The source of moral obligation

[Deidre32]

Hey Deidre32, good to hear from ya. It has been many months.

I do not think morality comes from religion per se. Various religions may attempt to give an account for our sense of morality however, and this many attempt to do.

With regards to altruism, how do we account for it? What is its metaphysical foundation? Its ontology? Is it a biological adaptation like our ears, eyes, and hair. That is, is it something we have solely because it aids in our ability to survive and reproduce.

Well, if we are merely animals, here as a result of blind, natural processes acting on matter over many millennia, then that is all our concept of altruism is. We see it in a troop of baboons. A mother baboon may throw herself in front of her young to keep them from the mouth of the lion not unlike how her primate cousin, a homo sapien mother may throw herself in front of a car to shelter her young from being hit by it.

However, if we exist as persons made in the Image and likeness of a personal, loving, good creator who commands us to be altrusistic and who created us with the real ability to choose to be altruistic, then altruistic behavior is much more than just the results of chemical reactions in our brain. This behavior is a reflection of the nature of the One who is the very paradigm of altruism. It is also a reflection of who we are, yea, who we choose to be. For if we truly can choose to be altruistic, then we have a good basis for the concept of moral culpability.

So just taking those few things and thinking upon them, it seems to me that the latter is far more explanatorily superior when it comes to accounting for our sense of morality, altruism and moral culpability.

For the first time in perhaps the history of our 'debating,' lol ...I agree with you here. I have been thinking about altruism, and it isn't always for 'altruistic' reasons one decides to be benevolent to those around him/her. It can be for selfish reasons actually to want to preserve the community and for one's own survival. Good points.

And yes, it's been a while. You might be happy to learn, I'm going to church with my dad on Xmas Eve this year. First time, in a very long time.

Wish me luck.

 

[stevevw]

I think the point is that if morality only stems from naturalism then what can make it objective. Its not ruling out that it can be objective but considering the way in which naturalism is said to work then what can possibly make morality objective under naturalism. We can say what makes morality objective under theism is that God states this Himself. He shows us this in Jesus Christ who came to earth as an example of how we can live a moral life totally without sin. As the bible says that in Jesus there is no sin and He was pleasing to God and acceptable as a sacrifice for mankind's sin.

If you look at it in a practical way someone who believes in naturalism will believe that morality is a changing and learnt thing. So it doesn't have any grounding apart from a biological and environmental foundation. But that also allows for there to be adaptations and allowances with those factors. So today people believe that morality is subjective and each person will see things from their point of view. Societies will come to a common agreement about right and wrongs. But then there is no independent judge of whether it is absolutely true. We have seen in the past how individual and societies have got it wrong with their views of what is right and wrong. We have had to wear the consequences of past decisions and assessments of what societies have considered morally correct. We will have to wear those consequences in the future. If it was purely a case of learning how to be moral for survival then we are doing a lot of things that are causing our destruction. This is more about evolution in reverse.

So humans are fallible when it comes to the judgement of morality. We can convince ourselves that something is good when it can really be not so good. Money, power, personal gain, ambition, greed, status and many other influences can compromise our views of what should be right and wrong. But in Jesus we have a stable and consistent judge of what is truly right and wrong. Jesus earnt that status and He will be the ultimate judge of mankind in the end. There has to be an independent judge of what is true and right otherwise we are doomed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think the point is that if morality only stems from naturalism then what can make it objective. Its not ruling out that it can be objective but considering the way in which naturalism is said to work then what can possibly make morality objective under naturalism.

Several suggestions have already been made from the first page onward.

We can say what makes morality objective under theism is that God states this Himself.

What makes God's say so moral?

If you look at it in a practical way someone who believes in naturalism will believe that morality is a changing and learnt thing. So it doesn't have any grounding apart from a biological and environmental foundation. But that also allows for there to be adaptations and allowances with those factors. So today people believe that morality is subjective and each person will see things from their point of view. Societies will come to a common agreement about right and wrongs. But then there is no independent judge of whether it is absolutely true. We have seen in the past how individual and societies have got it wrong with their views of what is right and wrong. We have had to wear the consequences of past decisions and assessments of what societies have considered morally correct. We will have to wear those consequences in the future. If it was purely a case of learning how to be moral for survival then we are doing a lot of things that are causing our destruction. This is more about evolution in reverse.

