The Moral Argument (revamped)

[2PhiloVoid]

everyone in the thread already agreed that there was a moral law. Do we need to go back and find the posts. You would be the only one that does not agree that selfishness is never honored in a culture or tribe, and that self sacrifice is always honored in any tribe, culture or language. IF you agree to that statement then there is a moral law. If you disagree still, then we would need to work on that issue first.

Actually, there's a tribe here or there that thinks stealing from an enemy is a sign of strength, so we might want to stop short of claiming anything in the way of a 'universal' morality, 'cuz even though there are some commonalities, there are some differences, and it's the differences that are the problem most of the time.

 

[createdtoworship]

If all you’re calling a “moral law” is the commonalities between most societies’ code of ethics, fine, but now you have to show that it’s supernatural in origin. So far your only argument for that has been that we don’t see it elsewhere in the animal kingdom, but as I just got finished explaining, that’s not enough to call it supernatural. So what is your evidence?

So I am fine with not proving the origin of morality, most soft science is not proven, just theorized. But I have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that morality is supernatural in origin, and for our purposes that if just fine.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. there are two origins of all things, natural and supernatural.
2. If there is no natural origin of something, it then follows that said thing is supernatural in origin.

 

[devolved]

You get “ought” from “I want” and you can very easily get “I want” from “is.”

You don't seem to understand the nature of the problem. "I want" is not the same as "I should". That's the quintessential problem of the normative ethics and morality that our entire civilization hangs on.

For example, while Europe and Asia went through substantial cultural development, the Americas, Africa and Australia still had people eating each other in a cultural contexts that perpetuated these rituals. Of course, there likewise were vegetarian tribes... rather paradoxically, but there was rather huge disparity in normative morality.

The cultural layer is what made all of the difference, and that cultural layer is "external" to suggested Darwinian mechanism. Likewise, the mere existence of that cultural layer alone doesn't constitute morality as we understand it after several millennia of philosophical exploration on this topic.

It puzzles me when apologists for the moral argument talk about physical and sexual aggression as though they really believe those have a place in a wise life strategy. Do you really not see any undesirable consequences coming from choosing a life of physical and sexual aggression?

Again, you are saying this as you project modern cultural context that runs through mechanisms by which we normalize human behavior beginning with religious and legal structure, and ending with education and entertainment. So, of course to us it seems obvious, although, oddly-enough it's not obvious-enough to people who resort to rape to follow through with sexual urges for procreation.

And of course, there are likewise evolution-driven sociobiological explanations for raping behavior:

Sociobiological theories of rape - Wikipedia

So, the uncomfortable sociobiological conundrum is that while we do have cultural layers (historically religious and governmental in nature) that promote normative morality, people can reject it, or it may simply not be instilled-enough to prevent people from engaging in rape, which sociobiologists label as natural, although not moral or desirable.

So, it's certainly not as obvious as you are making out to be.

 

[gaara4158]

So I am fine with not proving the origin of morality, most soft science is not proven, just theorized. But I have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that morality is supernatural in origin, and for our purposes that if just fine.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. there are two origins of all things, natural and supernatural.
2. If there is no natural origin of something, it then follows that said thing is supernatural in origin.

I reject both steps of your reasoning. How will you demonstrate premise 1?

 

[durangodawood]

....When you begin to describe it as "moral" you are borrowing a context and language that only exists in religious semantics. It's simply not there in semantics of scientific naturalism.....

Oh nonsense.

Its right there in the scientific language of animal behavior, anthropology, neuroscience, etc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh nonsense.

Its right there in the scientific language of animal behavior, anthropology, neuroscience, etc.

What ... are ... you ... talking ... about?!

 

[durangodawood]

What ... are ... you ... talking ... about?!

I'm....tal.......king..........a.................bout..........

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm....tal.......king..........a.................bout..........

Between you, @gaara4158, and @devolved up there, I'm not sure what you're all going on about now. .....best go take a nap, I guess, and come back to this fresh when everyone can talk more sensibly.

 

[gaara4158]

You don't seem to understand the nature of the problem. "I want" is not the same as "I should". That's the quintessential problem of the normative ethics and morality that our entire civilization hangs on.

