Where does morality come from?

2PhiloVoid · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
You have missed my point completely. I did not say a person must understand the concept of the Trinity to know God. I claimed the concept of the Trinity is an illogical construct. Meaning, it is logically impossible they way it is presented my orthodox Christian confessions (both Catholic and Protestant). People are always saying that it required faith or that maybe we don't fully understand the nature of that god somehow. It is like believing 2+2= 4 and 5. Maybe there are other qualities of 5 we just don't understand yet, but it will be revealed in the future. Sure maybe. But until then, I don't believe it because right now, it is irrational.

... or maybe it's both trans-rational and paradoxical (seemingly), and the language we use in our respective attempts at doing Christian theology DOESN'T FULLY dig into the nature of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit? Otherwise, we should slap them into a box, commodify them, and place a price tag on each reproduction we put on the shelves for consumers.

Caliban · May 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
... or maybe it's both trans-rational and paradoxical (seemingly), and the language we use in our respective attempts at doing Christian theology DOESN'T FULLY dig into the nature of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit? Otherwise, we should slap them into a box, commodify them, and place a price tag on each reproduction we put on the shelves for consumers.

You simply re-worded exactly what is said in my last post--maybe God is different that we can understand.... Trans-rational is another word for irrational.

2PhiloVoid · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
You simply re-worded exactly what is said in my last post--maybe God is different that we can understand.... Trans-rational is another word for irrational.

Kind of. But you also used the term 'illogical,' and I don't equate the term 'irrational' as a direct equivalent or synonym for 'illogical.'

But please be aware that my assertion of this is not an assertion of any fault on your part.

Caliban · May 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Kind of. But you also used the term 'illogical,' and I don't equate the term 'irrational' as a direct equivalent or synonym for 'illogical.'

An irrational person accepts bad logical arguments. That sentence works because the topics are related--not synonymous.

2PhiloVoid · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
An irrational person accepts bad logical arguments. That sentence works because the topics are related--not synonymous.

In my estimation, that's not good enough. There are hermeneutical considerations that inhere within the act of 'using words' and they're apparent references to what we 'think' they're being applied to in reality; and this can affect, and does affect in ongoing human and cultural usage, their supposedly exacting denotations and connotations.

As an aside, keep in mind that it is not my purpose here to somehow show you up. I'm not the 'rest of the Christian crowd' here. So, maybe try to remember who I am from our conversations from the past. Ay?

Caliban · May 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
In my estimation, that's not good enough. There are hermeneutical considerations that inhere within the act of 'using words' and they're apparent references to what we 'think' they're being applied to in reality; and this can affect, and does affect in ongoing human and cultural usage, their supposedly exacting denotations and connotations.

As an aside, keep in mind that it is not my purpose here to somehow show you up. I'm not the 'rest of the Christian crowd' here. So, maybe try to remember who I am from our conversations from the past. Ay?

I'm not sure what your point is or why you are taking issue with my use of the words logic and irrational. What specifically do you object to?

2PhiloVoid · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
I'm not sure what your point is or why you are taking issue with my use of the words logic and irrational. What specifically do you object to?

I object to your implication that I'm somehow being illogical. I'd think you'd ONLY be able to FULLY say this IF you've engaged all of the sources by which I've engaged and then downed each and every one of them. The same goes in the other direction; and that's why I'm a proponent of Education. I could be wrong in my attempted adherence to Christianity, however existentially and philosophically I come by it, but what I won't stomach is when folks----whether skeptic or Christian----start implying that I'm misusing this or that concept, or don't understand, or am heretical or .... whatever because I simply think (and really know) that the subject of Christianity is a bit more complex than what many would like to admit to.

Moral Orel · May 7, 2020

stevevw said:
Even if I agreed with this logic it speaks nothing about morality. The primary motivation for this is based on sociobiological processes associated with the survival of the human species. The process may have caused us or tricked us to think it this as feeling or caring for others under some something called morality. But it is nothing more than chemical processes designed to keep us reproducing our DNA. It is just people trying to explain morality without appealing to a transient and independent moral agent.

Yeah, the facts about how morality permeated the world aren't very emotionally satisfying, I get it.

stevevw said:
Using the same logic we could say that as evolution changes with environments rather than cooperation what may be beneficial for survival in the future is a lack of empathy because there is not enough food for everyone to survive. Empathy will get you killed.

Evolution doesn't work that fast.

stevevw said:
That is sort of happening now. People are becoming more selfish and looking after number 1. That's why we have a class society. The empathy you are talking about isn't really a moral empathy as morals are not about feeling good or feeling bad. Feelings are more about hedonism and cannot or will not account for moral values like empathy.

Empathy isn't a value, it's a reaction we have to other people and their emotions. People don't choose to empathize any more than they choose to be sad.

stevevw · May 7, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Yeah, the facts about how morality permeated the world aren't very emotionally satisfying, I get it.

Evolution doesn't work that fast.

I don't know about that. As we have seen with the raiding of food and essentials from the supermarket shelves with the onset of the coronavirus people didn't have too much empathy for others is looking out for themselves. there were a few physical altercations with some over toilet paper of all things. If things really get desperate and the situation got worse where there was really not enough food and stuff it is not hard to see people doing some harm and damage to each other.

Empathy isn't a value, it's a reaction we have to other people and their emotions. People don't choose to empathize any more than they choose to be sad.

