Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

What is agape love? You still haven’t defined it nor explained the difference.

for our purposes agape love is a sacrificial type of love. A love that is done without selfish gain, and that is costly.

I made it clear, humans are better at expressing love, better at expressing hatred, better at communicating, exploring; everything we do, we do it better than animals. Is it because there is some sorta natural system in place that affects our ability to love, hate, communicate, or anything else we do better than animals?

I agree with you that humans are better than animals. But this does not help your case. You need to state why this is the case. I can say that God created animals without the ability to have sacrificial love. And that answers my half. But you on the other hand need to explain why this is the case scientifically. Basically this idea supports my conclusion, not yours.

If there is, you need to point to the system. Don’t give examples, show the system is actually in place. Then you need to show that this system proves that murder is wrong. All you’ve done thus far is express opinions, and make empty claims.

I have proven that universally there does not exist a tribe or culture that endorses selfish behavior, and that simultaneously punishes sacrificial behavior. This is not opinion. Look around you, every culture has different religions, different civil codes of behavior, and yet this universal moral law reigns.

A fact is defined as:
*Having actual existence:
*An actual occurrence:
*Information presented as having an objective reality.
Perhaps you can list some facts meeting the above standards that cannot be proven
Definition of FACT

so then find a fact that you can prove, besides mathmatics. This is needed to verify this.

No, you said evil people have been weeded out by societies. I’m saying if that were the case, either evil people would no longer exist, or there would be far less than there was before; neither of which is true.

I never said that. I said hitler (your example), was weeded out by other nations. Because his ideology was not shared with those nations. Even today, you don't see many dictators that kill innocent people in mass. If there was such a person, they would most likely be the source of assassination attempts regularly.

 

[Ken-1122]

fI agree with you that humans are better than animals.

That’s not what I said. I said humans are better at expressing love and hatred. Did God also give mankind the special ability to hate to the point of Evil? Something animals aren’t capable of?

I have proven that universally there does not exist a tribe or culture that endorses selfish behavior, and that simultaneously punishes sacrificial behavior. This is not opinion. Look around you, every culture has different religions, different civil codes of behavior, and yet this universal moral law reigns.

You have proven nothing. All you’ve done is make empty claims. Prove of all the cultures that has ever existed, none of them ever endorsed selfish behavior. If you can’t do that, your argument fails.

so then find a fact that you can prove, besides mathmatics. This is needed to verify this.

Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit

I never said that. I said hitler (your example), was weeded out by other nations. Because his ideology was not shared with those nations.

Hitler was not weeded out, he went around attacking everybody, and was eventually defeated. As long as Hitler was content killing Jews in his own country, nobody cared; it’s when he went to other countries killing that people fought back.

Even today, you don't see many dictators that kill innocent people in mass. If there was such a person, they would most likely be the source of assassination attempts regularly.

Nobody has attempted to kill Kim Jong Un even though he has killed hundreds of his political enemies. You need to get your facts straight.

 

[Ken-1122]

just because you don't label someone who steals paper clips regularly from work a thief, God still defines them that way. God's standard is perfection, irregardless of the value of the item, if you take something that is not yours, it's stealing. Same with listening to music online that you don't buy, or ripping music from the internet without paying royalties. That is the actions of a thief.

He didn’t ask God if she was a thief, he asked her.
Also, if God purposely made us imperfect, it would be wrong for him to judge us to a standard of perfection, a standard he designed us to be unable to meet. Do you agree?

 

[createdtoworship]

That’s not what I said. I said humans are better at expressing love and hatred. Did God also give mankind the special ability to hate to the point of Evil? Something animals aren’t capable of?

expression of love is not the same thing as having love. So this is arbitrary.

You have proven nothing. All you’ve done is make empty claims. Prove of all the cultures that has ever existed, none of them ever endorsed selfish behavior. If you can’t do that, your argument fails.

again it is common knowledge that every race of man exists to better itself, and thus does not honor selfish behaviour, and likewise does not dishonor self sacrifice. This is common knowledge, just look around. Again if you wish to refute this common knowledge you will have to find a tribe or culture where this is not the case. But you won't or can't. So this point stands.

Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit

like I said you cannot prove a simple fact (that is not based on mathmatics).