For example, while Europe and Asia went through substantial cultural development, the Americas, Africa and Australia still had people eating each other in a cultural contexts that perpetuated these rituals. Of course, there likewise were vegetarian tribes... rather paradoxically, but there was rather huge disparity in normative morality.

The cultural layer is what made all of the difference, and that cultural layer is "external" to suggested Darwinian mechanism. Likewise, the mere existence of that cultural layer alone doesn't constitute morality as we understand it after several millennia of philosophical exploration on this topic.

On the contrary, an "I should" is meaningless without an "I want." Perhaps in my haste I didn't make myself clear. "Ought" only makes sense with reference to a desired end-state. For example, if you want to live, you should drink water regularly. The common advice is often shortened to "you should drink water regularly," but that's because the desire to live is so universal it's automatically implied. There's no objective code of hydration we're all compelled to follow. We all just want to avoid death by dehydration, and consequently, all accept that we ought to hydrate regularly. The same is the case for moral statements. "You ought not murder" isn't based on some objective, supernaturally-established moral law. It's just that there are very real consequences to murder that very few people are willing to risk, so we all accept that we ought not murder.

You can cite cultures that perpetuate things like cannibalism and human sacrifice, eliminating the social consequences that would otherwise have prohibited such practices, but then you can no longer make the point that there seems to be some universal moral law that everyone intuitively follows, because those people sure didn't. You will then ask, how can I say they were wrong to practice such rituals, if these rituals weren't tearing the society apart? First, because I don't believe the rituals were achieving what they thought they were. There was no god to receive the sacrifice, nothing special in the human meat that they couldn't get elsewhere. Second, they were a society in which you or someone you loved could be arbitrarily slaughtered for no good reason. If you want to live (and don't want anyone you care about to die), you ought not live in a society that arbitrarily kills its own members. Assuming everyone there wanted to live, this can be restated as "They shouldn't have been arbitrarily killing each other in those societies."

Again, you are saying this as you project modern cultural context that runs through mechanisms by which we normalize human behavior beginning with religious and legal structure, and ending with education and entertainment. So, of course to us it seems obvious, although, oddly-enough it's not obvious-enough to people who resort to rape to follow through with sexual urges for procreation.

And of course, there are likewise evolution-driven sociobiological explanations for raping behavior:

Sociobiological theories of rape - Wikipedia

So, the uncomfortable sociobiological conundrum is that while we do have cultural layers (historically religious and governmental in nature) that promote normative morality, people can reject it, or it may simply not be instilled-enough to prevent people from engaging in rape, which sociobiologists label as natural, although not moral or desirable.

So, it's certainly not as obvious as you are making out to be.

Well, again, you can cite the historically savage and brutal nature of humanity and it takes nothing away from my case that morality is something that has emerged naturally over time, but it completely de-fangs any case that morality is universal and intuitive and therefore must come from on high. Absent the religious, legal, and social structures making it obvious that rape and murder have undesirable consequences for all parties, the fact that some would opt to rape and murder makes it look like there aren't really any objective moral values and duties, doesn't it?

 

[gaara4158]

Between you, @gaara4158, and @devolved up there, I'm not sure what you're all going on about now. .....best go take a nap, I guess, and come back to this fresh when everyone can talk more sensibly.

Page 20 of a thread is where things really start going crazy

 

[createdtoworship]

I reject both steps of your reasoning. How will you demonstrate premise 1?

logic demonstrates that, another way to look at it is that the universe has metaphysical or physical elements to it. By rules of elimination if one of those properties does not apply, the other one does.

 

[gaara4158]

logic demonstrates that, another way to look at it is that the universe has metaphysical or physical elements to it. By rules of elimination if one of those properties does not apply, the other one does.

Logic demonstrates no such thing. You need to define supernatural and then demonstrate that the supernatural exists, and you can't appeal to pure logic for that. You have to match your definition of supernatural with something that demonstrably exists in reality. Until then, your attempts to prove something isn't natural will not lead to the conclusion that it is supernatural.