How does religion fix this? Religions change too.

So humans are fallible when it comes to the judgement of morality. We can convince ourselves that something is good when it can really be not so good. Money, power, personal gain, ambition, greed, status and many other influences can compromise our views of what should be right and wrong. But in Jesus we have a stable and consistent judge of what is truly right and wrong.

If that were true, then why the diversity of ethical views within Christianity?

 

[quatona]

I think the point is that if morality only stems from naturalism then what can make it objective.

I don´t know if it is just lazy use of words or lazy thinking, but nobody says that "morality stems from naturalism". If anything, they say it stems from nature.

Its not ruling out that it can be objective but considering the way in which naturalism

Again: naturalism doesn´t work, nature does.
is said to work then what can possibly make morality objective under naturalism.[/quote]
Well, if I understand the objective moralist among the naturalists correctly, they say that morality is grounded in nature.
Obviously, I don´t share this view, but in my opinion it isn´t an unusual use of "objective" any more than the theists´ use of it.

We can say what makes morality objective under theism is that God states this Himself. He shows us this in Jesus Christ who came to earth as an example of how we can live a moral life totally without sin. As the bible says that in Jesus there is no sin and He was pleasing to God and acceptable as a sacrifice for mankind's sin.

Nothing about this justifies the use of the word "objective".

So humans are fallible when it comes to the judgement of morality.

They aren´t any less fallibel when it comes to the question whether a God exists and what this God´s moral opinion is. So the reference to human fallibility doesn´t make for a good argument in favour of a particular human belief.

We can convince ourselves that something is good when it can really be not so good.

Just like we can convince ourselves that something is from God when it isn´t. The fact that we can be wrong about it doesn´t even address the issue.

Money, power, personal gain, ambition, greed, status and many other influences can compromise our views of what should be right and wrong. But in Jesus we have a stable and consistent judge of what is truly right and wrong. Jesus earnt that status and He will be the ultimate judge of mankind in the end. There has to be an independent judge of what is true and right otherwise we are doomed.

Who has announced him the judge, and in what way is he "independent"?
And since when does "independent" amount to "objective"?

 

[Freodin]

You are not too far off. I think you are getting my point.

The point I am making is that evolutionary biologists because of their belief in naturalism, i.e. that all that exists is reducible to natural processes, maintain that our concept of morality i.e. of moral values (good and bad) and of moral obligations or duties (right and wrong) are simply concepts that we have evolved to possess. Like our hands, or our eyes. They are things that we have solely because they aid in our ability to survive and reproduce. We have eyes, and hands, and feet and teeth because all of these things help us to survive and pass on our genes.

Follow me so far?

Good.

Our concept of morality is no different. It helps us to survive and reproduce, says these scientists.

And if this is indeed the case, then moral values and duties do not have an objective (independent of human belief or opinion) metaphysical foundation, but rather, a subjective metaphysical foundation.

Take away the objective grounds for moral values and duties i.e. God and all you are left with is a hodgepodge of subjective views that exist as the results of chemical reactions in the brains of homo sapiens. In the same way a blowfish by pure instinct puffs itself up when it senses danger, so homo sapiens have certain responses to perceived stimuli which causes them to react in certain ways.

When, on this view, homo sapiens say something like "rape is wrong", what they are doing is reacting to a stimulus. This stimulus could take the form of a male homo sapien forcefully copulating with a female homo sapien, something our primate cousins do. Upon observing the act, the reaction would be: "rape is wrong!" and then the person may try to intervene in the act.

A good parallel from our animal relatives would be the youtube video wherein a dog is attacking this little child and out of nowhere comes this cat that leaps onto the dog and does so with such force and quickness that the dog scurries away. What the cat did, it did by instinct.

So on this view, our expressions of moral outrage at genocide etc. are merely reactions to stimuli, expressions which are the results of socio-biological processes and chemical reactions taking place in our grey matter. They have no referent outside of or beyond ourselves because there is nothing outside of and beyond nature and thus their metaphysical foundation is purely subjective.

What follows?