Hitler was not weeded out, he went around attacking everybody, and was eventually defeated. As long as Hitler was content killing Jews in his own country, nobody cared; it’s when he went to other countries killing that people fought back.

again, why would they care if he went to other countries and killed innocent people? It's just his truth after all, right? I mean if there was no universal law, if Hitler went to four countries and killed the innocents there, why should we care? There is no right or wrong after all. But if there is a universal moral code, and He broke it, then He should be punished.

Nobody has attempted to kill Kim Jong Un even though he has killed hundreds of his political enemies. You need to get your facts straight

killing hundreds and killing millions is slightly different. Sure He is a dictator, but He lacks the power to become a real threat.

 

[createdtoworship]

He didn’t ask God if she was a thief, he asked her.
Also, if God purposely made us imperfect, it would be wrong for him to judge us to a standard of perfection, a standard he designed us to be unable to meet. Do you agree?

He didn't make us imperfect. The state we were in when we were done being created was perfect. Later on, sin entered, and death by sin. But that was something we chose for ourselves, not God.

 

[holo]

again it is common knowledge that every race of man exists to better itself, and thus does not honor selfish behaviour, and likewise does not dishonor self sacrifice. This is common knowledge, just look around. Again if you wish to refute this common knowledge you will have to find a tribe or culture where this is not the case. But you won't or can't. So this point stands.

Yes - people will protect their own tribe, and in some cases even die for them.

Now if morality is a result of evolution, that makes perfect sense. It's exactly what you'd expect. It's a behaviour that protects the species, and the tribe, much much better than if everybody always put themselves first.

If on the other hand humans are just selfish animals by themselves and morality was given by God, then the question is why don't we act like it? If we have a god-given morality that says everybody is worth the same, then why would everybody protect their own children more than someone else's?

 

[holo]

killing hundreds and killing millions is slightly different. Sure He is a dictator, but He lacks the power to become a real threat.

Kim Jong-Il and his father and grandfather are responsible for millions of people starving to death, being tortured, executed, separated from their families, persecuted, imprisoned, denied medical help and so on.

Again, if morality had anything to do with it, the world would've liberated them by now. But there's only a few small humanitarian efforts that even try (personally I support Liberty in North Korea). And as we'd expect, those who care the most are the ones directly related to them, i.e. South Koreans - though as time goes by and family ties get thinner, people care less.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes - people will protect their own tribe, and in some cases even die for them.

I see men dying for strangers. Men dying for their country. But I do not see animals doing the same thing. I see parents dying for children in the animal kingdom, but not for strangers. Animals dying for a pack is sort of like a distant family member dying for another family member, that is not the same as dying for a stranger. That would be like one pack of wolves dying for another pack of wolves. That is unusual in the animal kingdom. But not that unusual in mankind. As we see military men dying every day for citizens of a country that they don't personally know.

Now if morality is a result of evolution, that makes perfect sense. It's exactly what you'd expect. It's a behaviour that protects the species, and the tribe, much much better than if everybody always put themselves first.

In logical debate you have valid arguments and sound arguments. A sound argument is also valid, but a valid argument does not necessarily have to be sound.
It is a logically valid argument that sacrificial love could evolve as we have motive. But motive is not a full evidence. For example if you have a murder case, and you have motive, that is not sufficient to incriminate. You must also have a murder weapon and preferably an eye witness, and some concrete data.

If on the other hand humans are just selfish animals by themselves and morality was given by God, then the question is why don't we act like it?

the simple answer is that it's easier to sin than not to sin because sin has immediate gratification. Why work, when I can go to the emergency room, ask for a pill for my back pain, and sell that pill for 60$ to a local drug dealer? You can make a living doing that. Is it right? No. But it's easier than working.

If we have a god-given morality that says everybody is worth the same, then why would everybody protect their own children more than someone else's?

Children depend on you solely. So to help someone else, and cause my children to lack food for example is both wrong and disturbing, as that stranger is not solely dependent on you for their food.

 

[holo]

I see men dying for strangers. Men dying for their country. But I do not see animals doing the same thing.

Sure. But so what? Why should we expect other species to share our sense of morality?

It is a logically valid argument that sacrificial love could evolve as we have motive. But motive is not a full evidence.

True. I'm not saying it's full evidence, just that it's exactly what we'd expect from evolution, and not what we'd expect from God.