 

[createdtoworship]

Logic demonstrates no such thing. You need to define supernatural and then demonstrate that the supernatural exists, and you can't appeal to pure logic for that. You have to match your definition of supernatural with something that demonstrably exists in reality. Until then, your attempts to prove something isn't natural will not lead to the conclusion that it is supernatural.

I just did, metaphysics.

do you doubt metaphysics exist?

and specifically quantum physics also can apply to the spiritual realm.

basically anything beyond our 4 dimensions that we deal with on any given day, can be quantified as the spiritual realm at least part of it.

 

[gaara4158]

I just did, metaphysics.

do you doubt metaphysics exist?

and specifically quantum physics also can apply to the spiritual realm.

basically anything beyond our 4 dimensions that we deal with on any given day, can be quantified as the spiritual realm at least part of it.

Ok, you're all over the place now, and you're approaching woo woo territory. I would caution you to use more stringent definitions in your arguments.

Metaphysics is the philosophical branch of study examining the fundamental nature of existence. This includes the questions of monism vs. pluralism, determinism vs. free will, and ontology. You're saying that metaphysics and the supernatural are the same thing?

Metaphysics may or may not be a meaningful branch of philosophy, I don't claim to have much background in that field, but I can tell you that defining the supernatural as the metaphysical is the strangest move I've ever seen anyone make. I suspect you're just taking abstract, nebulous words and using them interchangeably to describe this vaguely magical type of entity you think God is.

And now you're throwing quantum physics and a spiritual realm into this? This adds to my suspicion that you're doing a Deepak Chopra with a bunch of terms no one understands and hoping it sticks.

I don't think defining anything beyond our familiar 4 dimensions as spiritual or supernatural is a good idea, seeing as the science isn't quite settled as to whether there are more (perfectly natural and mundane) dimensions out there. Even if I were to grant you this definition, I wouldn't be so cruel as to ask you how you think morality emerges from some foreign dimension.

The final error you make is the false dichotomy fallacy. You stated that everything is either natural or supernatural. Even if we used definitions of each such that this was a true exhaustive dichotomy, our inability to find a natural explanation for something wouldn't automatically mean that it was supernatural. There could always be a natural explanation we're unaware of. It would be much more effective to explain a positive case for the supernatural than a negative case against the natural.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok, you're all over the place now, and you're approaching woo woo territory. I would caution you to use more stringent definitions in your arguments.

Metaphysics is the philosophical branch of study examining the fundamental nature of existence. This includes the questions of monism vs. pluralism, determinism vs. free will, and ontology. You're saying that metaphysics and the supernatural are the same thing?

in a website on athiesm and agnosticism they define metaphysics: "the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and experimentation." They do say that they don't agree with the definition, but I wish to point out the words "popular sense" so they are admitting that most people define metaphysics in such a manner.
source: Why You Should Care About Metaphysics, the Study of Reality

Metaphysics may or may not be a meaningful branch of philosophy, I don't claim to have much background in that field, but I can tell you that defining the supernatural as the metaphysical is the strangest move I've ever seen anyone make. I suspect you're just taking abstract, nebulous words and using them interchangeably to describe this vaguely magical type of entity you think God is.

like I said, most people define it as such. Look up the double slit experiment. Not strange at all. But you can continue to use ad hominems if you wish. But if you do so again, you will be blocked permanently. That is your last warning, I already blocked another user this week.

And now you're throwing quantum physics and a spiritual realm into this? This adds to my suspicion that you're doing a Deepak Chopra with a bunch of terms no one understands and hoping it sticks.

let me explain quantum physics simply for you:
Quantum physics is a different set of laws then regular physics. In quantum physics, weird things are possible. For instance, teleportation through quantum entanglement has already been accomplished. Granted, the object was a few atoms wide, but for a moment, it literally existed in two places. They were different objects, but are linked by a connection that is outside time and space, outside of our universe, to become one.

