Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

So if these objective moral values you are touting actually exist, what good are they? Where are they? What are they?

I thought I had already answered this several times now IE.

what good are they?

To independently measure right and wrong morally so we can have a consistent and united set of right and wrong we can all use to set moral behavior by.

Where are they?

They are within us but are independent of us.

What are they?

They are moral laws and duties/obligations.

 

[the iconoclast]

A fertilised egg is not a person.

Hey hey Kylie

1. How do you describe a fertilized egg?
2. How do you describe a human?

3. Why would the standard of 'do unto others' be irrelevant in respect to aborting Kenny but relevant if I beat him up and stole his property?

Where I live, you need council permission before you cut down a tree. If I was to crush an acorn under my heel, would I be guilty of removing a tree without a permit? Of course not. We know an acorn isn't a tree.

You atheists really love your setups hehe.

Check this out she who defeats illogic.

Fertilize - cause (an egg, female animal, or plant) to develop a new individual by introducing male reproductive material.

In your analogy.

A. Developed human = developed tree
Fertilized

B. Unfertilized acorn = unfertilized human seed

4. I'm curious do you abort unfertilized seeds or ones which are fertilized?

Just so we're on the same page here, please explain what you mean specifically when you say "accountable" and "responsible."

The question was WHO am I accountable to for beating up @Ken-1122 and stealing his shoes?

Even though both are similar my actions towards ken In this scenario are emotionless, cold and with no remorse.

I'm responsible for my actions but I'm in a position where I do not have to justify my motivation to him. I'm accountable to the law that protects him.

The only time I would be accountable to him is if he is the law or has an ability to pass judgement on me.

Or there would be a benefit in me justified by him.

5. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

6. So to repeat the question. The law is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. It is objective.

Is that statement true or false and if so, why?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Both. Moral issues resulting from empathy perhaps is natural where as moral issues like gay marriage, male vs female circumcision, is more likely learned or taught.

Hey hey Kenny

Fair enough.

Your position is some morality is taught but there is also a natural morality that resides in humans namely, the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
(.e.g. a human that has been wronged or wrong behaviour in regards to humans.)

1. Your position seems to be that morality is a mixture of objective morality and morality judged by emotions?

2. Is morality based on emotions or based on an authority? Why do you care if you do the right thing or a wrong thing?

I disagree. I don’t need to taste sweet in order to know bitter, I don’t need to experience comfort in order to know pain. I don’t need to experience the opposite in order to understand something.

Fair enough.

If sweet did not exist how would you describe bitter to me?

My own personal standard resulting from society, parents, philosophers, etc.

Fair enough.

Who was more pivotal?

In order to justify it to you we have to have a conversation and I have to convince you that I am right and you are wrong.

Ok.

A. I have beaten you up. I felt like doing and I could.

B. I steal your shoes to emasculate you and because I have no respect for you. I do not empathize at all with you.

C. I give you shoes to the first person I see with no shoes. I give them away because I don't need them and I don't want you to have them back.

D. I believe all morality is a social construct, do not feel remorse for my actions and do not believe I was wrong.

You believe all morality is a social construct but was taught some morality and used your emotions to justify what may seem like grey areas.

3. Have a conversation with this me and convince me that im wrong?

You cannot verify morality, that’s why it’s labeled subjective.

4. So all morality is judged on emotions. How can you prove that to me?

The one I listed

5. Please excuse me. I went back and tried to find your interpretation of moral absolutism. Could you please direct me to that post or if you could be so kind, repeat your interpretation?

Or would you prefer to use that one I got from Google?

I would not say you owe me a debt, if you could simply pay to fix the problem, the rich would be free to do as he pleases and just pay off those he transgressed against. I think punishment would be in order for such crimes.

6. But i just beat you up and stole your shows. So i owe you nothing? Why then do you seek to punish me and to make me suffer, if i owe you nothing?

If morality comes from God, that would make it subject to whatever God says. How is that different than morality coming from me?