Children depend on you solely. So to help someone else, and cause my children to lack food for example is both wrong and disturbing, as that stranger is not solely dependent on you for their food.

No, that doesn't work. I could abandon my children on the street where I live and I would know that they'd be fed and clothed etc, and I could spend my time and energy actually, literally, saving other children's lives somewhere else instead.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure. But so what? Why should we expect other species to share our sense of morality?

well in order to prove that morality is evolved, I presume you must expect it.

True. I'm not saying it's full evidence, just that it's exactly what we'd expect from evolution, and not what we'd expect from God.

so you admit it's not full evidence. That is good. I am looking for full evidence however. See In logical debate you have valid arguments and sound arguments. A sound argument is also valid, but a valid argument does not necessarily have to be sound.

No, that doesn't work. I could abandon my children on the street where I live and I would know that they'd be fed and clothed etc, and I could spend my time and energy actually, literally, saving other children's lives somewhere else instead.

yes but that would not be moral. Because you don't know for a fact that they would be taken care of. You assume they are, and in that assumption you are neglecting the children that rely on you solely to take care of someone that potentially could be taken care of by someone else other than yourself.

 

[holo]

well in order to prove that morality is evolved, I presume you must expect it

Why? If evolution is true, it seems reasonable that morality is connected to higher brain functions such as consciousness, empathy, and especially metacognition (the ability to think about one's own thoughts).

so you admit it's not full evidence. That is good. I am looking for full evidence however.

And I assume you have what appears to be "full evidence" for moral being god-given.

yes but that would not be moral. Because you don't know for a fact that they would be taken care of. You assume they are, and in that assumption you are neglecting the children that rely on you solely to take care of someone that potentially could be taken care of by someone else other than yourself.

Yes, I do know for a fact they would be taken care of, that's my whole point. They would survive just fine even if I disappeared. The money I spend on just one toy for my children could literally save other children from starving to death. Because my morality is limited. Because I'm biologically wired to care more about my tribe than about humanity as a whole. Because, for all intents and purposes, I actually think my children are worth more than other children.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why? If evolution is true, it seems reasonable that morality is connected to higher brain functions such as consciousness, empathy, and especially metacognition (the ability to think about one's own thoughts).

from my studies in this arena I fail to see in humans at least how higher IQ relates to people having more love. This sort of refutes this theory of yours.

And I assume you have what appears to be "full evidence" for moral being god-given.

yes, I have repeated in numerous times, but if you don't remember, just read post one.

Yes, I do know for a fact they would be taken care of, that's my whole point. They would survive just fine even if I disappeared. The money I spend on just one toy for my children could literally save other children from starving to death. Because my morality is limited. Because I'm biologically wired to care more about my tribe than about humanity as a whole. Because, for all intents and purposes, I actually think my children are worth more than other children.

Well I would question how you knew for a fact that those children would be taken care of. There could be an earthquake, a recession, or a collapsing economy. There really is no absolute proof of this. And the rest of your illustration sort of passes me by, as I don't fully comprehend it. Maybe you can illustrate it differently. I would not undersand thinking of your children as more valuable. I would think of it, that they are the ones solely dependant on you. So your responsibility should be toward your sole dependants first. Even if they are unrelated to you. I have a mother in law living with me, she depends on me to support her even if we are not blood related. I can give my money to the poor instead of feeding her, but that would not be moral because I have people counting on me. the homeless can be fed by someone else. My family solely depends on me. If I have extra, after my family is fed I can feed other people. That is the most moral, and I am sure I am not alone in this assessment. But your idea that your children are more valuable, I don't think is accurate.

 

[holo]

from my studies in this arena I fail to see in humans at least how higher IQ relates to people having more love. This sort of refutes this theory of yours

I'm not claiming love is dependent on IQ. But morality is definitely connected to our abilities of meta-cognition and empathy etc, which we seem to have more of than other species. But it's obviously hard to figure out what happens in the mind of a cat or a fish.

yes, I have repeated in numerous times, but if you don't remember, just read post one.

I don't think your arguments are convincing. I think evolution is by far the most reasonable explanation for why we have a sense of morality.

Well I would question how you knew for a fact that those children would be taken care of.

