Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

Think of it this way;
Who is your God to determine what is right and wrong, why should I care? I don’t believe in your God. I say this simply to point out, for your God to determine wrong or right is just as subjective as if I, you, or anybody else determines it; (and according to you) there is no reason why anyone should listen to him.


I never said that, I said it goes against what I have determined to be morally right.


Because it makes sense to you. I don’t want you to believe me because I said so, I want you to believe because it makes sense. I don’t want to be your moral dictator, I want you to understand the difference between right and wrong; yourself!

God is not subject of the truth, because God is the object of all truth, therefore His truth is objective.

simple answer for you.

I read this today in the Bible:

"The good man wins his case by careful argument; the evil-minded only wants to fight." Proverbs 13:2 Living Bible (TLB)

 

[createdtoworship]

Think of it this way;
Who is your God to determine what is right and wrong, why should I care? I don’t believe in your God. I say this simply to point out, for your God to determine wrong or right is just as subjective as if I, you, or anybody else determines it; (and according to you) there is no reason why anyone should listen to him.


I never said that, I said it goes against what I have determined to be morally right.


Because it makes sense to you. I don’t want you to believe me because I said so, I want you to believe because it makes sense. I don’t want to be your moral dictator, I want you to understand the difference between right and wrong; yourself!

lets try this another way, is rape wrong?


is it wrong if a tribe votes it as right and does it anyway?


is it wrong if some countries think it is right?


YES, it is still wrong. This is an example of objective morality, versus subjective morality of say "killing is wrong" well this is subjective, but "killing innocent human beings is wrong" is objective, regardless of culture, religion, or race.


now does that mean that morality is both objective and subjective?


I don't think so, I believe the statement "killing people is wrong" is not a universal moral truth. So it is a category error using it. Only universal moral truths can be used as a litmus test for the question "is morality objective or subjective." Because it is only those truths that contain the 100% morality that we need.


in conclusion, we would only need one example to prove that objective moral truth exists, even if we only have 1. IT still proves that it is possible in the universe that objective moral truth exists.


now where does that morality come from?


we already proved it transcends all races, religions, and cultures.


and that is it is known by intuition.

Since it is known by intuition (through our conscience), and since no other animals even apes or chimpanzees (genetically 90-97% similar), have said morality (objectively speaking)


we can deduce this morality is from outside of ourselves.


according to talk origins large gorillas have brain sizes of 700cc, which is comparable to small humans.

Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes


so why don't gorillas with nearly the same brain size have the same objective moral truth that we do?


Because morality is above ourselves, and it is inherent in our souls, animals who don't have souls will not have the morality that is from God. They have family instinct to take care of young etc, but not the morality we talk of that is objective above.

 

[Ken-1122]

lets try this another way, is rape wrong?


is it wrong if a tribe votes it as right and does it anyway?


is it wrong if some countries think it is right?

What tribes and countries vote on are laws, not morality. Sounds like you’re confusing the two.

YES, it is still wrong. This is an example of objective morality, versus subjective morality of say "killing is wrong" well this is subjective, but "killing innocent human beings is wrong" is objective, regardless of culture, religion, or race.

Prove it is wrong to kill innocent humans.

now does that mean that morality is both objective and subjective?


I don't think so, I believe the statement "killing people is wrong" is not a universal moral truth. So it is a category error using it. Only universal moral truths can be used as a litmus test for the question "is morality objective or subjective." Because it is only those truths that contain the 100% morality that we need.


in conclusion, we would only need one example to prove that objective moral truth exists, even if we only have 1. IT still proves that it is possible in the universe that objective moral truth exists.


now where does that morality come from?


we already proved it transcends all races, religions, and cultures.


and that is it is known by intuition.

Since it is known by intuition (through our conscience), and since no other animals even apes or chimpanzees (genetically 90-97% similar), have said morality (objectively speaking)


we can deduce this morality is from outside of ourselves.


according to talk origins large gorillas have brain sizes of 700cc, which is comparable to small humans.

Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes


so why don't gorillas with nearly the same brain size have the same objective moral truth that we do?


Because morality is above ourselves, and it is inherent in our souls, animals who don't have souls will not have the morality that is from God.

For morality to be objective, it would have to be beyond God as well. If God dictates morality, it is subjective to whatever God says which would still make morality subjective. Just like (in theory) if God said 1+1=17 God would be wrong, because math is objective, it is beyond God. For something to be objective, it’s base has to be beyond any single intelligent being.

Question:
If God never said killing innocent people was wrong; if he never addressed it, would you know it were wrong?

