Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Fair enough.

Nope. I'm saying I hate it and I don't want it to happen.

Ok then that says nothing about whether it is morally right or wrong. It only tells us about your dislikes that may bug you. But another person may like those dislikes as they give them some sort of pleasure.

 

[stevevw]

But lots of people think your god(s) laws are stupid.

Even people from the same religion differ on rules and laws.

Why would anyone think that Jesus' teachings are stupid? Our society has set some of its laws and morals on Christ.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok then that says nothing about whether it is morally right or wrong. It only tells us about your dislikes that may bug you. But another person may like those dislikes as they give them some sort of pleasure.

Sure, but am I an unreasonable person?

 

[VirOptimus]

Why would anyone think that Jesus' teachings are stupid? Our society has set some of its laws and morals on Christ.

Why is not important, but most people arent christian.

How much of our laws that are founded upon christianity is debatable. Its very very few at most.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, that is something we were discussing. I said a "reasonable assumption" is a contradiction of terms because you would have evidence if you were using reason, and you argued it isn't because an assumption just means "without proof". I told you that you had evidence for your car starting, just not proof, and you stopped responding to that line of argument.

We just disagree on what constitutes evidence. What you call evidence, (the car worked fine yesterday) I call a reasonable assumption.

Nothing in what you quoted there says anything about that. Remember what I said about make-believe? We're not playing that game. The phrase "I have a reason" does not mean that you are "using reason". That's what I said. Do you disagree with that, or do you only disagree with fictitious things?

I did not say “I have a reason” I said reason may cause me to conclude the person is wet due to the rain outside.

I didn't say it was "based on fact", I said it "deals in facts". Stop making things up. But okay, we'll throw out the facts. We don't know he had an umbrella, we don't know that the umbrella was wet, and we don't know that he was wet. Why are we concluding that it was raining?

Why are we concluding the house, my friend, or even the umbrella even exists? Nearly every phrase has facts as a part of the phrase; I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the conclusion; the conclusion was not based on facts. I concluded the rain caused him to be wet based on the fact that he and his umbrella was wet; I concluded my car will start based on the fact that it ran fine when I parked it.

 

[Moral Orel]

We just disagree on what constitutes evidence. What you call evidence, (the car worked fine yesterday) I call a reasonable assumption.

Ummm... "The car worked fine yesterday" is a fact, not an assumption, as you're going to refer to it as such later in this very post. The "reasonable assumption" as you like to call it, is that it will start today. So what do you call the fact that the car started yesterday if not evidence? It's part of the reason you believe it will start again, yes? Whatever good reason you have to justify a belief is evidence, and that's a perfectly normal way people use the word.

I did not say “I have a reason” I said reason may cause me to conclude the person is wet due to the rain outside.

Look at what you said here:

You’re using the wrong definition of reason. You are using it as a verb rather than a noun. My example of a person coming in from the rain with a wet umbrella, those are nouns. As a noun, reason is described as a cause, justification, or explanation of a belief, action, or act.

See that "a" that I bolded in there? That's you putting an "a" in there. But an "a" shouldn't be in there because it isn't the proper context of "using reason". This is: "the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument". That's why your claim doesn't make any sense using the definition you chose: "a cause may cause me to conclude"???

You went off on a rant about my criticism of your reasoning, when I wasn't criticizing it. It isn't actually terrible. It's got some hidden premises, and it should be inductive instead of deductive, but I haven't gone into any of that yet. Your complaint was unwarranted. The problem is with your abuse of the word "reason" not how you reasoned.

I was talking about the conclusion; the conclusion was not based on facts. I concluded the rain caused him to be wet based on the fact that he and his umbrella was wet; I concluded my car will start based on the fact that it ran fine when I parked it.

Uhh, why do I have to keep telling you that the claim is, "reason deals in facts"? Pay attention. You can't reason without using facts. If you are reasoning correctly, then your argument will be sound and valid, and all of your premises and the conclusion will be facts. Whatever you want to twist it to mean by altering it to "based on facts" is irrelevant to what I claimed.