Come on, my point isn't that I can prove that they'll be taken care of without me, any more than I can prove that they'll survive under my protection. An earthquake could kill them either way. My point, which I assumed would be obvious, is that even if I die or disappear today, my children will still be fed, clothed, schooled and taken care of. In other words, they won't die just because I'm not there.

So if I really felt like other children were worth just as much as mine, I would leave my children to save the lives of others. The reason I don't is because my morality is exactly how you'd expect from evolution: I care more about my own kids than others, even though I'll be the first one to claim that all humans have equal rights etc.

 

[Caliban]

Without the yardstick of God, you can't even define evil properly.

Evil is a term loaded with theological significance. Without a concept of a god it is a meaningless term--also unnecessary. An objective morality exists without such nomenclature or appeals to authority.

 

[Ken-1122]

expression of love is not the same thing as having love. So this is arbitrary.

that's not what I asked. I asked if God gave man the special ability to HATE in a way animals are unable to. Care to answer that question?

again it is common knowledge that every race of man exists to better itself, and thus does not honor selfish behaviour, and likewise does not dishonor self sacrifice. This is common knowledge, just look around. Again if you wish to refute this common knowledge you will have to find a tribe or culture where this is not the case. But you won't or can't. So this point stands.

You've done it again. To claim something as common knowledge does not prove anything. It is just another empty claim. Until you start presenting facts or proof, quit claiming you are providing proof.

like I said you cannot prove a simple fact (that is not based on mathmatics).

I just did! The temperature water boils at is not math, it is temperature.

again, why would they care if he went to other countries and killed innocent people? It's just his truth after all, right? I mean if there was no universal law, if Hitler went to four countries and killed the innocents there, why should we care? There is no right or wrong after all. But if there is a universal moral code, and He broke it, then He should be punished.

It doesn't matter; Hitler was not attacked because he murdered the citizens he ruled over as you claimed, he was killed because he attacked other countries. Your argument failed

killing hundreds and killing millions is slightly different. Sure He is a dictator, but He lacks the power to become a real threat.

It doesn't matter! You said dictators of today don't murder like before because they would be taken out. I provided an example of a murderous dictator that nobody has attempted to take out. Again, your argument failed.

 

[Ken-1122]

He didn't make us imperfect. The state we were in when we were done being created was perfect. Later on, sin entered, and death by sin. But that was something we chose for ourselves, not God.

If his creation was perfect, they would not have chosen to sin.

 

[createdtoworship]

If his creation was perfect, they would not have chosen to sin.

that is the classic fallacy of the cart before the horse. God created them perfect, and with a free will to be imperfect. They chose to not be perfect.

 

[createdtoworship]

that's not what I asked. I asked if God gave man the special ability to HATE in a way animals are unable to. Care to answer that question?

God gave man a free will to chose to do evil in a way that animals don't have, according to the Bible. God does not cause the hatred, but God allowed man to chose to love and follow God or reject Him. In doing so He gets authentic followers, and not robotic followers only obeying because they have to. Yes the majority choose sin, which is easier. And thus chose the broad path to hell.

You've done it again. To claim something as common knowledge does not prove anything. It is just another empty claim. Until you start presenting facts or proof, quit claiming you are providing proof.

the existence of mirages is common knowledge, one cannot prove they exist without using and having faith in external sources, so it is for our purposes unprovable. But it is common knowledge. Common knowledge does not use proofs per say, but uses things that have a heavy evidencial aspect to it. The fact that cultures honor self sacrifice is near global in it's reach. You can literally pick out any example in the world, and see this is the case. On the other hand, you can also go to any culture or tribe, irrespective of religion, or lack of religion and see that selfishness is frowned upon. So please do not say these are empty claims again. They are common knowledge in the same way the existence of mirages are common knowledge, or the existence of the law of gravity.

I just did! The temperature water boils at is not math, it is temperature.

there are no numbers in your example? If there are no numerical values, then there would be no math. When you learn of numbers and real numbers, and unreal numbers, what class are you in? Math. So yes it involves the subject of math. I never said it had to involve arithmetic.