No homo sapien could ever do anything objectively good or bad. No homo sapien could ever fail to do that which is objectively right or do that which is objectively wrong.

This is why I said I cannot follow your reasoning. I understand the point that you are trying to make, I just think the way you are trying to make it is... a little weird.

You keep talking about the "subjective" (humanist, materialist, atheist) view of morality, and denounce it as "a hodgepodge of subjective views" and such.

But beyond simply asserting that the origin of moral obligations from God would mean that they are now objective, you never offer any explantion for that... and this is what people are asking you for.

As they - and I - see it, there is no difference between humans "giving" moral laws and God doing so.
Well, there is one difference: with human given morals, we have evidence. From your examples, human given morals exist, because they help us survive. That is an objective fact: either they do help us survive or they don't.
Also, we have lots of examples of human given laws, we know that they did originate from humans and not deities and we can explain the reasons behind their existence.

We don't have anything remotely like that about divine morals.


Your sole objection to our position seems to be that human given morals would not be "objective".

But this "non-objectiveness" does not prevent the whole domain of human laws from working... and you haven't done anything to show that God given laws would be different.

 

[stevevw]

What is my standard for diagnosing Jeremy's psychopathy? My standard comes from clinical psychology and psychiatry. Clinical psychology does not provide a standard for the "perfect" or "ideal" human being; it does, however, identify certain traits and behaviours that are both abnormal and maladaptive. Jeremy's behaviour meets the criteria for psychopathy. The cluster of symptoms he exhibits are abnormal, occurring infrequently in the normal population; and they are maladaptive, making Jeremy prone to criminality and anti-social behaviour, which is neither in his best interest or society's.

From what I have read Jeremy doesn't sound like a psychopathy. He just sounds like the millions of people who steal every day. Theft is quite common and shoplifting is widespread. That would make over 30 million people in the US psychopaths.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

From what I have read Jeremy doesn't sound like a psychopathy. He just sounds like the millions of people who steal every day. Theft is quite common and shoplifting is widespread. That would make over 30 million people in the US psychopaths.

You seem to have missed the rest of the thread. No one claimed that this single act alone made Jeremy a psychopath. It was the description of Jeremy's overall character that disclosed the psychopathy, not this one example of his criminality.

 

[stevevw]

Several suggestions have already been made from the first page onward.

I had a quick look and can't really see anything that gives any good explanations for objective morality from a naturalistic point of view. It was suggested that through evolution common human need to keep a safe and happy society is something that keeps most in check. That the trouble makers will be thrown out of the group so that harmony can be maintained. But that would also depend on what the group has determined as good. I have seen where groups can rationalize and justify something as good because of selfish personal motives. Its very subtle and can be convincing if they can use a bit of salesmanship. People can convince themselves that a lie is the truth and it happens a lot.

Look at the Iraqi war. The coalition of the willing were telling us how it was all justified to attack Iraq. But there was sinister deception going on in the name of humanity and promoting a decent democratic world and all that BS. I really think the polititions believed the bull in the end. But many were supporting them. So it shows how even the most powerful leaders of the free world can be deluded and turn the truth into a lie under the flags of humanity. Humans are just not trustworthy. We are to susceptible to many weaknesses that can cause us to deny the truth.

What makes God's say so moral?

Jesus Christ.

How does religion fix this? Religions change too.

Yes religion can change. But thats man made religion. Thats a version that comes from the minds of humans. Thats humans once again deceiving themselves and others with a lie dressed up as the truth. And religion is one of the best ways to do that. We have seen it with politics under the banner of the united nations and humanity. It makes it look better and easier to fool people. But Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It is only humans who twist and change that truth.

If that were true, then why the diversity of ethical views within Christianity?

Not really. Most christian denominations believe the same thing. They believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and we need to be born again by believing in Jesus. They believe what the bible says. I can talk to a christian on the other side of the world from a different country and they will have the same beliefs and understandings if they have accepted Jesus. This is the consistent thing about being a Christian. Where it goes off the track is when humans add something into the equations that is not in the bible. If you look at what they say you can easily point that out. So God is the same no matter what. The teachings of Jesus are plain and simple and always the same no matter what. Anyone who doesn't abide by this is adding their own views in which is what people do with subjective morality.