That being said though, look at what you've written:

I concluded X based on the fact Y.

But you're also saying that your conclusion isn't based on facts even though X (the conclusion) is based on Y (the fact). You're going to have to reconcile that one for me. Something must be based on facts because you used the phrase "based on the fact", so what is based on the fact if not the conclusion?

 

[stevevw]

Why is not important, but most people arent christian.

Proving Christian moral values are objectively right is not just based on being Christian values. God put His laws in our hearts as the bible says. This is on our conscience. People intuitively know certain things are right and wrong. It is this intuitive behavior (lived moral behavior) that shows there are objective morals.

How much of our laws that are founded upon christianity is debatable. Its very very few at most.

Not really. They may have recently diminished but they have been widely used as the basis for things like laws, codes of conduct and human rights since society began from Christianity 2000 years ago. From that point an explosion of Christianity took over most of the world especially in western society.

If you go back a generation or two you will find that society used Christian values even to the point of regarding the Sabbath as important and the sacredness of marriage and non-abortion etc. Most western nations were built on Christianity. Look at the legal system with how it acknowledges God's laws as its basis and up until recently, people swore on the Bible and no other religious book in court.

The claim that America like other western nations were not founded on Christianity is exaggerated. Most of the founding fathers had Christian beliefs and those who didn’t had some form of belief in an independent divine presence such as Deism which influenced morality. They installed Christian values in society despite also introducing the right to choose your religion because the founding documents were also about politics where they had to have rights to independence as a nation and person. But they certainly promoted and supported Christianity as the basis for morality.

The Founders disagreed on much but were nearly unanimous concerning biblical morality.
Was America Founded As A Christian Nation?

 

[stevevw]

Sure, but am I an unreasonable person?

Then I guess your not unreasonable for not liking something wrong to happen based on not liking it to happen to you because there is no right and wrong under a subjective morality. But the question is would you consider someone unreasonable who said they abuse a child because they like it happening when they do it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Proving Christian moral values are objectively right is not just based on being Christian values. God put His laws in our hearts as the bible says. This is on our conscience. People intuitively know certain things are right and wrong. It is this intuitive behavior (lived moral behavior) that shows there are objective morals.

Not really. They may have recently diminished but they have been widely used as the basis for things like laws, codes of conduct and human rights since society began from Christianity 2000 years ago. From that point an explosion of Christianity took over most of the world especially in western society.

If you go back a generation or two you will find that society used Christian values even to the point of regarding the Sabbath as important and the sacredness of marriage and non-abortion etc. Most western nations were built on Christianity. Look at the legal system with how it acknowledges God's laws as its basis and up until recently, people swore on the Bible and no other religious book in court.

The claim that America like other western nations were not founded on Christianity is exaggerated. Most of the founding fathers had Christian beliefs and those who didn’t had some form of belief in an independent divine presence such as Deism which influenced morality. They installed Christian values in society despite also introducing the right to choose your religion because the founding documents were also about politics where they had to have rights to independence as a nation and person. But they certainly promoted and supported Christianity as the basis for morality.

The Founders disagreed on much but were nearly unanimous concerning biblical morality.
Was America Founded As A Christian Nation?

Claims about magic and god(s) cannot be proven so you fail right of the bat.

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood, no morals there.

Christianity just absorbed moral values from its time, it hasnt really invented any (look at laws from the roman empire f.ex.).

Im not from the US so I couldnt care less about the founding fathers.

 

[Kylie]

Proving Christian moral values are objectively right is not just based on being Christian values. God put His laws in our hearts as the bible says. This is on our conscience. People intuitively know certain things are right and wrong. It is this intuitive behavior (lived moral behavior) that shows there are objective morals.

I've said it before and it seems like I'll say it many more times in the future. The fact that most people have similar ideas about morality is not proof that such morality is objective.