Another cool observed quantum phenomena is that the mere act of observing something, alters it's behavior, regardless of when it was observed. Photons (light) can behave as energy wave, or matter. Observing them, even a recording of them in action at a later time, can affect they way they behave in the present (or past if seen on a recording). All matter is said to be in superposition (atom in multiple states at the same time) until observed, which means observing it causes the superposition state to collapse and take a concrete form. In short, a never before observed object literally has no concrete form. This also implies that there is a human element outside of time that causes this (soul perhaps?)

Finally, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider facility are working to prove the existence of the Higgs Boison particle. It's nicknamed the God Particle as it is believed to be the thing that causes energy waves to take on mass and become physical objects. If you could control the higgs field, it may be possible to create matter out of energy, or convert matter from one form to another (water into wine?). The Higgs Boison is still a theory though, but I think it fits well as a possible explanation for miracles.

So to use the spiritual realm as synonymous with some aspects of quantum physics is not that unusual. I do a much more detailed explanation here: Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

I don't think defining anything beyond our familiar 4 dimensions as spiritual or supernatural is a good idea, seeing as the science isn't quite settled as to whether there are more (perfectly natural and mundane) dimensions out there. Even if I were to grant you this definition, I wouldn't be so cruel as to ask you how you think morality emerges from some foreign dimension.

I believe God to be outside of our four dimensions. A God who exists outside of time for example, can predict the future (prophecy). A God outside of the first three dimensions, can walk through walls as Jesus seemed to do as he appeared inside the upper room after the resurrection (inside of locked room). I think the miracles are miraculous to a 3 dimensional being yes, but not for a being with higher dimensional characteristics.Some basics of dimension theory can be described here:

The final error you make is the false dichotomy fallacy. You stated that everything is either natural or supernatural. Even if we used definitions of each such that this was a true exhaustive dichotomy, our inability to find a natural explanation for something wouldn't automatically mean that it was supernatural. There could always be a natural explanation we're unaware of. It would be much more effective to explain a positive case for the supernatural than a negative case against the natural.

no, actually a false dichotomy are "When only two choices are presented yet more exist." That is the first line of defining a false dichotomy.
False Dilemma

So the burden of proof is on you to show more options. I believe there are only two options shown in science: those that can be explained with normal physics laws, and those that have to be explained with special physical laws (meta physics, or quantum physics). Which I believe those dimensions to be inhabited by the spirit world. Our spirits for example are inside our body but they do not have mass. So according to the theory of relativity if something does not have mass, it is outside of time and space. So that is why, in the Bible in the millenium, Christians in their glorified bodies will be able to fly from the new jerusalem to the earth.

that may sound strange, and thats ok.

but remember, you have been warned time and time again.

if you use ad hominems, you will be blocked.

 

[gaara4158]

in a website on athiesm and agnosticism they define metaphysics: "the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and experimentation." They do say that they don't agree with the definition, but I wish to point out the words "popular sense" so they are admitting that most people define metaphysics in such a manner.
source: Why You Should Care About Metaphysics, the Study of Reality

Your source says that metaphysics encompasses both the supernatural and the natural. It is entirely possible to have a metaphysical worldview that precludes the supernatural. Therefore, it is incoherent to define supernatural as the metaphysical. Your definition of something cannot encompass its own antithesis.

like I said, most people define it as such. Look up the double slit experiment. Not strange at all. But you can continue to use ad hominems if you wish. But if you do so again, you will be blocked permanently. That is your last warning, I already blocked another user this week.

and like I said, your definition is incoherent. Even if most people used it that way it would be incoherent. This hasn’t been an ad hominem attack. Never did I insult you personally as evidence against the validity of your argument. I was only commenting on the poor structure of your argument due to the vague and incoherent definitions you’re using. If you felt personally attacked, you might want to step back and ask yourself why that is.

Do not falsely accuse me of an ad hominem attack. I won’t block you, but you won’t look good. This is your only warning.

let me explain quantum physics simply for you:
Quantum physics is a different set of laws then regular physics. In quantum physics, weird things are possible. For instance, teleportation through quantum entanglement has already been accomplished. Granted, the object was a few atoms wide, but for a moment, it literally existed in two places. They were different objects, but are linked by a connection that is outside time and space, outside of our universe, to become one.