It doesn't matter; Hitler was not attacked because he murdered the citizens he ruled over as you claimed, he was killed because he attacked other countries. Your argument failed

It doesn't matter! You said dictators of today don't murder like before because they would be taken out. I provided an example of a murderous dictator that nobody has attempted to take out. Again, your argument failed

my argument fails if killing hundreds is equivalent to killing millions. and you cannot prove that. So my point stands. Thank you for the debate, I feel I cannot refute your arguments any more than I already have. Let me know if you have any questions

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not claiming love is dependent on IQ. But morality is definitely connected to our abilities of meta-cognition and empathy etc, which we seem to have more of than other species.

if you can provide substantiation of this, and I doubt you can. If you read the fine print, most likely they will say that intelligence is the cause of this. And I already refuted that idea, as IQ in humans does not appear to affect compassion.

I don't think your arguments are convincing. I think evolution is by far the most reasonable explanation for why we have a sense of morality.

yes evolving from an electocuted slime puddle has the ability to create compassion. I can see why you reject, God creating compassion in the world, or at least the ability to love.

Come on, my point isn't that I can prove that they'll be taken care of without me, any more than I can prove that they'll survive under my protection. An earthquake could kill them either way. My point, which I assumed would be obvious, is that even if I die or disappear today, my children will still be fed, clothed, schooled and taken care of. In other words, they won't die just because I'm not there.

so you have faith in society to take care of your children for you? I can see you are a westerner. However in much of the world when children could not be taken care of, they lived in the sewers as in romania.

S

o if I really felt like other children were worth just as much as mine, I would leave my children to save the lives of others. The reason I don't is because my morality is exactly how you'd expect from evolution: I care more about my own kids than others, even though I'll be the first one to claim that all humans have equal rights etc.

I understand that you have motive for creating love in society. But you cannot objectively provide evidence that love has been carried down from smaller types of organisms, to the more complex organisms. So this motive that evolution answers WHY we have love is not enough. and is an argument that fails due to lack of support in other areas. I would pin it on an argument from silence.

 

[holo]

if you can provide substantiation of this, and I doubt you can. If you read the fine print, most likely they will say that intelligence is the cause of this.

Obviously intelligence has something to do with it, since it takes some intelligence to recognize other beings as being sentient and so forth.

And I already refuted that idea, as IQ in humans does not appear to affect compassion

But nobody is arguing that there's a linear relationship between intelligence and compassion.

yes evolving from an electocuted slime puddle has the ability to create compassion.

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. Any quality humans have is a result of billions of years of evolution, but it's not like compassion sprang from a puddle. If you're going to present the argument that way, it's like saying oxygen gave rise to toasters. Which is true in the sense that hadn't there been oxygen, there probably wouldn't be humans to make toasters. Along with all the gazillion other things that are required to make toast, like the discovery and taming of electricity, the invention of bread, which in turn requires grains, which in turn requires germs etc etc etc.

I can see why you reject, God creating compassion in the world, or at least the ability to love.

I reject that idea because I think there aren't convincing arguments for it, and it can be explained by evolution.

so you have faith in society to take care of your children for you?

Yes, if worst comes to worst, both our friends, family and our government would provide for them.

I can see you are a westerner. However in much of the world when children could not be taken care of, they lived in the sewers as in romania.

Exactly. So if I had better morals, I would give less to my children and more to children who are actually dying. I mean the last Lego thingy I bought for my son could probably pay for a poor kid's food. But my sense of moral obligation doesn't stretch that far, it's hindered by ignorance and an out-of-sight-out-of-mind attitude. Had the kid next door been starving, I would act. But since it's far far away, I honestly don't care as much.

Again, exactly how I would expect morality to manifest itself if it's natural rather than God-given. If God gave us morality, I would expect it to be better, to reach further.

Also, as an aside, I find that my morality (and that of others too) actually grows bigger completely unrelated to whether or not we believe in God.

I understand that you have motive for creating love in society. But you cannot objectively provide evidence that love has been carried down from smaller types of organisms, to the more complex organisms.

I'm not saying so much that it's been carried down, but that it has evolved alongside other things, like the ability to imagine or solve problems or create language.

So this motive that evolution answers WHY we have love is not enough. and is an argument that fails due to lack of support in other areas. I would pin it on an argument from silence.

I think the most apparent silence here is God's, not nature's. I see zero evidence that "God did it", that's just speculation and/or a result of already believing in God for other reasons.