7. Are you suggesting that I should follow you as an authority?

8. You seem to be equating your morality with that of God. Why should I listen to you?

9. What can you offer me if I were to follow you?

10. You neglected a question. I shall repeat it.

I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. So we both know each other properly, what is your position?

Cheers you diamond

 

[Speedwell]

I thought I had already answered this several times now IE.

To independently measure right and wrong morally so we can have a consistent and united set of right and wrong we can all use to set moral behavior by.

In that case objective morality is no use because we have no way of knowing what it is.

They are within us but are independent of us.

So what? If we have no way of knowing what objective morality is it is useless. It doesn't matter where it its if we can't access it. You have already rejected what we call our "conscience" as a guide to what objective morality might be, so if it's "inside us" it might as well not be there at all.

They are moral laws and duties/obligations.

All three at once?

 

[Ken-1122]

You cannot make a statement of truth unless it is a fact.

You guys (Christians) do it all the time!

When it comes to morality people don't muck around and be uncommitted. If they see or hear of a wrong like domestic violence or some youth stealing a car they don't say "I think that act is wrong in my opinion but then maybe it isn't because that's just my opinion.

When people voice their opinion, they rarely prelude it with “in my opinion” because they consider their opinion indistinguishable from the truth even though in reality; it is only their opinion. When someone claims their opinion as a fact, they are saying their opinion is also an undisputed truth.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. So we both know each other properly, what is your position?

I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. My morality is different from your morality, so yours must be wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I'm Christian, I believe all morality and law comes from God. My morality is different from your morality, so yours must be wrong.

I don't understand what you mean by this. You have quoted me saying this but when I link it back to the quote I cannot find anywhere where I have said this. And are you saying that you are a Christian? Or is this a sarcastic remark.

 

[Ken-1122]

An equation isn't the real world, it's an abstract concept.

Just because equations don’t have a physical existence doesn’t mean they aren’t a major part of the real world. Our society couldn’t function without them.

Who are you responding to? We're talking about the definition of "logic". How does the definition of "logic" disagree about what "evidence" is?

Your exact words were “Reason is logic, it deals in facts.” Reason does not always deal with facts.

Who are you responding to? I never said you couldn't.

So…. what are you complaining about?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't understand what you mean by this. You have quoted me saying this but when I link it back to the quote I cannot find anywhere where I have said this. And are you saying that you are a Christian? Or is this a sarcastic remark.

LOL! Something must have gone wrong with the quote function. I was replying to Iconoclast.

I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. So we both know each other properly, what is your position?

In fact I am a Christian, but you knew that already. However since you're here, maybe you can resolve the dilemma I posed to Iconoclast: If two people believe in objective morality and their moral precepts differ, how do they decide who is wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey Kenny
Fair enough.
Your position is some morality is taught but there is also a natural morality that resides in humans namely, the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
(.e.g. a human that has been wronged or wrong behaviour in regards to humans.)

1. Your position seems to be that morality is a mixture of objective morality and morality judged by emotions?

No, in order for it to be objective, it has to be demonstrable. Morality cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong.

2. Is morality based on emotions or based on an authority? Why do you care if you do the right thing or a wrong thing?

Morality is not something that can be based on authority. If your morality is based on authority, you are not being moral, you are being obedient.

Fair enough.
If sweet did not exist how would you describe bitter to me?

The same way I describe it now

Fair enough.
Who was more pivotal?

For me, society

I gotta go now, I will respond to the rest later.

 

[stevevw]

In that case objective morality is no use because we have no way of knowing what it is.

Yes we can know what it is by God's laws through Christ.

So what? If we have no way of knowing what objective morality is it is useless. It doesn't matter where it its if we can't access it. You have already rejected what we call our "conscience" as a guide to what objective morality might be, so if it's "inside us" it might as well not be there at all.

I haven't rejected our conscience as what is right and wrong. Our conscience is how moral law is known by us. When I say it is within us that is how we get access to it.

All three at once?

But as I said earlier these questions are irrelevant to the proposition as to whether there are objective moral values, whether we know there are objective moral values and duties. These questions you are asking are about knowing. Knowing where morals come from, and what they are. These are about moral epistemology, the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. My proposition is about ontology only whether objective moral values and duties actually exist.

