and logic must be validated by a non-rational method before we can trust them? That's a fallacy known as the prior certainty of consciousness.

The truth of the principles of logic is self-evident. The fundamental law of logic is the law of identity which is axiomatic, it can't be denied without contradiction. The other two are corollary to the law of identity. If the law of identity is true then the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle must be true.

But it doesn't help when it comes to morality, and other abstracts like love, transcendence, conscious experience which are all aspects of reality. These are made up of a different thing to material things like rocks and objects. They cannot be reduced to chemicals, minerals, particles etc. Yet they are every bit as real.

I don't know why you would think this. All knowledge is acquired the same way, first by perception and then by a process of reason based on perception. It's no different than farming. We learn what conditions plants need to thrive and produce fruits and we learn what things are harmful to plants by observing plants and inducing the principles of growing a crop. Morality is no different. We learn what humans need to thrive by studying their nature and then inducing principles from this. It's really no different than any other type of knowledge.

Not sure how you got to that interpretation but it is not what the bible says. The actual verse is "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

It's not an interpretation. It's just a plain reading of the text. Faith is the substance of that which is hoped for. What is the substance of hope but a wish or desire? We don't hope for things that we already have.

So there is a substance to faith which is what hope brings. Its tangible in that it makes a difference in life and death and in psychological well-being. In changing societies and even the world. This is evidenced in how faith gives hope to those who cannot find hope in a world that offers none.

That's not what it says. It clearly says that faith is the substance of hope, not that the substance of faith is what hope brings. Why do you change it?

Faith also offers evidence to those who trust in God or even another person or organization in how it changes them and others. Its not the same type of evidence that scientific materialism offers but none the less just as true. People live by faith everyday and it doesn't have to be in God.

Evidence is the evident facts of reality. There aren't different types of evidence for different kinds of truth. All truths are the same, correspondence between the contents of the mind and the facts of reality.

I know people live by faith every day and I see the results; War, poverty, hatred, and crime. You can justify any heinous act by faith such as sacrificing your son because "God" told you to. Hitler and his minions told people to have faith that if we just kill all these Jews then things will be better. Well were they?

 

[Astrid]

But its not making things up. Its a principle we live by especially in science, law, even psychology for determining objectivity and truth from arbitrary personal views. Its self evident that subjective morality is arbitrary. So therefore you need an independent source to determine what is moral or not.

We do that with Ethical codes of conduct, Human Rights, and social norms which have standards that are not subject to arbitrary determination.

Really. " Not subject to arbitrary".

You made that up.

And subjective mority is not arbitrary. You made that up too.

 

[Astrid]

Ah the argument for moral difference. Actually we do all know the same sense of right and wrong as we are born with it. The moral life of babies

Its later that we take on variations of how that applies in the world through culture. But primarily all cultures have the same core beliefs about some supreme agent behind what we see, moral standards, life after death and a soul or consciousness.

How do you know that the instinctive behaviour of
babies has a thing to do with a sense of right and wrong,?

Do you think dogs have a moral code? How about crocodiles?

They are not smart enough to think up a god of course,
and then use that to give concocted " authority" for those
in power ( like the way people do) to enforce their chosen
" morality". Like, banning music, or meat on friday.

 

[o_mlly]

The oughts apply to actions, not needs. It's not that we ought to need things, it's that by our nature we do need things if we want to live.

?. "Oughts" apply to all moral prescriptions and proscriptions.

Hume's "No-Ought-From-Is" claim is obviated by the claim that defines exactly what is human nature. If, as you write, "by our nature we do need things", then we ought to desire that which we need.

So, again if Objectivism is to move forward as a system under which to organize society, who defines exactly what human nature is?

I have no idea what you mean. We have no a priori knowledge. ...

You miss the point. If in Objectivism, you write that the average person validates that which enlightened persons propose as true then who exactly are these enlightened persons that claim a priori knowledge?

Reality is singular and independent of the way men may think about it. The problem is that men historically think differently about reality, especially the nature of the human being.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

?. "Oughts" apply to all moral prescriptions and proscriptions.

Hume's "No-Ought-From-Is" claim is obviated by the claim that defines exactly what is human nature. If, as you write, "by our nature we do need things", then we ought to desire that which we need.

So, again if Objectivism is to move forward as a system under which to organize society, who defines exactly what human nature is?

Well yes, again oughts apply to actions. If one wants to live and discovers that his life requires a certain value, then one ought to act to gain this value. That's precisely what a moral code is: a set of values to guide one's actions and choices.

Hume got a lot of stuff wrong. One of the things he got wrong was in thinking that morality is deontological. It's true that a fact is not the same thing as an ought. For an ought you need a purpose and a standard by which to judge actions in relation to that purpose. It is the fact that man's life, the factual life requirements, are both the standard and the purpose.

Who defines man's nature? Individual thinkers do.

Reality is singular and independent of the way men may think about it. The problem is that men historically think differently about reality, especially the nature of the human being.

If two men disagree about something, then there's an objective method to learn who is right and who is wrong. The alternative is to accept another's ideas without validation, just on their say so. There are no authorities on the truth.