 

[createdtoworship]

Prove it is wrong to kill innocent humans.

every culture and every tribe does not honor selfishness. Regardless of religion or lack of religion. Murder is selfish, say for example someone kills you for your wallet. They desire your money so they knock you off. This is wrong. And every tribe and culture has a method of punishing those who murder others. Innocence is important in how they determine if it was murder or not. But the comment you made, "prove it is wrong to kill innocent humans" is easy because every tribe and culture does indeed feel it is wrong. And this is indicative of a higher moral standard. The moral standard is from God, as no there is no evidence of a natural cause of morality. I have asked repeatedly for natural causes and no one has been able to prove a animal loves it's enemy for example. Love is naturally caused or supernaturally caused. Those are the only two options. And because christians have a higher principle in loving their enemies, we know that God has the moral standard.

 

[Ken-1122]

every culture and every tribe does not honor selfishness. Regardless of religion or lack of religion. Murder is selfish,

So your answer is because every culture and every tribe considers it wrong? But throughout history there have been many cultures and tribes where killing innocent people was considered Okay. The Nazi's felt it was okay to kill people as long as they were Jewish. Care to try again?

 

[createdtoworship]

So your answer is because every culture and every tribe considers it wrong? But throughout history there have been many cultures and tribes where killing innocent people was considered Okay. The Nazi's felt it was okay to kill people as long as they were Jewish. Care to try again?

lets try this another way. Even inside of murderous tribes, lets say they existed. And I don't doubt that some, go against the majority and murder innocent people (like hitler). Even within the german ranks, someone who was selfish was dishonored. Someone among hitlers elite, who did not follow orders and did selfishly, was not promoted. So even if there is a rare instance where hitlers exist, they still follow basic morality, even if they don't want to. It's just that they have not given themselves wholely to the natural laws that God has given.

 

[holo]

every culture and every tribe does not honor selfishness. Regardless of religion or lack of religion. Murder is selfish, say for example someone kills you for your wallet. They desire your money so they knock you off. This is wrong. And every tribe and culture has a method of punishing those who murder others. Innocence is important in how they determine if it was murder or not. But the comment you made, "prove it is wrong to kill innocent humans" is easy because every tribe and culture does indeed feel it is wrong. And this is indicative of a higher moral standard. The moral standard is from God, as no there is no evidence of a natural cause of morality. I have asked repeatedly for natural causes and no one has been able to prove a animal loves it's enemy for example. Love is naturally caused or supernaturally caused. Those are the only two options. And because christians have a higher principle in loving their enemies, we know that God has the moral standard.

If morality were really objective and universal, it would be the same for everyone. The fact that it changes with time and circumstance suggests it is not rooted in anything outside of us. And you are wrong about there being no evidence of a natural cause for a sense of morality. On the contrary, morality is extremely beneficial to humans as a species. And if it came to be as a result of evolution, that fits perfectly with the fact that we care first and foremost about our children, ourselves, our tribe, strangers, animals, etc - in that order. The fact that nobody has demonstrated that animals love their enemies has nothing to do with it.

 

[createdtoworship]

If morality were really objective and universal, it would be the same for everyone. The fact that it changes with time and circumstance suggests it is not rooted in anything outside of us. And you are wrong about there being no evidence of a natural cause for a sense of morality. On the contrary, morality is extremely beneficial to humans as a species. And if it came to be as a result of evolution, that fits perfectly with the fact that we care first and foremost about our children, ourselves, our tribe, strangers, animals, etc - in that order. The fact that nobody has demonstrated that animals love their enemies has nothing to do with it.

morality is the same for everyone, I just proved two situations where it is the same. Selfishness and mass murder. And one of these situations is the root of all other evil, selfishness.

 

[createdtoworship]

IAnd you are wrong about there being no evidence of a natural cause for a sense of morality. On the contrary, morality is extremely beneficial to humans as a species. And if it came to be as a result of evolution, that fits perfectly with the fact that we care first and foremost about our children, ourselves, our tribe, strangers, animals, etc - in that order. The fact that nobody has demonstrated that animals love their enemies has nothing to do with it.

can you provide an example in nature, where nature has loved it's enemies, or loved strangers that are not family?

yet mankind does this everyday. Most of the charitible donations have been proven to come from middle and lower class, not the rich. So that is a very good example of Godly love. Sacrificial love. Selfishness is the opposite of sacrificial love.

and animals have selfish love, which I can attest is not really a love. Accept for instance in family units, where they sacrifice for their owners, or children. (owners are typically thought of as family to a dog or cat in the home, so those don't count).

 

[holo]

morality is the same for everyone, I just proved two situations where it is the same. Selfishness and mass murder. And one of these situations is the root of all other evil, selfishness.

No, what I mean is that people disagree on what's the moral thing to do. Of course there are broad lines most people agree on, but people have different moral values.

 

[holo]

can you provide an example in nature, where nature has loved it's enemies, or loved strangers that are not family?

Apart from humans (who btw are very much a part of nature), no. But so what?

yet mankind does this everyday. Most of the charitible donations have been proven to come from middle and lower class, not the rich. So that is a very good example of Godly love. Sacrificial love. Selfishness is the opposite of sacrificial love.

