Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What are you talking about? I never said they harmed whomever they wanted. Instead I said they harmed a number of minorities. Please read what I said. You initial point - however facetious - is refuted by the weight of history.

I said "It's binding on anyone who wants to live in a society. You can't just go around harming whoever you want" and you responded "Hold on a minute... isn't that exactly what the Nazis did in their society".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm.. I notice that you didn't bother to answer my question.

I'm talking about a moral law, not a rule. The distinction is that a law is an irrefutable fact irrespective of our subjective opinions. Furthermore, a law is universal and immutable no matter what we say or think. Again, this flows into the much broader discussion about Christian eschatology and about God being a God of justice (and mercy).

I did answer your question by pointing out that I see no practical difference between a universal immutable law that people regularly choose not to follow and a subjective suggestion that people regularly choose not to follow. Either way the same bad things happen.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well you better start re-reading because the bible documents the Israelites' sins (and God's judgement) as much as it does their victories. They may have been chosen (and I suggest you view this in light of the NT) but they were far from perfect or ever-blessed in victory.

I never understood this whole thing of trying to give context to the OT with the NT. The Israelites didn't have the benefit of the NT to give context to their holy book to give them the supposed true meaning of it so I don't see why I should apply meaning to it that they themselves didn't have access to

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please try to read my posts. I never claimed that objective morality functioned better than subjective morality. (How would you differentiate between the two?) Indeed, I said that objective morality exists beyond our flawed interpretations and false assuredness of our own morality. I also said that killing Jews is wrong even if the world thought otherwise.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Or perhaps we in the West have been living through an unparalleled period of prosperity and you don't really understand the consequence of your own words: "when people need to survive they will do whatever it takes". Again, I've not stated that people won't do good (and this begs the question what is "good"? Is something considered good if it's beneficial for you? Me? The majority? The minority?) if given the option. Indeed, this, I believe, is a hint at the existence of an (imperfect) adherence to a moral law. In the same way I believe that a universal outrage at an injustice is also an echo of something beyond subjective morality.

Ah I think I'm finally starting to get the point you're making. You're not trying to say people should just murder each other if there's no god, you're trying to use the fact that human beings have empathy for one another and care about each others' well being to argue that objective morality exists and therefore that god exists as the source of this moral law. As far as I know C.S. Lewis is one of the main proponents of this idea so I blame him for theists using this arguments so much but anyway, I see no connection whatsoever between the empathy that human beings show for each other and the existence of a god. As far as I'm concerned it's a total non-sequitur. Can you please explain to me why you think that caring for another's well being even if it's not directly and immediately beneficial to yourself suggests the existence of a god? I honestly don't see the connection

By the way you should watch this video (from 34 minutes but you should watch the whole thing. It's excellent):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

It will show you that if I take a knife and poke it into the palm of my hand causing pain, certain neurons will light up in my brain and if you see me do this the same neurons will light up in your brain. It sounds crazy but it's true. You will actually feel my pain. We have empathy for one another at a neurological level, it's involuntary, it's wired into our brains. And it doesn't only apply to humans either; if you watch March of the penguins you'll see that sometimes when a baby dies the mother will try to steal another's young but the rest of the flock will stop her because even penguins have a sense of right and wrong, it's wired into their brains too. If there is any over-arching "moral law" that subconsciously tells us right from wrong, that's it.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said "It's binding on anyone who wants to live in a society. You can't just go around harming whoever you want" and you responded "Hold on a minute... isn't that exactly what the Nazis did in their society".

Perhaps you should have read and copied the rest of the paragraph instead of selectively quoting.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did answer your question by pointing out that I see no practical difference between a universal immutable law that people regularly choose not to follow and a subjective suggestion that people regularly choose not to follow. Either way the same bad things happen.

So there is no golden rule? All we have is morality that is contingent on circumstance and nothing is really good and nothing is really bad; it's all just shades of grey. What I'm gathering is that rape might be disagreeable to you, and you might say that it is wrong according to our society, but what you can't say is that it's wrong or wicked full stop.

