Where does morality come from?

[Dorothy Mae]

I would fail a student for using the word faith? Are you reading the words you are writing?

I am going to stop communicating with you because it is going nowhere and your attitude has soured.
It was good in the beginning, but it ran aground somewhere. Good evening.

Me thinks he doth protests too much. Too close to home. You, a teacher, don’t like some words.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Drop the insults--it's unbecoming.

I've never claimed to be "becoming." I've only claimed to be educated. Which I am. And please drop your insinuations about your logical superiority. I find them to be not only unbecoming, but downright denigrating.

 

[Ken-1122]

Morality is the result of us acting on our emotions.

Acting on our emotions? Really? A couple months ago my sister came to town and I was excited to see her. Because of this excitement I left early because I wanted to be there as soon as she got off the plane so I could see her as soon as possible. If I weren’t excited to see her (emotional) I would have gotten there later and met her at the baggage claim area. Are you saying getting to the airport a half hour early is morality?

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.

That is how the English language works. People who understand english know when someone says “I am right” concerning a specific issue, they aren’t talking about their finger, their foot, or anything else they are talking about their views concerning that specific issue.

Gee, that's what I said your reasoning ultimately is. You prefer things you like. You like good emotions. You dislike bad emotions.

And what’s wrong with that?

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

When I say “empathy” I am talking about how I would feel if I were in that situation. This feeling might be totally different than how the murdered person feels. The person getting killed might see himself as a martyr and experience positive emotions, but I see him as a victim, and I feel negative emotions.

 

[Caliban]

I've never claimed to be "becoming." I've only claimed to be educated. Which I am. And please drop your insinuations about your logical superiority. I find them to be not only unbecoming, but downright denigrating.

I have said nothing about being superior to anything or anyone. You are projecting. If you have an argument and want to discuss ideas instead of trying to leverage ad hominem, I'm all for it. But, I don't want to engage with you at all if you keep this up. If you have nothing constructive to contribute, go pester someone see. Every time I get on this forum you show up like Gollum and annoy me. You don't have to do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have said nothing about being superior to anything or anyone. You are projecting. If you have an argument and want to discuss ideas instead of trying to leverage ad hominem, I'm all for it. But, I don't want to engage with you at all if you keep this up. If you have nothing constructive to contribute, go pester someone see. Every time I get on this forum you show up like Gollum and annoy me. You don't have to do that.

And you, and those like you, annoy ........... me, essentially because you all feign to want to have conversation with Christians but then almost ALWAYS move in for the rhetorical 'kill.' I've had enough. In fact, I've just about had enough of all anti-Christians everywhere. I've flipped! I've lost my cool! I've lost a bag of my marbles!

So, why don't you and your ilk go invade some other website. You're welcome here is over!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I would fail a student for using the word faith? Are you reading the words you are writing?

I am going to stop communicating with you because it is going nowhere and your attitude has soured.
It was good in the beginning, but it ran aground somewhere. Good evening.

Miller is insulted because I said he would fail a student for using the words faith and personal experience. But this is what he actually wrote.

I do understand the scientific method, I obtained a graduate degree that involved performing research. You get the scientific method wrong when you write, "The idea of experiments is faith and personal experience." You would never pass a basic science class if you wrote that on your final.

So why is Miller insulted?

I guess I shouldn’t have written “fail for using the word “faith”” but instead wrote that if a student wrote that “experiments have some connection to faith and personal experience” he would fail
them. Maybe it’d be ok to use the word “faith” and “personal experience” but there is a danger in being failed if used in certain ways such as connected to science. Scientists of the early days when the field boomed in Europe would totally disagree, I have to say. They saw faith as essential in science.

 

[Caliban]

And you, and those like you, annoy ........... me, essentially because you all feign to want to have conversation with Christians but then almost ALWAYS move in for the rhetorical 'kill.' I've had enough. In fact, I've just about had enough of all anti-Christians everywhere. I've flipped! I've lost my cool! I've lost a bag of my marbles!