Another cool observed quantum phenomena is that the mere act of observing something, alters it's behavior, regardless of when it was observed. Photons (light) can behave as energy wave, or matter. Observing them, even a recording of them in action at a later time, can affect they way they behave in the present (or past if seen on a recording). All matter is said to be in superposition (atom in multiple states at the same time) until observed, which means observing it causes the superposition state to collapse and take a concrete form. In short, a never before observed object literally has no concrete form. This also implies that there is a human element outside of time that causes this (soul perhaps?)

Finally, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider facility are working to prove the existence of the Higgs Boison particle. It's nicknamed the God Particle as it is believed to be the thing that causes energy waves to take on mass and become physical objects. If you could control the higgs field, it may be possible to create matter out of energy, or convert matter from one form to another (water into wine?). The Higgs Boison is still a theory though, but I think it fits well as a possible explanation for miracles.

So to use the spiritual realm as synonymous with some aspects of quantum physics is not that unusual. I do a much more detailed explanation here: Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

Yes, this is a common layman’s explanation of quantum physics, but when you ask a quantum physicist how it all works he will admit that very few people actually understand it. And your description of particles going outside of time and space is not accurate. There are competing hypotheses to explain what’s really going on there, but spirituality is not one of them. What you’re describing is quantum mysticism, a pseudoscience, which is why I brought up Deepak Chopra.

But let’s step away from this very complicated field of physics that neither you nor I truly understand and get back to the point of it all. You were trying to provide a working definition of supernatural, and so far you’ve only given an incoherent definition (metaphysics) and quantum physics, which is just a less-understood branch of the natural sciences. Either way, I don’t see how something as abstract as morality fits in either category, so it’s impossible to follow your reasoning so far as to how morality is supernatural.

Edit: in fairness to you, I did neglect to flesh out why you were presenting a false dilemma and skipped straight to your argument from ignorance. The false dilemma in your argument is twofold: first, lacking a coherent definition of supernatural, it is unclear that “supernatural” truly is an option. Thus far, it is not, since your definition is incoherent. If it’s not, there’s not even a dichotomy. Everything is, by definition, natural. However, so long as we’re dealing in vacuous definitions, a third option between the natural and supernatural would be unnatural, as in man-made.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your source says that metaphysics encompasses both the supernatural and the natural. It is entirely possible to have a metaphysical worldview that precludes the supernatural. Therefore, it is incoherent to define supernatural as the metaphysical. Your definition of something cannot encompass its own antithesis.

only if metaphysics was entirely documented and understood, however at this point. It is not.

and like I said, your definition is incoherent. Even if most people used it that way it would be incoherent. This hasn’t been an ad hominem attack. Never did I insult you personally as evidence against the validity of your argument. I was only commenting on the poor structure of your argument due to the vague and incoherent definitions you’re using. If you felt personally attacked, you might want to step back and ask yourself why that is.

you say it is incoherent, but you are not a authority. And you do not cite any sources for the reason why. nor do you give rational argumentation as to why it's incoherent.

Do not falsely accuse me of an ad hominem attack. I won’t block you, but you won’t look good. This is your only warning.

I am not discussing this with you, either be nicer in your debate, or you will be blocked.

Yes, this is a common layman’s explanation of quantum physics, but when you ask a quantum physicist how it all works he will admit that very few people actually understand it. And your description of particles going outside of time and space is not accurate. There are competing hypotheses to explain what’s really going on there, but spirituality is not one of them. What you’re describing is quantum mysticism, a pseudoscience, which is why I brought up Deepak Chopra.

But let’s step away from this very complicated field of physics that neither you nor I truly understand and get back to the point of it all. You were trying to provide a working definition of supernatural, and so far you’ve only given an incoherent definition (metaphysics) and quantum physics, which is just a less-understood branch of the natural sciences. Either way, I don’t see how something as abstract as morality fits in either category, so it’s impossible to follow your reasoning so far as to how morality is supernatural.