For this, I only need to show they exist and this is where the logical argument that we are justified to believe they exist based on our lived moral experience. That is why I am emphasizing how people act and react like there are objective moral values and duties. We intuitively know when we see a child abused that this is not just an act determined as right or wrong by someone's opinion and that it is always a wrong act despite personal opinions.

We act and react that certain acts are morally wrong when we condemn them and protest that they are wrong. We are stating truth and fact despite and in contradiction to any subjective moral claims. This is something in us that acts against what we try to rationalize and justify as subjective and forces us to acknowledge this truth. This is something from beyond us as it works against subjectivity.

 

[stevevw]

LOL! Something must have gone wrong with the quote function. I was replying to Iconoclast.

In fact I am a Christian, but you knew that already. However since you're here, maybe you can resolve the dilemma I posed to Iconoclast: If two people believe in objective morality and their moral precepts differ, how do they decide who is wrong?

Well if you're a Christian it will be in Christ's teachings. There can only be one right and wrong and not two or three or many. So it is more the case of determining which. But this is a different debate as to whether there are objective moral values and duties. One that is not required to claim there is objective moral values and duties and one that can get quite deep and complex as you have to determine which moral law is the right one through arguments of logic. Here is one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk

 

[Speedwell]

Yes we can know what it is by God's laws through Christ.

How do we know it?

I haven't rejected our conscience as what is right and wrong. Our conscience is how moral law is known by us. When I say it is within us that is how we get access to it.

How do we know it? Subjective moralists have consciences too, and an explanation for how we come to have them. What's your explanation, which shows that they are manifestations of objective morality?

But as I said earlier these questions are irrelevant to the proposition as to whether there are objective moral values, whether we know there are objective moral values and duties. These questions you are asking are about knowing. Knowing where morals come from, and what they are. These are about moral epistemology, the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. My proposition is about ontology only whether objective moral values and duties actually exist.

For this, I only need to show they exist and this is where the logical argument that we are justified to believe they exist based on our lived moral experience. That is why I am emphasizing how people act and react like there are objective moral values and duties. We intuitively know when we see a child abused that this is not just an act from someone's opinion and that it is always a wrong act. We act and react that certain acts are morally wrong when we condemn them and protest that they are wrong.

We are stating truth and fact despite and in contradiction to any subjective moral claims. This is something in us that acts against what we try to rationalize and justify as subjective and forces us to acknowledge this truth. This is something from beyond us as it works against subjectivity.

"We intuitively know." In other words, we let our conscience be our guide. But the existence this "conscience" or moral intuition is not evidence of moral objectivity. Your argument is bootless.

 

[Speedwell]

Well if you're a Christian it will be in Christ's teachings. There can only be one right and wrong and not two or three or many. So it is more the case of determining which. But this is a different debate as to whether there are objective moral values and duties. One that is not required to claim there is objective moral values and duties and one that can get quite deep and complex as you have to determine which moral law is the right one through arguments of logic. Here is one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk

No, it's part of the same debate. Objective morality is useless if all we can know about it is subjective opinion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just because equations don’t have a physical existence doesn’t mean they aren’t a major part of the real world. Our society couldn’t function without them.

Mm-hmm, sure. Why not just respond to the example I gave you instead of snipping it away? Are you okay with calling all historical facts mere assumptions?

Your exact words were “Reason is logic, it deals in facts.” Reason does not always deal with facts.

And this has nothing to do with the last thing you said on the subject. Really man, try to keep up. Show me a valid syllogism that doesn't use facts.

So…. what are you complaining about?

The thing I actually criticized, not the thing you pretended I criticized.

 

[stevevw]

How do we know it?

This is a useless question when it comes to whether something exists because we could keep going on. We could ask how do we know we know something exists and so on.

How do we know it? Subjective moralists have consciences too, and an explanation for how we come to have them. What's your explanation, which shows that they are manifestations of objective morality?

Whatever explanation I give you you will just say the same thing and ask how do we know that as well. That is why it comes down to our lived moral experience. Subjective morality doesn't use our conscience, that is a contradictory claim of a subjective moral position.

That's because our conscience shows us that certain wrongs are always the same and always wrong regardless of our subjective beliefs, opinions, likes, dislikes, and views. How can conscience equal a feeling or a preference?

That is the key difference is people cannot hold subjective opinions with our conscience it just cannot fit into the equation, it doesn't work no matter how you try to fit it. If someone claims there is no real right and wrong and it is all a matter of personal opinion that should accommodate many different opinions but it doesn't.

People claim certain subjective views but when they are actually living those morals they act objectively like there is no room or choice for opinions. Just because someone goes against objective morality doesn't mean they are objectively right. Their justifications and rationalizations for claiming that their view is morally good can be shown to be wrong.

"We intuitively know." In other words, we let our conscience be our guide. But the existence this "conscience" or moral intuition is not evidence of moral objectivity. Your argument is bootless.

Our reactions are evidence though, they speak louder than words and can be measured. That is why it is important to stop and consider each claim and action to see the difference.

When people contradict their own subjective morality and that shows there is something beyond them that is making them do that. When it is always the same and consistent regardless of subjective positions then it builds a case. When we dig below the surface we find that every reasonable person has the same moral position.

And it is a case built on numbers but the way in which people only can live their morals a certain way and how they contradict all other positions so that we are only left with one way of morality.

 

[Speedwell]

This is a useless question when it comes to whether something exists because we could keep going on. We could ask how do we know we know something exists and so on.

Whatever explanation I give you you will just say the same thing and ask how do we know that as well. That is why it comes down to our lived moral experience. Subjective morality doesn't use our conscience, that is a contradictory claim of a subjective moral position. That's because our conscience shows us that certain wrongs are always the same and always wrong regardless of our subjective beliefs, opinions, and views.

That is the key difference people cannot hold subjective opinions with our conscience it just cannot fit into the equation, it doesn't work no matter how you try to fit it. If someone claims there is no real right and wrong and it is all a matter of personal opinion that should accommodate many different opinions but it doesn't. People claim certain subjective views but when they are actually living those morals they act objectively like there is no room for opinions.

Just because someone goes against objective morality doesn't mean they are objective right. Their justifications and rationalizations for claiming that their view is morally good can be shown to be wrong.

"We intuitively know." In other words, we let our conscience be our guide. But the existence this "conscience" or moral intuition is not evidence of moral objectivity. Your argument is bootless.

Our reactions are evidence though. They can be measured. Thatis why it is important to stop and consider each claim and action to see the difference. When people contradict their own subjective morality and that shows there is something beyond them that is making them do that. When it is always the same and consistent regardless of subjective positions then it builds a case. When we dig below the surface we find that every reasonable person has the same moral position.

And it is a case built on numbers but the way in which people only can live their morals a certain way and how they contradict all other positions so that we are only left with one way of morality.

Once again you have avoided my question by misrepresenting moral subjectivity. Nothing about moral subjectivity denies the existence of what you call "moral intuition." In fact, subjective moralists have a more convincing explanation for it than you do.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's part of the same debate. Objective morality is useless if all we can know about it is subjective opinion.

No one is about epistemology, the nature of knowledge (where does that knowledge come from) the other is about ontology (the claim that something exists). The point is if I say that God is the maker of objective moral laws someone can say I don't believe you or prove it and if can't how does that prove objective morals don't exist.

 

[stevevw]

Once again you have avoided my question by misrepresenting moral subjectivity. Nothing about moral subjectivity denies the existence of what you call "moral intuition." In fact, subjective moralists have a more convincing explanation for it than you do.

What is the subjective moralist's explanation for intuition?

 

[Speedwell]

No one is about epistemology, the nature of knowledge (where does that knowledge come from) the other is about ontology (the claim that something exists). The point is if I say that God is the maker of objective moral laws someone can say I don't believe you or prove it and if can't how does that prove objective morals don't exist.

Of course if you haven't proved your claim that objective morals exist, then the further claim that your particular God is the author of them is empty.