 

[stevevw]

You seem to have missed the rest of the thread. No one claimed that this single act alone made Jeremy a psychopath. It was the description of Jeremy's overall character that disclosed the psychopathy, not this one example of his criminality.

Yes I understood this. If you ask any person out there who steals ie shop lifters ect they have a similar train of thought. There is always a rationalization and justification for doing what they do. A common one is the companies can afford it or they have insurance to cover the loss. Or I need it more because Ive been ripped off and the government doesn't help me get a Job. But basically they see easy pickings and its something they want/need depending on the circumstances. They will convince themselves that they are justified in taking it and they wont admit they are stealing and doing wrong. After a while it becomes a way of thinking and they will believe their own stories. But they are not psychopaths just thieves who have learnt the art of taking other peoples stuff. In fact its almost become a career for some and they could have bragging parties about what they have scored.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

even as a scientist id prefer imago dei anthropology to Spencer's social darwinism. self fulfilling prophesy with attitude!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I had a quick look and can't really see anything that gives any good explanations for objective morality from a naturalistic point of view. It was suggested that through evolution common human need to keep a safe and happy society is something that keeps most in check. That the trouble makers will be thrown out of the group so that harmony can be maintained. But that would also depend on what the group has determined as good. I have seen where groups can rationalize and justify something as good because of selfish personal motives. Its very subtle and can be convincing if they can use a bit of salesmanship. People can convince themselves that a lie is the truth and it happens a lot.

Yes, it quite often takes the form of religion.

Look at the Iraqi war. The coalition of the willing were telling us how it was all justified to attack Iraq. But there was sinister deception going on in the name of humanity and promoting a decent democratic world and all that BS. I really think the polititions believed the bull in the end. But many were supporting them. So it shows how even the most powerful leaders of the free world can be deluded and turn the truth into a lie under the flags of humanity. Humans are just not trustworthy. We are to susceptible to many weaknesses that can cause us to deny the truth.

Humans are not trustworthy, and yet we are to trust those humans who claim to have received instructions from God himself?

Jesus Christ.

What makes Jesus Christ, as the basis for God's say so, moral?

Yes religion can change. But thats man made religion. Thats a version that comes from the minds of humans.

Right... As opposed to your version, I suppose, which is "God's Truth," correct?

Thats humans once again deceiving themselves and others with a lie dressed up as the truth. And religion is one of the best ways to do that. We have seen it with politics under the banner of the united nations and humanity. It makes it look better and easier to fool people. But Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It is only humans who twist and change that truth.

The same untrustworthy humans who also happen to be interpreting the scriptures and giving the sermons?

Not really. Most christian denominations believe the same thing. They believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and we need to be born again by believing in Jesus. They believe what the bible says. I can talk to a christian on the other side of the world from a different country and they will have the same beliefs and understandings if they have accepted Jesus. This is the consistent thing about being a Christian.

Yes, that's the only consistent thing required to be a Christian. Beyond that, the doctrinal disputes run deep across various issues, from hermeneutics to ethics to politics.

Where it goes off the track is when humans add something into the equations that is not in the bible. If you look at what they say you can easily point that out.

You make it sound so easy, and yet I wager that if you disagreed with another Christian over some issue they would say exactly the same thing: "Well steve, if you just look at the Bible you'll plainly see why my perspective on this issue is biblical and godly and why yours is in error. You're adding your own views to this; views that are not found in the Bible."

 

[Ken-1122]

I think the point is that if morality only stems from naturalism then what can make it objective.

Morality is not objective; it’s subjective.

We can say what makes morality objective under theism is that God states this Himself.

Yet a quick look at history proves theists are constantly changing their morality. You guys keep claiming "objective morality" but your actions speaks much louder than your words!

If you look at it in a practical way someone who believes in naturalism will believe that morality is a changing and learnt thing. So it doesn't have any grounding apart from a biological and environmental foundation. But that also allows for there to be adaptations and allowances with those factors. So today people believe that morality is subjective and each person will see things from their point of view. Societies will come to a common agreement about right and wrongs. But then there is no independent judge of whether it is absolutely true.