You miss the point. If in Objectivism, you write that the average person validates that which enlightened persons propose as true then who exactly are these enlightened persons that claim a priori knowledge?

I've already said that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge. We reject such a notion on the grounds that it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

 

[o_mlly]

Well yes, again oughts apply to actions. If one wants to live and discovers that his life requires a certain value, then one ought to act to gain this value. That's precisely what a moral code is: a set of values to guide one's actions and choices.

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.

Hume got a lot of stuff wrong. One of the things he got wrong was in thinking that morality is deontological. It's true that a fact is not the same thing as an ought. For an ought you need a purpose and a standard by which to judge actions in relation to that purpose. It is the fact that man's life, the factual life requirements, are both the standard and the purpose.

"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.

Who defines man's nature? Individual thinkers do.

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 two men disagree about something, then there's an objective method to learn who is right and who is wrong. The alternative is to accept another's ideas without validation, just on their say so. There are no authorities on the truth.

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

I've already said that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge. We reject such a notion on the grounds that it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

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.

 

[Kylie]

But its not making things up. Its a principle we live by especially in science, law, even psychology for determining objectivity and truth from arbitrary personal views. Its self evident that subjective morality is arbitrary. So therefore you need an independent source to determine what is moral or not.

We do that with Ethical codes of conduct, Human Rights, and social norms which have standards that are not subject to arbitrary determination.

And yet there are countless examples of moral issues that are arbitrary. The death penalty. Whether smacking a naughty child is acceptable. Should we allow euthanasia. If there really is some all-encompassing objective morality that we are somehow magically able to understand, why is there such disagreement about these and other issues? There is no serious disagreement about other things that actually are objective. So why is morality different?

 

[Kylie]

Ah the argument for moral difference. Actually we do all know the same sense of right and wrong as we are born with it. The moral life of babies

Its later that we take on variations of how that applies in the world through culture. But primarily all cultures have the same core beliefs about some supreme agent behind what we see, moral standards, life after death and a soul or consciousness.

Given that evolution can account for behavioral traits, not just physical traits, this shouldn't be surprising. Doesn't mean that such behavioral traits are objectively true though, in just the same way that the fact most people are born with five digits on each extremity doesn't mean a person born with six fingers is objectively wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ah the argument for moral difference. Actually we do all know the same sense of right and wrong as we are born with it. The moral life of babies

Humans have an natural inclination for empathy; but as far as this empathy coming from your concept of God, not even the link you provided was willing to make that much of a leap.

Its later that we take on variations of how that applies in the world through culture.

Within the same culture, we find different variations of morality. It’s a lot more than culture.

But primarily all cultures have the same core beliefs about some supreme agent behind what we see, moral standards, life after death and a soul or consciousness.

Not all cultures, but for those that do, this supreme agent differs from culture to culture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Amish aren't Christian nationalists: Amish don't force their religion on anyone, including their own members. They believe violence is wrong, and that everybody is free to choose what they will believe.

They are quite the opposite of Christian Nationalists. They are more "separatists" avoiding entanglement with the outside and secular world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah the argument for moral difference. Actually we do all know the same sense of right and wrong as we are born with it. The moral life of babies

Its later that we take on variations of how that applies in the world through culture. But primarily all cultures have the same core beliefs about some supreme agent behind what we see, moral standards, life after death and a soul or consciousness.

Yep. Babies have instincts for empathy, fairness, and other basic foundations upon which we build moral systems. A perfectly natural adaptation for a social species.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ah the argument for moral difference. Actually we do all know the same sense of right and wrong as we are born with it. The moral life of babies

Its later that we take on variations of how that applies in the world through culture. But primarily all cultures have the same core beliefs about some supreme agent behind what we see, moral standards, life after death and a soul or consciousness.

This is simply not true. Anybody familiar with anthropology or comparative religion would be able to tell you otherwise.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They are quite the opposite of Christian Nationalists. They are more "separatists" avoiding entanglement with the outside and secular world.

It's a good strategy and one Christians today could learn from. Not the exact extent of the Amish because ultimately the Amish are wrong about certain things, but primarily in their attitudes towards things which harm a Christian way of life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's a good strategy and one Christians today could learn from. Not the exact extent of the Amish because ultimately the Amish are wrong about certain things, but primarily in their attitudes towards things which harm a Christian way of life.

I would invite more Christians to give up modern technologies like the Amish do.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I would invite more Christians to give up modern technologies like the Amish do.

It wouldn't hurt. Though the point of doing such isn't anti technological in of itself and we are not bound to give up everything.

 

[Astrid]

But its not making things up. Its a principle we live by especially in science, law, even psychology for determining objectivity and truth from arbitrary personal views. Its self evident that subjective morality is arbitrary. So therefore you need an independent source to determine what is moral or not.

We do that with Ethical codes of conduct, Human Rights, and social norms which have standards that are not subject to arbitrary determination.

Blah diddy blah

"Will fail "
And "0nly way" are things you made up, unless
of course you copied from someone else
who made it up for you.