Edit: in fairness to you, I did neglect to flesh out why you were presenting a false dilemma and skipped straight to your argument from ignorance. The false dilemma in your argument is twofold: first, lacking a coherent definition of supernatural, it is unclear that “supernatural” truly is an option. Thus far, it is not, since your definition is incoherent. If it’s not, there’s not even a dichotomy. Everything is, by definition, natural. However, so long as we’re dealing in vacuous definitions, a third option between the natural and supernatural would be unnatural, as in man-made.

because I don't adhere to Deepak Chopra's views, I view that as an adhominem attack.

at this point, I believe our discussion is over.

I won't block you.

however instead of looking at the facts you have resorted to belittling,

so we are done here.

thank you for the debate.

you will be blocked for a few days, then unblocked for further later conversations.

Godbless you, I really enjoyed this conversation. I hope that you look at it open minded, perhaps praying for God to show Himself to you while re reading some of what I posted. At that point, I pray the posts revert from being incoherent to you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh my..

If you take my advice and actually learn about Philosophy, you’ll learn that logical fallacies pertain to logical arguments. As I obviously wasn’t making a logical argument (merely a suggestion to improve your standing with people who understand Philosophy), trying to attach a logical fallacy to it is itself illogical.

So you haven’t “successfully refuted” anything, because there wasn’t anything to refute.

I have unblocked you like I said I was. So here in this post you are basically attacking a source, not the facts presented. Which is a poisoning the well fallacy. Even someone who is ridden in error, is correct sometimes. So to use this argument is fallacious.

Perhaps you should take a poll to see who believes you’re arguing successfully...

this statement also makes a fallacy. It's called the bandwagon fallacy. Basically it is saying, if everyone agrees something is true, it is therefore true. However the worlds leading scientists used to believe the world is flat. World renown doctors used to bleed out patients (known as blood letting), they believed the blood was the source of the illness. This was less than 100 years ago, they all did it. There is also something known as spontaneous generation. Scientists did not know how microrganisms showed up in rotting food. They thought they spontaneously generated. So again, the majority can be in error. I in fact believe the majority is in error both in a political standpoint and in an evolutionary standpoint. So the majority is not to be used as a source for proving a premise we make, logic, and/or authoritative articles must do that. I presented CSlewis's work as a source, yes. But even if you don't think He is authoritative, (which is ok), you still must counter his works on a point by point basis. If you want this discussion to continue. That is what I would do with your arguments. That is called debating honestly.

 

[gaara4158]

only if metaphysics was entirely documented and understood, however at this point. It is not.

Well, that’s the point of metaphysics. It’s what can’t be fully documented and understood by science, so we resort to philosophical arguments instead. The question of whether the supernatural even exists is in the category of metaphysics. It's like if you asked me for a definition of philosophical naturalism and I just said "metaphysics." That doesn't tell you anything.

you say it is incoherent, but you are not a authority. And you do not cite any sources for the reason why. nor do you give rational argumentation as to why it's incoherent.

I did give you rational argumentation. I said that a definition of a word cannot be so broad as to also encompass its antithesis. I asked for a definition, and you gave me a category instead. Allowing definitions to be broader than the words they define makes them functionally meaningless, and possibly leads to contradictions if the transitive property is applied. For example, you couldn't define "red" merely as "color" because "color" is a category that includes both red and its opposite, green. It's true that red and green are both colors, but the important distinction between colors is their place on the visible spectrum, and therefore the definition of a color should include its place on the visible spectrum. Likewise, your definition of supernatural should indicate to which respect of metaphysics it refers. So far you haven't, so you haven't provided a coherent definition of the supernatural.

because I don't adhere to Deepak Chopra's views, I view that as an adhominem attack.

at this point, I believe our discussion is over.

I won't block you.

however instead of looking at the facts you have resorted to belittling,

so we are done here.

thank you for the debate.

you will be blocked for a few days, then unblocked for further later conversations.

Godbless you, I really enjoyed this conversation. I hope that you look at it open minded, perhaps praying for God to show Himself to you while re reading some of what I posted. At that point, I pray the posts revert from being incoherent to you.

On the contrary, I have tried to get you to provide facts but you have refused. I am sorry you feel your person has been disparaged, that hasn't been my intent, but picking apart bad arguments is what we do here. Cheers.