Society will usually elect a judge to make these kinds of decisions.

We have seen in the past how individual and societies have got it wrong with their views of what is right and wrong.

We have also seen the damage religious people have caused with their “morality comes from God” views of right and wrong as well! Though both are far from perfect, I think the secular community has a much better “track record” of making moral laws than theism; and when you consider the main driving force against theocracies are theists themselves; It's obvious most theists agree! You appear to be a minority.

We have had to wear the consequences of past decisions and assessments of what societies have considered morally correct. We will have to wear those consequences in the future.

We have had to live with the past decisions of theistic laws as well! As a matter of fact; the reason theocracies are considered a bad idea today is because of the damage they’ve done in the past.
When one looks at the damage those claiming to be speaking for God have done to society; it's no surprise that even theists say theocracies are a bad idea!

But in Jesus we have a stable and consistent judge of what is truly right and wrong.

Yet those who believe in Jesus are constantly changing what they claim to be right or wrong. Again; actions speak louder than words.

Ken

 

[stevevw]

Yes, it quite often takes the form of religion.

It really doesn't matter. It can be any group. Religion can be used as a front to trick people because it makes them look trustful. But times are changing and now people dont trust them as much. Well maybe the Catholics that is. But it can happen to any group because its when humans get involved and decide on what is acceptable or not no matter if its religion or not. Soon they will be saying trust us we are not a religion until they get caught out as well. Maybe thats already happened, look at politics.

Humans are not trustworthy, and yet we are to trust those humans who claim to have received instructions from God himself?

There has to be a truth. There cant be many truths and its the same with God and morality. There cant be many Gods and there cant be many moral truths. So that being the case one has to be it. So we have to decide which one it is. If there is a moral truth put out by a God then how do we tell. We have to look at what each religion says and what that God claims. We have to use logic and reasoning to see if it stands up. But it has to be independent and worthy of being the judge of right and wrong. The Christian God through Jesus claims this very thing and has been shown to stand up to all scrutiny.

What makes Jesus Christ, as the basis for God's say so, moral?

His life , His teachings and what He claimed. It is a tangible example that was given to us for this very purpose. We had severed out relationship with God and found it hard to make that connection. We didn't have a clear understanding and mediator to come to God. Jesus who was God with us was that mediator. All other gods are distant, a mixture of secular ideas and spiritual aspirations or outright man made beliefs. There is no clear standard or independent status.

Right... As opposed to your version, I suppose, which is "God's Truth," correct?

We should use logic and reasoning to see if it stands up. But still there will be an element of faith involved. I am not going to convince someone about God by proving Him according to the standards of human criteria of truth.

The same untrustworthy humans who also happen to be interpreting the scriptures and giving the sermons?

Noone is interpreting the scriptures. The teachings of Jesus and the sermons are what He said and they are clear and straight forward. The life of Jesus and what He represents and what is required to become born again is clear as well. The disciples and others that wrote the bible are consistent with what Jesus said. You either believe them or you dont. Now if you believe that man made up what Jesus said as well and Jesus Himself well thats another thing. But it was either true or untrue and that will come down to trust. But you cant just automatically assume its false without also allowing it to have equal opportunity to be true as well. For Christianity religion this is what all the mankind views are based on. This is the original and best. If humans diverge off from the original then they are changing it and adding in their own versions.

Yes, that's the only consistent thing required to be a Christian. Beyond that, the doctrinal disputes run deep across various issues, from hermeneutics to ethics to politics.

No its not the only thing. If they are agreeing on this then there is a whole raft of teachings and scriptures that stem from this. Its fairly simple and straight forward. The only section I have ever heard for any degree of interpretation is the book of revelations. But that is by its nature a book that is based on prophesy so its going to be like that. But the basic message is agreed that Jesus will be coming back and Judging all. The rest of the new testamnet doesnt have any difficult to interperet things. Things like the sermon on the mount are simple and straight forward. That is how Jesus said that He spoke in parables because people didnt listen and understand. So He made it easy.

You make it sound so easy, and yet I wager that if you disagreed with another Christian over some issue they would say exactly the same thing: "Well steve, if you just look at the Bible you'll plainly see why my perspective on this issue is biblical and godly and why yours is in error. You're adding your own views to this; views that are not found in the Bible."