The claim that America like other western nations were not founded on Christianity is exaggerated. Most of the founding fathers had Christian beliefs and those who didn’t had some form of belief in an independent divine presence such as Deism which influenced morality. They installed Christian values in society despite also introducing the right to choose your religion because the founding documents were also about politics where they had to have rights to independence as a nation and person. But they certainly promoted and supported Christianity as the basis for morality.

The Founders disagreed on much but were nearly unanimous concerning biblical morality.
Was America Founded As A Christian Nation?

Tell me, what does Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli say?

 

[Moral Orel]

Then I guess your not unreasonable for not liking something wrong to happen based on not liking it to happen to you because there is no right and wrong under a subjective morality. But the question is would you consider someone unreasonable who said they abuse a child because they like it happening when they do it.

"Unreasonable" isn't a word I would use to describe such a person. Terrible, despicable, awful, etc. I label folks right along with the way I label their behavior. Donating to charity is nice, so people who donate are nice. Abusing children is terrible, so people who abuse children are terrible. Whether or not a person is reasonable or unreasonable has nothing to do with me evaluating those types of behavior.

 

[stevevw]

Claims about magic and god(s) cannot be proven so you fail right of the bat.

I'm not trying to prove God though.

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood, no morals there.

This is just a figure of speech like " people know in their heart that this is the truth". That is why I encircled "conscience" as this is what the Bible says determines moral right and wrong by either accusing or excusing us from moral wrong. IE Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,)" they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Christianity just absorbed moral values from its time, it hasnt really invented any (look at laws from the roman empire f.ex.).

Yes was religion invented or discovered. Being invented doesn't explain why something is wrong. Yet people intuitively act like there are moral truths outside of themselves that are discovered.

The Roman Empire's morality was based on religion. On their Gods who determined their morality and not their own subjective morality.
Ancient Roman Moral Principles
Religion and morality were the foundation of Roman society and religion had, at least in the early days, a fundamental influence in the government of ancient Rome: the earliest kings based their right to rule on their own personal hotline with various Roman deities.
Antique Roman History

I'm not from the US so I couldnt care less about the founding fathers.

OK well either am I. But it shows that one of the greatest nations who had a strong principle about doing the right thing and being the worlds representative of good was primarily built on Christian values. So were most nations in the world.[/quote]

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not trying to prove God though.

This is just a figure of speech like " people know in their heart that this is the truth". That is why I encircled "conscience" as this is what the Bible says determines moral right and wrong by either accusing or excusing us from moral wrong. IE Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,)" they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Yes was religion invented or discovered. Being invented doesn't explain why something is wrong. Yet people intuitively act like there are moral truths outside of themselves that are discovered.

The Roman Empire's morality was based on religion. On their Gods who determined their morality and not their own subjective morality.
Ancient Roman Moral Principles
Religion and morality were the foundation of Roman society and religion had, at least in the early days, a fundamental influence in the government of ancient Rome: the earliest kings based their right to rule on their own personal hotline with various Roman deities.
Antique Roman History

OK well either am I. But it shows that one of the greatest nations who had a strong principle about doing the right thing and being the worlds representative of good was primarily built on Christian values. So were most nations in the world.

This is both simplistic and wrong on many levels.

 

[stevevw]

"Unreasonable" isn't a word I would use to describe such a person. Terrible, despicable, awful, etc. I label folks right along with the way I label their behavior. Donating to charity is nice, so people who donate are nice. Abusing children is terrible, so people who abuse children are terrible. Whether or not a person is reasonable or unreasonable has nothing to do with me evaluating those types of behavior.

But neither does it describe evaluating those behaviors. Evaluation implies a measure being used to determine something. In the case of morality, it is about behavior and whether it is right or wrong. Reasonable means having sound judgment and being fair and sensible about it. That is why I specify a person is reasonable as some people can be unsound and unfair in their judgments.

So any reasonable person will see that certain acts are always morally wrong. But when you make it about "Donating to charity is nice, so people who donate are nice" it makes things arbitrary and not about morality. For example, Donating to charity is nice for some but not nice when it means denying your own kids food on the table. Abusing children may be terrible to you but satisfying to another.