 

[devolved]

but that's because the desire to live is so universal it's automatically implied. There's no objective code of hydration we're all compelled to follow. We all just want to avoid death by dehydration, and consequently, all accept that we ought to hydrate regularly. The same is the case for moral statements. "You ought not murder" isn't based on some objective, supernaturally-established moral law. It's just that there are very real consequences to murder that very few people are willing to risk, so we all accept that we ought not murder.

See below...

You can cite cultures that perpetuate things like cannibalism and human sacrifice, eliminating the social consequences that would otherwise have prohibited such practices, but then you can no longer make the point that there seems to be some universal moral law that everyone intuitively follows, because those people sure didn't.

You seem to misunderstand the moral argument as it relates to teleological take on reality.

The argument is not that everyone would automatically recognize their moral failures or that they would automatically know right from wrong. The argument is that the viable context for morality is in purposeful relationship of humans to other humans and their environment, as opposed to arbitrary reproduction and survival of the "trial and error" sets of behaviors as the primary driver for these moral behaviors. Morality would lose any viable meaning in this context because we and our behavior would be arbitrary variation of some evolutionary chain... which we can't be certain to be viable hence we can't be certain that our action is moral.

Imagine someone who never played basketball ending up on a court with zero directions as to what to do, and having to progressively figure out the rules of the game by which to play the game of basketball. The range of variations of the rule would be limited, but still rather broad. Some may come close, some may not... but the actual rules would structure the ideal game. But the fact that the structure exists and is interpreted as having limited range or viable contextual meaning... signals that behavioral rule set IS inherent to structure itself. It's not something external to it. If that's the case, then it makes no difference whether someone properly derives the entire range, or only partial rule set.

That's the teleological approach to conceptualizing morality. We have two hypotheses:

1) The reality is arbitrary with no purposeful structure and no set context apart from what we structure as pragmatic one.

It would be equivalent of saying that the structure of the basketball court wasn't built by anyone with rules in mind. It simply happened to appear through some variation and re-shuffling, so we could likewise approach the rules for using the structure in a rather arbitrary manner.

2) The reality has specific structure derived from complex and coherent properties and functional parts, and we can derive some specific context that points to some purpose, or goal


With teleological approach to morality ... it exist as imagination of alternative reality that we prefer as actual and both act it out and alter existing reality to shift to that preference. Just like in figuring out the rules of the game without playing we can intuit some of these by fitting the ball into the hoop, seeing that there are two hoops and various boundaries. But in whatever case of deriving the rules the idea is that while our perception of these rules may not be perfect, but there's a clearly-defined structure that seems to relate some contextual rule set to us that doesn't seem to be arbitrary.

If that rule set exists, then it's rational to assume that such structure isn't arbitrary and itself is a product of some intelligence, or intelligent mechanisms that structured it.

Well, again, you can cite the historically savage and brutal nature of humanity and it takes nothing away from my case that morality is something that has emerged naturally over time, but it completely de-fangs any case that morality is universal and intuitive and therefore must come from on high. Absent the religious, legal, and social structures making it obvious that rape and murder have undesirable consequences for all parties, the fact that some would opt to rape and murder makes it look like there aren't really any objective moral values and duties, doesn't it?

Moral objectivism (or realism) doesn't mean that these are universal in a sense of adoption and recognition of these by everyone as such, . It simply means that these are derived from objective moral facts that are there independent of the subjective perception of the observer.... meaning that we have trust that these are consistent-enough for us to adopt as normative.

By itself it doesn't necessitate God. After all we could say that these moral facts that structure reality is a consequence of rather arbitrary process that put together that structure to make it appear as though it has purpose, goal, and normative context.

But, such wouldn't be a coherent view given what we understand about ideal structure in general. Like it or not, whenever you inject idealism, and that's what morality is... you have to supply some God-like entity or structure that would serve as a coherent source as opposed to that structure merely materializing out of nowhere in particular, completely without any direction of goal... except that it acts as though it has both direction and goals. Again, it's an incoherent view.