I know that some can get carried away with some aspects of what some doctrines represent. But they are normally not core teachings and they dont change the basic teachings of Jesus. People will disagree at times over anything. But if you go into any church or group of Christians there will be consensus on what the actual meaning is. Its only because some are not as knowledgeable as others and havnt understood. The basic message of Jesus and His teachings is the same and its fairly simple. It has to be because there are all sorts of people in this world and some are smart and others are not able to understand as well. So the important message is simple and easy to grasp. That is whats important.

 

[stevevw]

Ken-1122

Morality is not objective; it’s subjective.

have we debated this one before. I believe its objective. I believe that people can have their own views on what morality is. But that doesn't mean its the absolute true representation of morals. An individuals view or morality only tells you about the individual. It doesn't tell you about the moral itself. But there has to be a objective truth about right and wrong otherwise we would have the problems where having now. Which is we have no real basis for morality so it can be changed and undermined. We cant trust anyone's version even if it is a group version because its fallible. It can lead us astray and get us into trouble ll the time.

Yet a quick look at history proves theists are constantly changing their morality. You guys keep claiming "objective morality" but your actions speaks much louder than your words!

No the actual moral truths of God dont change. They are actually adding, denying, compromising the true original version. Or they have a different meaning of how they apply that truth of God and you are thinking they are changing the morals.

Society will usually elect a judge to make these kinds of decisions.

Those judges are not independent. They also can have personal opinions. Their decisions are also based on interpretations of laws that dont take morality into consideration. Often parliaments will set bills in order to make new rulings and this is decided by polititions that have all sorts of agendas and motives. I always hear how either the judges have got it wrong or the laws they have installed are stupid and irrelevant. This is actually a common complaint.

We have also seen the damage religious people have caused with their “morality comes from God” views of right and wrong as well! Though both are far from perfect, I think the secular community has a much better “track record” of making moral laws than theism; and when you consider the main driving force against theocracies are theists themselves; It's obvious most theists agree! You appear to be a minority.

The religious point of view is exactly the same reasons as secular societies imperfect ways of judging. In fact it comes from the same place. Its all about humans views. Like I said before religious opinion is changing what God intended and taught through Jesus. If you go back in time and look at each decision its easy to see where they mixed their own personal views with religion. How they used religion to control others and it was the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Religion should not be trying to govern society as thats not what it is meant to do. Jesus didn't come to take an army and fight the Romans to take over. He said give unto Caesars what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods. He was preaching a message of salvation or rather He was the salvation. But the Christian church was all about examples and living a spiritual life.

Yet those who believe in Jesus are constantly changing what they claim to be right or wrong. Again; actions speak louder than words.

I have never heard of this. How can you change what Jesus said in the bible. Its quite simple and easy to understand.

 

[talquin]

This is a view referred to as an epistemological theory which presupposes a cognitivist view. It emphasizes empirical observation and thus is an empirical epistemology.

However, our concern is not how we come to know what moral values and duties are but rather, what is their metaphysical foundation. Moral ontology therefore is the issue at hand.

What do you mean by 'Moral ontology'?

And why do you not consider my explanation sufficient?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What do you mean by 'Moral ontology'?

From wikipedia:

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

And from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Ontological Issues in Metaethics

a. Moral Realisms

If moral truth is understood in the traditional sense of corresponding to reality, what sort of features of reality could suffice to accommodate this correspondence? What sort of entity is “wrongness” or “goodness” in the first place? The branch of philosophy that deals with the way in which things exist is called “ontology”, and metaethical positions may also be divided according to how they envision the ontological status of moral values. Perhaps the biggest schism within metaethics is between those who claim that there are moral facts that are “real” or “objective” in the sense that they exist independently of any beliefs or evidence about them, versus those who think that moral values are not belief-independent “facts” at all, but are instead created by individuals or cultures in sometimes radically different ways. Proponents of the former view are called realists or objectivists; proponents of the latter view are called relativists or subjectivists.

And why do you not consider my explanation sufficient?

It is not that your explanation is insufficient, it is that your explanation does not even address the issue of ontology, but rather, epistemology.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken-1122
have we debated this one before. I believe its objective.

Yes and you’re still wrong.

I believe that people can have their own views on what morality is. But that doesn't mean its the absolute true representation of morals. An individuals view or morality only tells you about the individual. It doesn't tell you about the moral itself.

Morality only exist in the individual’s head; it doesn’t have an actual existence.

But there has to be a objective truth about right and wrong otherwise we would have the problems where having now.

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; and that’s why we have many of the problems we have now

Which is we have no real basis for morality so it can be changed and undermined. We cant trust anyone's version even if it is a group version because its fallible. It can lead us astray and get us into trouble ll the time.

But we have to trust someone’s version because that’s the only choice we have! Wishing for something better doesn’t change that.

No the actual moral truths of God dont change. They are actually adding, denying, compromising the true original version. Or they have a different meaning of how they apply that truth of God and you are thinking they are changing the morals.

The religious point of view is exactly the same reasons as secular societies imperfect ways of judging. In fact it comes from the same place. Its all about humans views. Like I said before religious opinion is changing what God intended and taught through Jesus.

The problem is, God doesn’t speak for himself; he insists these religious humans that you claim are adding, denying, compromising the true original version; to speak for him!

I have never heard of this. How can you change what Jesus said in the bible. Its quite simple and easy to understand.

Why don’t cha ask those christians who insist on a different idea of right and wrong than what Christians believed hundreds of years ago?

The fact is; then Bible was not written by God or Jesus; it was written by men claiming to be speaking for God. And the moral code that was adopted by the men who wrote the scriptures is not the same moral code that we hold onto today; and we are better off because of it.

Ken

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So does everything else, including our ability to do science. Is science therefore merely subjective or illusory in the same way that you claim morality would be given naturalism?

Ultimately, assuming metaphysical naturalism, we really do not know.

Our ability to reason, to think, to draw conclusions and the like is simply a by-product of socio-biological evolutionary processes. All that we are we are by virtue of our particular composition's being adapted to one end, the survival and reproduction of our species. In an 1881 letter, Darwin himself commented on this issue:

In the letter, Charles Darwin expressed doubts about the reason to trust the human mind if evolution is correct. “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”.

One could take the pragmatic approach and say we have to trust our evolved minds to reliably present us with an accurate picture of the physical world existing independently of and external to our familiar five senses because we would not be able to live otherwise.

To which I could say amen! This does nothing in the way of actually showing that our evolved primate minds are capable of giving us a true account of objective reality.

So I think on naturalism, one is just faced with a host of difficulties when it comes to trying to account for everything it must.

I would rephrase this. If naturalism is true, then there is no supernatural grounds for morality. The word "transcendent" is too vague.

I agree.

Why not epistemology? If you are going to claim that morality is tied up in the supernatural, then you cannot sidestep the issue of how we are supposed to obtain supernatural knowledge.

Why not epistemology? Well, for one, people are having a hard enough time staying on track with moral ontology. To begin an in depth discourse on moral epistemology running simultaneously with the current discourse here and now would be too much for those wanting to participate in this thread and follow it to handle.

Again, how does this follow? Why would it being an evolved phenomena make it illusory? Your hand evolved. Is it illusory?

To skip over the aforementioned problems associated with having evolved primate minds, let me say this:

Our concepts of morality are just that, concepts. I.e. ideas, thoughts, concepts and such things are neither concrete, material nor are they extended in space like our hands or feet or teeth are. So to compare them would be to make a category mistake. Again, I will let Ruse state his case:

"The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. … Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory."

And then what? How do we go about identifying the moral law-giver and the moral law? These are epistemic concerns that you prefer to sidestep.

We can talk about them all you want in another thread. I may even extend the invitation to debate you on a pertinent topic.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Morality only exist in the individual’s head; it doesn’t have an actual existence...

Morality is not objective; it’s subjective....

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; .....

I will use the above quotes whenever another atheist denies premise 1 of the moral argument.

I will furnish them with these quotes from an atheist and then ask them, why, if atheism is true, is Ken incorrect when he says what he says.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What makes God's say so moral?

Awesome question. We can tackle it in a separate thread and or debate.