 

[stevevw]

This is both simplistic and wrong on many levels.

How is it simplistic and wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it simplistic and wrong.

Study moral philosophy 101 to learn (as you should have before trying to ”debate” a subject you clearly know nothing about).

 

[stevevw]

I've said it before and it seems like I'll say it many more times in the future. The fact that most people have similar ideas about morality is not proof that such morality is objective.

I agree. But it seems you are forgetting or have missed that I said support for objective morality is more than just about numbers (quantity) and claims. It is about (quality) of response and actions as well.

It is the fact that many who claim subjective morality contradict their own moral position by acting and reacting objectively when that moral is put into a real-life situation. It's easy to make claims (talk) about moral positions but another to apply them in live situations. I have given many examples already. This feels like Deja Vu.

Tell me, what does Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli say?

Do you honestly think that this small section of the Treaty of Tripoli is saying the US was not built on Christian values? That is using this out of context. And what of the many non-religious historical accounts that America was founded on Christian values and how the majority of its founders were Christians. Are they all lying? Plus this treaty was ended and a new one did not have that clause in it.

Secularists love to quote the first clause of the first sentence to Article 11 of the 1797 treaty, which reads, “the government of the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion.” The problem with this is that quote isn’t the entire first sentence – it isn’t even all of the first clause – and it completely takes the Treaty of Tripoli out of its historical context.
Secularists, please stop quoting the Treaty of Tripoli

 

[stevevw]

Study moral philosophy 101 to learn (as you should have before trying to ”debate” a subject you clearly know nothing about).

I like your debating tactics. Any time it is too difficult for you to answer a reply you avoid things by making a logical fallacy for ignorance of the opponent as though they don't know anything at all about morality.

Lets breakdown your claim that I don't know what I am talking about and my answers are too simplistic.
First, you said
Claims about magic and god(s) cannot be proven so you fail right of the bat.
I said proving God has nothing to do with proving objective morality. So what has that got to do with moral philosophy 101? In fact according to moral philosophers its the other way around. We have to prove objective morals to prove God. So I was questioning the relevance of your reply and not anything to do with moral philosophy.

Next your said
The heart is a muscle that pumps blood, no morals there.
This also has nothing to do with moral philosophy 101 but more to do with theology and anatomy. So I cannot see the relevance of your reply to learn moral philosophy.

Then you said
Christianity just absorbed moral values from its time, it hasn't really invented any (look at laws from the roman empire f.ex.).
This is about history and not moral philosophy. Once again irrelevant.

Lastly, you said
I'm not from the US so I couldn't care less about the founding fathers.
This is also about history and nothing to do with moral philosophy 101

So I cannot see how your reply is justified. You will have to give a little more explanation than just dismissing things with stock standard replies that do not even relate to what we are talking about.

 

[VirOptimus]

I like your debating tactics. Any time it is too difficult for you to answer a reply you avoid things by making a logical fallacy for ignorance of the opponent as though they don't know anything at all about morality.

Lets breakdown your claim that I don't know what I am talking about and my answers are too simplistic.
First, you said
Claims about magic and god(s) cannot be proven so you fail right of the bat.
I said proving God has nothing to do with proving objective morality. So what has that got to do with moral philosophy 101? In fact according to moral philosophers its the other way around. We have to prove objective morals to prove God. So I was questioning the relevance of your reply and not anything to do with moral philosophy.

Next your said
The heart is a muscle that pumps blood, no morals there.
This also has nothing to do with moral philosophy 101 but more to do with theology. So I cannot see the relevance of your reply to learn moral philosophy.

Then you said
Christianity just absorbed moral values from its time, it hasn't really invented any (look at laws from the roman empire f.ex.).
This is about history and not moral philosophy. Once again irrelevant.