So, why don't you and your ilk go invade some other website. You're welcome here is over!

The truth comes out--I suspected. You just want to have conversations with people who generally agree with you. I however, am open to having discussions with folks I differ from philosophically, politically, and spiritually. I don't need your welcome. I am not hostile, rude, or particularly divisive. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. If you don't like me, you don't have to respond or put in your two cents. And I don't need to justify my reason for being here to you. Adios.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The truth comes out--I suspected. You just want to have conversations with people who generally agree with you. I however, am open to having discussions with folks I differ from philosophically, politically, and spiritually. I don't need your welcome. I am not hostile, rude, or particularly divisive. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. If you don't like me, you don't have to respond or put in your two cents. And I don't need to justify my reason for being here to you. Adios.

Exactly. Yet another split answer, I see. You begin by saying one thing, but then end with....."Adios!"

Inconsistent for a supposedly good-hearted atheist! I'm not buying it!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The truth comes out--I suspected. You just want to have conversations with people who generally agree with you. I however, am open to having discussions with folks I differ from philosophically, politically, and spiritually. I don't need your welcome. I am not hostile, rude, or particularly divisive. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. If you don't like me, you don't have to respond or put in your two cents. And I don't need to justify my reason for being here to you. Adios.

Did you forget where you edited out the last bit of a sentence I wrote changing the meaning entirely? I have no animosity but it would better to think of these times when praising yourself in terms of being divisive.

 

[Moral Orel]

Gee, that's what I said your reasoning ultimately is.

And what’s wrong with that?

Nothing's wrong with that. We all do it, that's just the way it is. That's why I've been correct all along, but you wanted to deny it so it took a while for you to realize it. Glad you finally came around.

 

[Ken-1122]

Nothing's wrong with that. We all do it, that's just the way it is. That's why I've been correct all along, but you wanted to deny it so it took a while for you to realize it. Glad you finally came around.

What are you under the impression that you are correct about?

 

[Kylie]

Ah, it is clear you do not work in science nor were trained in science. The idea of experiments is faith and personal experience. You have to believe in your theory enough to get funds to finance experiments where you personally observe the testing of your theory. Science runs on faith and personal experience we call experiments.

What training in science do you have that scientific discovery is based on faith? The very nature of the scientific method works to eliminate faith.

That you do not see the difference between God being Spirit and being abducted by aliens tells me that you do not understand what we are talking about. NO one dies for believing in aliens. No one. THere are millions of good men and women who died out of love for Christ. And they made the world, your world, a much better place. That you do not see the difference means it will be tough going. Some fundamental matters need to be clear in your head and I see that they are not.

You've never heard of the Heaven's Gate cult, I take it?

 

[Moral Orel]

What are you under the impression that you are correct about?

I told you your morality is based on likes and preferences and emotions. You justified your belief that "murder is wrong", eventually, with likes and preferences and emotions. I said, "Gee, that's what I said your reasoning ultimately is" and you responded directly to that quote with, "And what's wrong with that?". Now is the point where you're going to want to back track, take back claims, pretend you meant something else, yadda yadda yadda...

We got down to the brute facts.

Ken likes X.
Ken prefers X.
Not X causes Ken to feel negative feelings.

Those are objective facts. The only objective facts you have to ultimately justify your position on any given moral. We did the big one, "Murder is wrong". I don't feel a need to go through others just to arrive at the same point. We could fill X in with morals, like about murder or stealing or what have you. We could fill X in with flavors you find delicious, and smells you find aromatic, and pictures you find beautiful. They're all the same thing. You'll end up justifying "X is good" the same way.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Studies have shown empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. Studies have shown that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial, and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.