I don't see how poor people being kind indicates that morality exists in and of itself, and/or is given by god(s).

and animals have selfish love, which I can attest is not really a love. Accept for instance in family units, where they sacrifice for their owners, or children. (owners are typically thought of as family to a dog or cat in the home, so those don't count).

But isn't it a form of sacrificial love if an animal sacrifice themselves for another being?

I guess you could argue that even animals will sacrifice themselves for their family. The question is, who is your family? If you really see a stranger as your brother, you'll be willing to die for him. So in that way maybe you're right: morality is the same for everyone. The difference isn't in what we think is right and wrong, but in how we view others.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, what I mean is that people disagree on what's the moral thing to do. Of course there are broad lines most people agree on, but people have different moral values.

They do not disagree however that those who are selfish, should not be honored in their particular tribe or culture. And that mass murder should be punished. The punishment varies yes, but the fact that it is wrong to do those things does not vary.

 

[createdtoworship]

Apart from humans (who btw are very much a part of nature), no. But so what?

I don't see how poor people being kind indicates that morality exists in and of itself, and/or is given by god(s).

But isn't it a form of sacrificial love if an animal sacrifice themselves for another being?

some think that the human brain is more intelligent and therefore has evolved a higher sense of sacrificial love, however those with higher IQ's are not more loving than those with lower IQ's. If anything it's the other way around. Those with lower IQ's tend to be more gracious and more patient. So this theory backfires too.

I guess you could argue that even animals will sacrifice themselves for their family. The question is, who is your family? If you really see a stranger as your brother, you'll be willing to die for him. So in that way maybe you're right: morality is the same for everyone. The difference isn't in what we think is right and wrong, but in how we view others.

I believe it is herd instinct that an animal will sacrifice itself for it's own family and children. But that is just for the survivability of the herd. One parent dying for five hens, will produce a net value of four additional animals. So that is why I believe animals will do that. But humans donate to poor, even though they are unrelated.

 

[holo]

They do not disagree however that those who are selfish, should not be honored in their particular tribe or culture. And that mass murder should be punished. The punishment varies yes, but the fact that it is wrong to do those things does not vary.

A lot of people have committed mass murder believing it was the moral thing to do.

Also, as you say: "in their particular tribe or culture." Those outside of that tribe or culture can be killed like vermin.

 

[holo]

some think that the human brain is more intelligent and therefore has evolved a higher sense of sacrificial love, however those with higher IQ's are not more loving than those with lower IQ's. If anything it's the other way around. Those with lower IQ's tend to be more gracious and more patient. So this theory backfires too.

But IQ isn't the only difference between a human and, say, a dog. I think our sense of morality, obligation, love of family etc has very little to do with how intelligent we are.

I believe it is herd instinct that an animal will sacrifice itself for it's own family and children. But that is just for the survivability of the herd. One parent dying for five hens, will produce a net value of four additional animals. So that is why I believe animals will do that. But humans donate to poor, even though they are unrelated.

Because our herd instinct, as it were, stretches farther than our family or tribe. It has to do with knowledge and how we perceive others. The more we know about others, the more we see that we're basically the same, that all humans are family. If I sacrifice myself even for a stranger, it can still be explained by evolution: I give myself for the sake of the herd.

 

[Ken-1122]

lets try this another way. Even inside of murderous tribes, lets say they existed. And I don't doubt that some, go against the majority and murder innocent people (like hitler). Even within the german ranks, someone who was selfish was dishonored. Someone among hitlers elite, who did not follow orders and did selfishly, was not promoted. So even if there is a rare instance where hitlers exist, they still follow basic morality, even if they don't want to. It's just that they have not given themselves wholely to the natural laws that God has given.

There are always going to be a percentage of good people in evil societies who will go against the evil grain just as there is always going to be a percentage of evil people in good societies who will go against the moral grain. This does not prove that killing people is wrong because not every society determine what you call murder is wrong! And among those who do, those societies will still have a percentage of it’s population that is okay with killing certain people. Care to try again? Prove killing innocent people is wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

A lot of people have committed mass murder believing it was the moral thing to do.

Also, as you say: "in their particular tribe or culture." Those outside of that tribe or culture can be killed like vermin.

yes, but society typically views them as monsters and society as a whole judged those people, hitler committed suicide rather than be captured or killed, but society judged them.

 

[Ken-1122]

yes, but society typically views them as monsters and society as a whole judged those poeple, hitler was killed, etc.

Hitler and those people are seen as monsters because they lost the war. Had the war gone the other way, things might be different.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hitler and those people are seen as monsters because they lost the war. Had the war gone the other way, things might be different.

They lost the war because nations made a case for them being monsters, and allied against them.

 

[Ken-1122]

They lost the war because nations made a case for them being monsters, and allied against them.

No; they lost the war because the Allies had a better military. Are you saying whoever has the best military decides what is moral?