Lastly, you said
I'm not from the US so I couldn't care less about the founding fathers.
This is also about history and nothing to do with moral philosophy 101

So I cannot see how your reply is justified. But even so I cannot see how my reply is simplistic either. I gave answers that related to your post like where you said the heart pumps blood and there's no morals. I quoted the verse that related to what I was referring to in my original post which clarified things. That is the only answer I could have given and the correct one.

You will have to give a little more explanation than just dismissing things with stock standard replies that do not even relate to what we are talking about.

No I wont.

I give the answers your posts deserve.

 

[Kylie]

I agree. But it seems you are forgetting or have missed that I said support for objective morality is more than just about numbers (quantity) and claims. It is about (quality) of response and actions as well.

Something can be of high quality and still be subjective.

And how do you determine the quality of morality? Lemme guess, it's how closely it aligns with the morality you've already decided is the objective one?

It is the fact that many who claim subjective morality contradict their own moral position by acting and reacting objectively when that moral is put into a real-life situation. It's easy to make claims (talk) about moral positions but another to apply them in live situations. I have given many examples already. This feels like Deja Vu.

Their morality isn't consistent? GASP! It's almost like their morality is SUBJECTIVE!

Do you honestly think that this small section of the Treaty of Tripoli is saying the US was not built on Christian values? That is using this out of context. And what of the many non-religious historical accounts that America was founded on Christian values and how the majority of its founders were Christians. Are they all lying? Plus this treaty was ended and a new one did not have that clause in it.

Secularists love to quote the first clause of the first sentence to Article 11 of the 1797 treaty, which reads, “the government of the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion.” The problem with this is that quote isn’t the entire first sentence – it isn’t even all of the first clause – and it completely takes the Treaty of Tripoli out of its historical context.
Secularists, please stop quoting the Treaty of Tripoli

Okay, let's leave aside the fact that Article 11 is basically just saying that Americans aren't going to hassle Muslims (see how that's turned out though?) by saying, "Hey, America isn't a Christian nation, so we've got no beef with you," which still depends outright on claiming that the US of A wasn't founded as a Christian nation. Seriously, how do you think that bit, "not founded on the Christian religion" can be cancelled out by anything that follows?

But as I said, let's leave that aside, okay?

Is there anything else that shows that America was not intended to be A Christian nation?

Well, yes.

The Constitution is a completely secular document. There's no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. The word "religion" itself is only mentioned twice. The first time is in the First Amendment, where it says that people are to be free to establish any religion, and no one can stop them from practicing their religion. The second time is in Article VI, where it says that you can't make a religious test a requirement for holding any public office. And that was despite the fact that some representatives WANTED to push for Christianity as the official religion.

And yes, many of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but that doesn't mean that America is a Christian nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of having a church-state union, and were specifically seeking to avoid that. Doesn't seem like they'd be saying that the best way to do that was to base their new country on the Bible, does it?

Even in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used the vaguest words possible when talking about anything religious. When he spoke of the Creator, he intentionally avoided any terminology that would indicate any specific religion.

And the whole freedom of religion thing doesn't just mean that you can be any kind of Christian you want. In 1985, Justice John Paul Stevens said that freedom of religion didn't mean, "...merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another..." which "would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism." He clearly stated that freedom of religion meant, "...the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

There have been many attempts to push for a Christian Nation and clear references to Christianity in the Constitution. In 1864, the National Reform Association pushed for a "Christian nation" amendment which would have acknowledged "...Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." The Judiciary Committee voted against this.

Such efforts happened several times over the years, such as the one in the 1950s which attempted to add to the Constitution a recognition of Jesus as the bestower of liberties, but that never got voted out of committee. Efforts to revive it in the 1960s likewise failed.

So the only way you could even try to argue that America is a Christian nation is by saying that there are lots of Christians living there. But the majority of the American population is female (50.8 percent according to a census in 2010). But would we say that American is a female nation? Of course not.

So unless you can point to a specific point in which one of the Founding Fathers said that they thought America should be founded on the basis of Christian ideals specifically, you're claim falls flat.