It has been shown how empathy can depend on how a situation is presented and how the individual feels about the situation. An example is given where a child is suffering a life-threatening disease. But there is a waiting list for her to get treated. On the one hand, reading about the situation, what the child is going through, and how she tells her personal story causes people to move her up the list thus denying more worthy children. But taking an objective measure this does not happen.

The point is that because empathy is a feeling which is not a good way to judge things it is open to bias and even cruelty as people turn a blind eye to others suffering worse in favor of personalized feelings. Another example is with cruel dictators like Starlin who only empathize with their inner circle and kill millions because they are viewed as less favorable. Such as people from different races, ethnic backgrounds, and even the sick and disabled.

So empathy is not a guarantee for acting nice towards one another because of the fact it is based on feelings and can evoke good and bad responses depending on the circumstances and individuals involved.

Rather than empathy, compassion is a better gauge of good moral behavior. Studies have shown that compassion and empathy affect different parts of the brain. Empathy often leads to distress, inactivity, and a lack of engagement because it is a feeling that is unpredictable and arbitrary often causing negative reactions.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

 

[Moral Orel]

Studies have shown empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. Studies have shown that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial, and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst.

It has been shown how empathy can depend on how a situation is presented and how the individual feels about the situation. An example is given where a child is suffering a life-threatening disease. But there is a waiting list for her to get treated. On the one hand, reading about the situation, what the child is going through, and how she tells her personal story causes people to move her up the list thus denying more worthy children. But taking an objective measure this does not happen.

The point is that because empathy is a feeling which is not a good way to judge things it is open to bias and even cruelty as people turn a blind eye to others suffering worse in favor of personalized feelings. Another example is with cruel dictators like Starlin who only empathize with their inner circle and kill millions because they are viewed as less favorable. Such as people from different races, ethnic backgrounds, and even the sick and disabled.

Rather than empathy, compassion is a better gauge of good moral behavior. Studies have shown that compassion and empathy affect different parts of the brain. Empathy often leads to distress, inactivity, and a lack of engagement because it is a feeling that is unpredictable and arbitrary often causing negative reactions.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

I just said it was part of the picture. If there was no empathy at all, no one would care about anyone else. If it gets overactive, sure, people get too emotional to think rationally. But it's necessary to get the ball rolling.

 

[stevevw]

I just said it was part of the picture. If there was no empathy at all, no one would care about anyone else. If it gets overactive, sure, people get too emotional to think rationally. But it's necessary to get the ball rolling.

Yeah, that's true.

 

[stevevw]

Given that you have not produced a single argument here to which I have not already responded, is there any point in me wasting my time trying to explain it to you again when you seem so determined not to pay attention?

You still haven't responded to the logical argument I presented with a defeater.

 

[Kylie]

You still haven't responded to the logical argument I presented with a defeater.

Which one was that?

 

[stevevw]

Are you seriously asking me what the objectively best thing to do is? When I've been going on that it's all subjective?

No I asked are you claiming that there is no one best thing to do in that situation. Then I asked what do you think is the best thing to do according to your subjective morality.

In the trolley problem, I would probably switch tracks so that one person dies instead of five. Most people would tend to do the same, based on experiments done regarding this.

But don't tell me that proves it is objective, because we've already covered how many people can reach the same subjective conclusion.

So the question needs to be asked is there anyway under a subjective moral position that an alternative choice can be made that is morally good.

The difference is that you can get two people who have different ideas about the same situation. Absolute morality doesn't come into it in that case, and yet two people will have different ideas! You objective morality idea can't explain that!

How can two people determine a different objective moral for that situation when objective morality means there is only one best moral choice. If two different people get two different outcomes then that's subjective morality. They may claim its objective but that's a paradoxical claim.

Why do you think that just because it's a subjective thing that I'd find it an easy choice to make?

Because you cannot make the wrong choice morally, it doesn't matter. The only reason you would be hesitant is that you can't make up your mind which option you like taste-wise. Just like choosing a new pair of shoes. There is no moral right or wrong which shoes you pick.