I thought empathy was regarded as something good. That's a value judgment. Otherwise, if it's just an emotion then why would subjective moralists use it as an example of explaining how humans developed morality. I often hear people explain why we act good towards each other was because of empathy.

Moral Orel · May 7, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
So how does morality fit into that picture? What feelings do you think come from morality?

Morality is the result of us acting on our emotions.

Ken-1122 said:
I don't have to. My views are a part of who I am; when I say I am right, I am saying my views are right.

That's not how the English language works, but whatever. I am tall. My pinkie is part of who I am, so my pinkie is tall.

Ken-1122 said:
I prefer equal treatment because I know what it feels like to be on the wrong end of unequal treatment so I have empathy.

Gee, that's what I said your reasoning ultimately is. You prefer things you like. You like good emotions. You dislike bad emotions. You prefer to avoid things you dislike. When you say, "Murder is wrong", these are the only true things you can say about it, "Murder makes me feel bad, so I dislike it. I prefer to avoid murder." You add all the layers of calling it "wrong" and justifying it by saying that "unfairness is wrong" because it's more emotionally satisfying to make it seem less trivial.

Ken-1122 said:
I didn't say anything about the murdered person feeling negative emotions!

Yes, you did. By mentioning "empathy" you mentioned your emotions and the emotions of the person you empathize with.

Moral Orel · May 7, 2020

stevevw said:
I thought empathy was regarded as something good. That's a value judgment. Otherwise, if it's just an emotion then why would subjective moralists use it as an example of explaining how humans developed morality. I often hear people explain why we act good towards each other was because of empathy.

I like empathy. It isn't objectively good, but I value it. And it isn't an emotion itself; it's a function that works on emotions. When my wife cries, empathy causes me to feel sad. Empathy isn't the emotions themselves. So yes, empathy is part of the description of the hows and whys we act nicely to one another and avoid acting meanly to one another, generally.

2PhiloVoid · May 7, 2020

Moral Orel said:
I like empathy. It isn't objectively good, but I value it. And it isn't an emotion itself; it's a function that works on emotions. When my wife cries, empathy causes me to feel sad. Empathy isn't the emotions themselves. So yes, empathy is part of the description of the hows and whys we act nicely to one another and avoid acting meanly to one another, generally.

Well, that's a wrap! We can all sign off and move on with our lives now ...

Moral Orel · May 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, that's a wrap! We can all sign off and move on with our lives now ...

Too much winning for you, Philo?

Dorothy Mae · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
You have missed my point completely. I did not say a person must understand the concept of the Trinity to know God. I claimed the concept of the Trinity is an illogical construct.

How can you say anything you admit you don’t understand is illogical?

Meaning, it is logically impossible they way it is presented my orthodox Christian confessions (both Catholic and Protestant). People are always saying that it required faith or that maybe we don't fully understand the nature of that god somehow. It is like believing 2+2= 4 and 5. Maybe there are other qualities of 5 we just don't understand yet, but it will be revealed in the future. Sure maybe. But until then, I don't believe it because right now, it is irrational.

You should admit you don’t understand it along with most christians and move on. There are many matters you don’t understand and still don’t doubt it. Unless you’re a nuclear physicist there are matters of physics that will make no sense to you and you nevertheless don’t call the whole field illogical. Think of the nature of a superior being as one of these.

Dorothy Mae · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
You are not actively reading my responses. I am here engaging in conversation with you and other Christians on this forum--what makes you think my eyes are "shut tight?" You don't have to insult me or my position simply because I have arrived at a different conclusion from you after studying the text. If you want to discuss it without the snide, triggered comments, I am open to that.

I actually did read your response. Did you?

Caliban · May 7, 2020

Dorothy Mae said:
How can you say anything you admit you don’t understand is illogical?

You should admit you don’t understand it along with most christians and move on. There are many matters you don’t understand and still don’t doubt it. Unless you’re a nuclear physicist there are matters of physics that will make no sense to you and you nevertheless don’t call the whole field illogical. Think of the nature of a superior being as one of these.

It is not that I don't understand it, it is that is make no sense; it is not logically possible. If you accept the concept of the Trinity, you do so on faith, not reason.

Caliban · May 7, 2020

Dorothy Mae said:
I actually did read your response. Did you?

Yes, that is why I am responding to you and challenging your claims. I am not making bald assertions, but giving logical reasons why the Trinity is not a rational concept. It is accepted only on faith.

Dorothy Mae · May 7, 2020

R.Miller said:
It is not that I don't understand it, it is that is make no sense; it is not logically possible.

I understand it better than you and I find it logical and possible. Like any field, you need enough fundamental understanding and you are missing it.

If you accept the concept of the Trinity, you do so on faith, not reason.

You are wrong.

Caliban · May 7, 2020

Dorothy Mae said:
I understand it better than you and I find it logical and possible. Like any field, you need enough funds my understanding and you are missing it.
You are wrong.

Okay, show me. Using the language of logic, explain to me how the concept of the Trinity is logical. I will pay close attention.

2PhiloVoid · May 7, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Too much winning for you, Philo?

Yeah. How did you know? Was it the "L" on my forehead that gave it away?

Where does morality come from?

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Proud Citizen of Moralton

inquisitive

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Critically Copernican

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency