Where does morality come from?

[Moral Orel]

Im sure you do like it.

Like; what is that? ”Like” is a statement that you find in tasty and enjoyable and therefore a value judgement. Value judgements can never be ”wrong” or ”right” as values are not part of physical reality, and I contest, not existing. Its something we make up, that certainly doesnt mean they dont matter.

So it's a fact I like chocolate ice cream, and I made that fact up... And the made up fact that I like it does in fact matter... You're a paradox, bro.

If I enjoy something, that isn't a judgement of any kind. It's an automatic response. Feelings are a sensation, not an invention.

That said, its an objective fact that strawberry ice cream is superiour in all ways.

Blasphemy!

 

[stevevw]

Many Christians believe this is the case with their God.

Actually I think Jesus showed us that morality was objective. He was often challenged for his morals and he always had an answer that applied to the situation that he was challenged on while upholding God's moral laws.

If this is not your ethic then great. But many Christians believe just this.

May some fundamentalists do but I think the majority of Christians come from the position of love. That is what Jesus said was the greatest commandment to love God and to love you, neighbour. In fact, it was the Christians ( Catholics)who saved 100s of thousands of Jews including were hiding them from the Nazis.

I disagree. Objective morality's goal does not have to be absolute and can be from a humans opinion. It simply mean there is an object to compare to.

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that a human can decide to choose an objective standard outside themselves to measure morality then I agree. That's provided that objective standard is not something humans have created such as wellbeing. The standards for wellbeing are also subjective as people will have different views about what is human wellbeing.

The objective standard needs to be outside anything humans create even if it may have some aspects that can be objectively measured. For example, human wellbeing may be measured by medical tests that show damage to the body which is not conducive for good health. Or with psychological measures which are based on scientific tests to diagnose mental illness. But even so, what is determined as wellbeing is still a matter of human opinion.

I agree that the goal is subjective but the moral action can be compared to the goal and a right or wrong determination can be made.

But the standard (goal) being used is a subjective one so any choice is going to be based on a subjective measure. You could have a bad standard, for example, the Mafias code which can be used to objectively measure members conduct. But the code itself is subjective and can promote immoral behaviour.

The rules of chess are subjective. But once the rules are agreed upon by two people and the goal is to win, each move can be objectively compared to the rules and goal to see if it advances that goal or not. Same with objective morality based on a subjective goal such as well being.

The problem is the goal (rules) are subjective and there is no independent measure for those. Who can tell like the Mafia example that the goal is the right measure in the first place?

Just because those goals/rules/standards can determine things objectively doesn't mean it is ultimately objective because what is being created in these examples is a closed system. So long as everything is contained in that closed system it's OK, But when subject to the open system which is the true measure because it allows all possible measures of what is right and wrong (objective measure independent of humans) it fails.

Well, the claim that he is good must be substantiated. What is your evidence that he is good?

Actually it is by showing evidence that there are objective moral values and duties that are measured beyond humans is what lends support for a transcendent being that is all good. You don't have to show which transcendent being just that there is one through a logical proposition.

That is if there are objective morals they cannot come from humans yet need to be personally created as morals and duties only apply to persons. That means it has to be a transcendent being. That being has to be all good because any wrong will make the being unworthy of being a moral lawgiver. Though this does not prove the Christian God it has all the hallmarks of Him.

I can demonstrate laws of nature. Can you demonstrate moral laws of god? Also, just because gods morals just are does not mean that they are good. That must be substantiated or just assumed. you just seem to assume that they are. I look at them and deem them not good on a whole.

As mentioned a logical argument can be made. If there are objective morals standards then the moral lawgiver has to be all good otherwise there can be no justification for God being the producer and judge of good.

Just like natural laws cannot be seen we can only measure them by their effects in the physical world. The same for objective morals. We can measure peoples actions and reactions in how they live like there are objective morals and duties. This is the logical proposition that we are justified to believe there are objective morals based on our lived experience of them. Just like we are justified to believe that the physical world is real and not some virtual reality by our experience of the physical world.

Any defeater of our lived moral experience will have to show that our moral experience is totally unreliable and we cannot realize objective morals at all. Any defeater will have to be as good as one that would defeat our experience of the physical world is real and show that it is unreal and that we are be living in some virtual reality being fed what we experience.

 

[VirOptimus]

So it's a fact I like chocolate ice cream, and I made that fact up... And the made up fact that I like it does in fact matter... You're a paradox, bro.

If I enjoy something, that isn't a judgement of any kind. It's an automatic response. Feelings are a sensation, not an invention.

Blasphemy!

Automatic response, i.e. feelings and reactions are not made up per se. Its the value you assiciate with the thing/action/whatever that is ”made up” by your brain.

And I make up (a better I’m sure) value in my brain regarding chocolate ice cream.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually I think Jesus showed us that morality was objective. He was often challenged for his morals and he always had an answer that applied to the situation that he was challenged on while upholding God's moral laws.

May some fundamentalists do but I think the majority of Christians come from the position of love. That is what Jesus said was the greatest commandment to love God and to love you, neighbour. In fact, it was the Christians ( Catholics)who saved 100s of thousands of Jews including were hiding them from the Nazis.

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that a human can decide to choose an objective standard outside themselves to measure morality then I agree. That's provided that objective standard is not something humans have created such as wellbeing. The standards for wellbeing are also subjective as people will have different views about what is human wellbeing.

The objective standard needs to be outside anything humans create even if it may have some aspects that can be objectively measured. For example, human wellbeing may be measured by medical tests that show damage to the body which is not conducive for good health. Or with psychological measures which are based on scientific tests to diagnose mental illness. But even so, what is determined as wellbeing is still a matter of human opinion.

But the standard (goal) being used is a subjective one so any choice is going to be based on a subjective measure. You could have a bad standard, for example, the Mafias code which can be used to objectively measure members conduct. But the code itself is subjective and can promote immoral behaviour.

The problem is the goal (rules) are subjective and there is no independent measure for those. Who can tell like the Mafia example that the goal is the right measure in the first place?

Just because those goals/rules/standards can determine things objectively doesn't mean it is ultimately objective because what is being created in these examples is a closed system. So long as everything is contained in that closed system it's OK, But when subject to the open system which is the true measure because it allows all possible measures of what is right and wrong (objective measure independent of humans) it fails.

Actually it is by showing evidence that there are objective moral values and duties that are measured beyond humans is what lends support for a transcendent being that is all good. You don't have to show which transcendent being just that there is one through a logical proposition.

That is if there are objective morals they cannot come from humans yet need to be personally created as morals and duties only apply to persons. That means it has to be a transcendent being. That being has to be all good because any wrong will make the being unworthy of being a moral lawgiver. Though this does not prove the Christian God it has all the hallmarks of Him.

As mentioned a logical argument can be made. If there are objective morals standards then the moral lawgiver has to be all good otherwise there can be no justification for God being the producer and judge of good.

Just like natural laws cannot be seen we can only measure them by their effects in the physical world. The same for objective morals. We can measure peoples actions and reactions in how they live like there are objective morals and duties. This is the logical proposition that we are justified to believe there are objective morals based on our lived experience of them. Just like we are justified to believe that the physical world is real and not some virtual reality by our experience of the physical world.

Do you ascribe to divine command theory?

 

[stevevw]

I never said they do. They feel they're right in the sense that justice was served; because the child did something bad, the child deserved to have something bad happen to him. You feel that they're wrong in the sense that it isn't effective discipline; because it isn't likely to prevent bad behavior in the future.

I find this a little scary in being the measure of what is right and wrong. If we really judged everything by our feelings then the child example may be one persons feelings about the matter but using this measure another person in another situation may feel that the wrongdoer should be taken out as just recompense. Promotes vigilantes.

 

[Ronny_73]

We all have a propensity toward certain intrinsic behaviors such as love your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be fair and respect others’ property. Studies have shown that these morals are universal across time and culture. Isn't it strange that this list doesn't include morals that Christians consider extremely important such as love strangers and avoiding premarital sex & blasphemy? This should be a clue that the whole idea of objective Christian morality is complete nonsense. Evolution has a much better explanation of where morality came from. Ask yourself why is it that other social species such as chimps and bonobos display very similar intrinsic behaviors to that which I listed previously? Its because these behaviors are important for social cohesion which in turn is important for survival in a hostile environment where starvation, disease, injury, exposure etc are constant threats.

 

[stevevw]

Do you ascribe to divine command theory?

That's the Euthyphro dilemma. Something is good just because God wills or good is good because God chooses it. This is a false dilemma and there is a third option. God wills something because He is good and the paradigm of goodness.

God's will is expressed or follows naturally out of His own nature and therefore it's not arbitrary because it is a reflection of "good" for which "God is" and not something "God chooses". Moral values are grounded in God Himself and God's commandments are reflections/expressions of that moral nature to us and therefore not arbitrary.

 

[stevevw]

We all have a propensity toward certain intrinsic behaviors such as love your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be fair and respect others’ property. Studies have shown that these morals are universal across time and culture. Isn't it strange that this list doesn't include morals that Christians consider extremely important such as love strangers and avoiding premarital sex & blasphemy? This should be a clue that the whole idea of objective Christian morality is complete nonsense.

Actually go back a couple of generations and we did think premarital sex, and blasphemy was wrong and keep the sabbath was good. So how do you know society has just slipped away from these morals and become more secular/atheist.

Evolution has a much better explanation of where morality came from. Ask yourself why is it that other social species such as chimps and bonobos display very similar intrinsic behaviors to that which I listed previously? Its because these behaviors are important for social cohesion which in turn is important for survival in a hostile environment where starvation, disease, injury, exposure, etc are constant threats.

Evolution as an explanation for morality is a genetic fallacy in that this tries to falsify objective morality by explaining how morals came about which does nothing to disprove objective morality. At best this just tells us that our subjective perception of objective morality evolved. Being able to explain how morals came about does not tell us why something is right or wrong.

If morals were gradually discovered and not created then any gradual understanding of morality doesn't undermine objective morality any more than any gradual understanding of our perception of objective facts in the physical world. The fact is we do know there are objective values.

Evolution is about changing with environments so there's no predictive aspect to morality that we can stand on. So as environments change so will morality. What we think is morally right or wrong now can be reversed in the future. This doesn't explain how we know and act like moral wrongs are always the same and don't change.

Using primates and pro-social behavior in a quest for survival doesn't explain morality either. Primates also act immorally to our understanding in order to survive by killing offspring and bashing others for dominance. Applying survival as a means of morality across the animal kingdom we can see all sorts of immoral behavior based on an instinct to survive.

If this is the case who says that humans killing humans for survival if there is not enough food in the future is not a moral good. Who says anything that is determined as moral according to evolution is really right or wrong as there is no independent measure. Its all a matter of survival and anything can be rationalized as morally good when it comes to survival. Its just chemicals and genes reacting to survive (the selfish gene).

 

[VirOptimus]

That's the Euthyphro dilemma. Something is good just because God wills or good is good because God chooses it. This is a false dilemma and there is a third option. God wills something because He is good and the paradigm of goodness.

God's will is expressed or follows naturally out of His own nature and therefore it's not arbitrary because it is a reflection of "good" for which "God is" and not something "God chooses". Moral values are grounded in God Himself and God's commandments are reflections/expressions of that moral nature to us and therefore not arbitrary.

Then good/evil is external to god? He cannot change morality?

 

[stevevw]

Then good/evil is external to god? He cannot change morality?

Actually evil is just a lack of good. There is no evil in itself. But I cannot see how you can say that good is external to God when I just said God's nature is good. That means it's not external to Him but internally God is naturally good and good morals are reflected by God to us.

 

[Speedwell]

We all have a propensity toward certain intrinsic behaviors such as love your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be fair and respect others’ property. Studies have shown that these morals are universal across time and culture. Isn't it strange that this list doesn't include morals that Christians consider extremely important such as love strangers and avoiding premarital sex & blasphemy? This should be a clue that the whole idea of objective Christian morality is complete nonsense. Evolution has a much better explanation of where morality came from. Ask yourself why is it that other social species such as chimps and bonobos display very similar intrinsic behaviors to that which I listed previously? Its because these behaviors are important for social cohesion which in turn is important for survival in a hostile environment where starvation, disease, injury, exposure etc are constant threats.

Yes, Christian arguments for objective morality are inevitably self-serving, whether morals are objective or not.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually go back a couple of generations and we did think premarital sex and blasphemy were wrong and keep the sabbath was good. So how do you know society has just slipped away from these morals and become more secular/atheist.

We??? Who's this "we?" Remember, you are supposed to be talking about the entirety of human society--not just Western Christian culture.

Evolution as an explanation for morality is a genetic fallacy in that this tries to falsify objective morality by explaining how morals came about which does nothing to disprove objective morality.

Of course it doesn't. Objective morality is unfalsifiable; it can't be disproven. But unless you can demonstrate its existence, it can be safely ignored.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually evil is just a lack of good. There is no evil in itself. But I cannot see how you can say that good is external to God when I just said God's nature is good. That means it's not external to Him but internally God is naturally good and good morals are reflected by God to us.

That makes zero sense and is also circular reasoning.

Can god change morals, yes/no?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Actually I think Jesus showed us that morality was objective. He was often challenged for his morals and he always had an answer that applied to the situation that he was challenged on while upholding God's moral laws.

No, he changed many of them. "It was said but I say..."

May some fundamentalists do but I think the majority of Christians come from the position of love. That is what Jesus said was the greatest commandment to love God and to love you, neighbour. In fact, it was the Christians ( Catholics)who saved 100s of thousands of Jews including were hiding them from the Nazis.

So atheists cannot love and have never done anything good to help anyone?

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that a human can decide to choose an objective standard outside themselves to measure morality then I agree. That's provided that objective standard is not something humans have created such as wellbeing. The standards for wellbeing are also subjective as people will have different views about what is human wellbeing.

100% Agree.

The objective standard needs to be outside anything humans create even if it may have some aspects that can be objectively measured. For example, human wellbeing may be measured by medical tests that show damage to the body which is not conducive for good health. Or with psychological measures which are based on scientific tests to diagnose mental illness. But even so, what is determined as wellbeing is still a matter of human opinion.

100% Agree that the goal is subjective. Disagree that a standard needs to be outside human ideas, especially since no standard has been shown to exist.

But the standard (goal) being used is a subjective one so any choice is going to be based on a subjective measure. You could have a bad standard, for example, the Mafias code which can be used to objectively measure members conduct. But the code itself is subjective and can promote immoral behaviour.

I 100% agree.

The problem is the goal (rules) are subjective and there is no independent measure for those. Who can tell like the Mafia example that the goal is the right measure in the first place?

I 100% agree.

Just because those goals/rules/standards can determine things objectively doesn't mean it is ultimately objective because what is being created in these examples is a closed system. So long as everything is contained in that closed system it's OK, But when subject to the open system which is the true measure because it allows all possible measures of what is right and wrong (objective measure independent of humans) it fails.

I 100% agree.

Actually it is by showing evidence that there are objective moral values and duties that are measured beyond humans is what lends support for a transcendent being that is all good. You don't have to show which transcendent being just that there is one through a logical proposition.

Then show it.

That is if there are objective morals they cannot come from humans yet need to be personally created as morals and duties only apply to persons. That means it has to be a transcendent being. That being has to be all good because any wrong will make the being unworthy of being a moral lawgiver. Though this does not prove the Christian God it has all the hallmarks of Him.

As mentioned a logical argument can be made. If there are objective morals standards then the moral lawgiver has to be all good otherwise there can be no justification for God being the producer and judge of good.

Then make the argument. If the God of the bible is the moral lawgiver I disagree that all of his actions have been moral. There is no reason why a God cannot be evil.

Just like natural laws cannot be seen we can only measure them by their effects in the physical world. The same for objective morals. We can measure peoples actions and reactions in how they live like there are objective morals and duties. This is the logical proposition that we are justified to believe there are objective morals based on our lived experience of them. Just like we are justified to believe that the physical world is real and not some virtual reality by our experience of the physical world.

Any defeater of our lived moral experience will have to show that our moral experience is totally unreliable and we cannot realize objective morals at all. Any defeater will have to be as good as one that would defeat our experience of the physical world is real and show that it is unreal and that we are be living in some virtual reality being fed what we experience.

No. You seem to think that you have demonstrated an objective standard as you define it. You have not. Until then all we have is our reason, logic and empathy etc. to determine morals.

 

[stevevw]

We??? Who's this "we?" Remember, you are supposed to be talking about the entirety of human society--not just Western Christian culture.

I was responding to Pazuzil who made the qualification, not me. He was talking about Christians and not all of humanity and stated certain morals that are Christian. So logically I can only respond with what Christians think about those morals. It is no sense in bringing Muslims in for example who don't even relate to Christian morals.

Of course, it doesn't. Objective morality is unfalsifiable; it can't be disproven.

I thought you were already shown how this position is not a true reflection of the moral debate and that just because something may be unfalsifiable by science doesn't mean that we cannot use logical arguments here #2403.

I have already presented the proposition for why we are justified to believe that objective morality is real based on our lived moral experience.

But unless you can demonstrate its existence, it can be safely ignored.

And yet it is not ignored and the majority of philosophers support objective morality and it is still an active and thriving argument with people presenting evidence for objective morality.

 

[stevevw]

That makes zero sense and is also circular reasoning.

How is it circular reasoning? It's a logical argument put forth by several philosophers. IE William Alston
Divine Command Theory
goodness is rooted not in commands but in the unchanging goodness of God’s nature. This means of course that morality ceases to be arbitrary, since God’s nature is always good and would consequently never make commands that were not consistent with His goodness.
Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Phillip Quinn
Quinn, Philip 2001. „„Divine Command Theory, ‟‟ in Hugh LaFollette (ed.), Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 53–73.
and William Wainwright for example
Wainwright, William 2005. Religion and Morality. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Can god change morals, yes/no?

How can God change morals if he is good by nature? He is just good and nothing else comes from Him.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it circular reasoning? It's a logical argument put forth by several philosophers. IE William Alston
Divine Command Theory
goodness is rooted not in commands but in the unchanging goodness of God’s nature. This means of course that morality ceases to be arbitrary, since God’s nature is always good and would consequently never make commands that were not consistent with His goodness.
Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Phillip Quinn
Quinn, Philip 2001. „„Divine Command Theory, ‟‟ in Hugh LaFollette (ed.), Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 53–73.
and William Wainwright for example
Wainwright, William 2005. Religion and Morality. Aldershot: Ashgate.

How can God change morals if he is good by nature? He is just good and nothing else comes from Him.

God is good because god is good? Thats circular.

I take it your answer is no, god cant change morals. So he/she/it isnt omnipotent then?

Was god good when he/she/it asked for human sacrifice?

 

[Speedwell]

I was responding to Pazuzil who made the qualification, not me. He was talking about Christians and not all of humanity and stated certain morals that are Christian. So logically I can only respond with what Christians think about those morals. It is no sense in bringing Muslims in for example who don't even relate to Christian morals.

So Muslims have a different set of objective morals? And you don't see the irony of making a statement like that?

I thought you were already shown how this position is not a true reflection of the moral debate and that just because something may be unfalsifiable by science doesn't mean that we cannot use logical arguments here #2403.

No, that was just Morel Orel's opinion, not a philosophical treatise on the non-existence of unfalsifiable propositions.

I have already presented the proposition for why we are justified to believe that objective morality is real based on our lived moral experience. And yet it is not ignored and the majority of philosophers support objective morality and it is still an active and thriving argument with people presenting evidence for objective morality.

OK, and your point is...?

 

[Moral Orel]

Automatic response, i.e. feelings and reactions are not made up per se. Its the value you assiciate with the thing/action/whatever that is ”made up” by your brain.

But I do in fact value things, and those things are in fact valued by me even if those things aren't inherently valuable, so it must be your conception of what it is for "value to exist" that is wrong. Value is necessarily subjective: you need a subject to do the valuing. So you keep reminding me that the properties of good, bad, tasty, yucky, etc. aren't actual properties of anything, and I keep thinking... So what? That's not what it means to describe something in subjective terms.

 

[VirOptimus]

But I do in fact value things, and those things are in fact valued by me even if those things aren't inherently valuable, so it must be your conception of what it is for "value to exist" that is wrong. Value is necessarily subjective: you need a subject to do the valuing. So you keep reminding me that the properties of good, bad, tasty, yucky, etc. aren't actual properties of anything, and I keep thinking... So what? That's not what it means to describe something in subjective terms.

No, thats not how it works. You should read Kant and then Hägerström.

Its very hard to understand without some basic studying about metaphysics.