Like most religious explanations, I find this doesn't really make much sense.

I could explain it a bit more but I have this feeling you will say that it is unreal anyway. So I guess it is what it is and sometimes that is just how God is, beyond our comprehension.

Once again you just avoid answering the question.

OK if it happened today I would ignore/reject the idea as I would know it was not God that was saying this.

You said that it was always wrong to take an action that would kill someone.

No, it is not always wrong to kill someone as I also said we can kill in situations like self-defense. It will depend on the situation. There will be an objectively right and wrong thing to do in each situation.

You also said that you'd take action to kill a person in the trolley problem.

How do you avoid not killing in your trolley scenario. You have ensured that. The morally best thing to do would be to take a single person out if there was no choice. The difference with subjective morality is that it doesn't matter which option you choose. Though you said you would take out the single person which lines up with objective morality another person who says they would take out the 5 people is not wrong either under subjective morality.

Figuring out if someone has done a particular thing isn't subjective. Either they did it or they didn't.

Yes, but don't you agree that it is important to figure out if the person in charge of controlling the tracks is fully responsible for what happened first before putting the entire moral wrong on him. Didn't the person who did not hook the train carriage up properly cause the problem in the first place which put the track controller in a difficult no-win situation. Doesn't that count in reducing his culpability.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you are making excuses to get around the fact that I've shown that the trolley problem applies to real life, despite your complaining that it doesn't.

But I am not the one complaining. There have been psychological assessments made of the "Trolley Thought Experiment and papers were written showing it is unreal and damaging to use to teach ethics. Mainly because it denied human agency which is an important fact in real-life situations.

Again, you are just trying to squirm out of it.

So your saying people are not allowed to try and save people in these real-life situations.

No. No one is capable of actually creating subjective mathematics. The concept is meaningless.

But you do agree that a person can have a subjective view about something objective like the Flat earthers.

It does not change the fact that there are Christians who disagree on moral issues.

Of course, it is only natural that people filter everything through their senses and have personal views on things. They will debate and reason about what is the correct interpretation of things. But the point this is usually details about things like creation, the historical accuracy of stories in the Gospels, revelations, etc. But mostly Christ's teachings are clear and no one can really dispute this. That's why God sent Christ to make it clear which way it is to God.

The trolley problem is perfectly simple. You only have to resort to complicated solutions because that's the only way you can make subjective morals look objective.

No I gave an objective moral for the Trolley problem as you presented it. Any complicated solutions are not solutions but the real human behavior that should be included in the scenario. Even Nonreligious people who support subjective morality agree with this. Objective morality can accommodate any situation because as I said there is always an objective moral beyond human views for each and every situation regardless of how it changes.

You haven't presented a logical argument yet.

I did remember IE
We are justified in believing that there are objective moral values on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever.

Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.

This can be summed up by philosopher and atheist Louise Anthony
Any argument from moral skepticism is going to be based on premises that are going to be less obvious than the reality of objective morals values themselves.

So what is the defeater that our lived experience which tells us that certain moral wrongs are always wrong can show that this is totally unreliable and that there are no objective morals whatsoever?

Bad guy threatens to kill 1000 people unless the kid is abused.

You forgot the fun part. Humm that's a tricky one. Not sure what I would do in that situation. How does someone abuse the child for fun when they're being forced.

Sure, it's approaching cartoonish supervillainy, but there's nothing there that's actually impossible.

Funny how it has to be so strangely extreme to prove a point. If there were no objective morals couldn't you show this in real everyday situations? Can you give me a real-life example like you did for the Trolley Problem?

So you can find or determine an objective morality in a situation in which no objective morality can be shown?

But how do you know that objective morality cannot be found?[/quote]

 

[stevevw]

Which one was that?

We are justified in believing (that objective moral values exist) on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever.

Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Are We Justified in Believing in Objective Moral Values and Duties? | Reasonable Faith