This reminds me of a story I posted a while back about a woman who went to deepest darkest Africa to battle against the grotesque practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). On one occasion after delivering a reasoned and passionate speech to a particular group of elders on why FGM was wrong, they curtly informed her that they had lived this way for countless centuries and FGM was an integral aspect of maintaining order in their society. (Perhaps they shared your view and thought that the end (survival) justifies the means). They then rhetorically asked her who she though she was to tell them what was right for their culture. Before sending her packing they reminded her that they hadn't asked for her opinions and suggested that she should shove her Western values up her bottom.

I believe that the lady in question (can't recall her name) is still bravely battling against the practice of FGM. But that encounter - the obstinate refusal to see the gold her position was framed in - was quite an awaking for her. Nothing right, nothing wrong, just selective application of the golden rule. And yet it is somehow terribly unsatisfying...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I never understood this whole thing of trying to give context to the OT with the NT. The Israelites didn't have the benefit of the NT to give context to their holy book to give them the supposed true meaning of it so I don't see why I should apply meaning to it that they themselves didn't have access to

I was attempting to suggest that you view your understanding of "chosen people" in light of the NT where there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile. All in all this wasn't a comment about morality. Sorry if this wasn't made clear.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah I think I'm finally starting to get the point you're making. You're not trying to say people should just murder each other if there's no god, you're trying to use the fact that human beings have empathy for one another and care about each others' well being to argue that objective morality exists and therefore that god exists as the source of this moral law. As far as I know C.S. Lewis is one of the main proponents of this idea so I blame him for theists using this arguments so much but anyway, I see no connection whatsoever between the empathy that human beings show for each other and the existence of a god. As far as I'm concerned it's a total non-sequitur. Can you please explain to me why you think that caring for another's well being even if it's not directly and immediately beneficial to yourself suggests the existence of a god? I honestly don't see the connection

Nope, this isn't what I'm saying - I don't believe I have mentioned empathy at all. Nor am I arguing that an objective morality proves God's existence. (This said I wonder how such a thing could exist it doesn't come from God.) Indeed, debating God's existence hasn't been the reason for my posting. I'm actually trying to understand what the golden rule actually means and what it's worth if it's not binding and it's contingent on circumstances.

(I think I may have viewed that video before but don't have time right now to look again.)

For clarification, Lewis wasn't the first or last (or best?) to argue for an objective morality. From memory he didn't argue centrally from empathy (or "heard instinct" as he put it), and I'm not disputing that people feel empathy or such an emotion manifests itself in quantifiable neurological interactions. Indeed, the existence of empathy is often part of the counter argument to Lewis used by atheists on the internetz. Perhaps you need to pick up Mere Christianity to clarify exactly what he said. Though you shouldn't stop with Lewis. I'm sure there would be other recommendations forthcoming if you are interested.

I'm curious how you know that penguins can distinguish between right and wrong or even have any concept of such things? Are you saying that they examine the available choices to determine the correct moral decision?

Finally, if there was a such a thing as objective truth (and it was somehow proved) what would this mean to you? Would you be revealed?

chozometroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For clarification, Lewis wasn't the first or last (or best?) to argue for an objective morality. From memory he didn't argue centrally from empathy (or "heard instinct" as he put it)

I've herd of that. :pac:

To quote from the book:

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help(due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.

Fanny Cradock

Whoops!

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you should have read and copied the rest of the paragraph instead of selectively quoting.

I thought that was the part you were responding to. Apologies.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was attempting to suggest that you view your understanding of "chosen people" in light of the NT where there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile. All in all this wasn't a comment about morality. Sorry if this wasn't made clear.

Yes indeed, your wonderful, perfect, absolute, objective, universally binding and most importantly immutable moral law.............changed. And I think it changed because the Old Testament recorded the subjective morality that was prevalent in their society, which is clearly more primitive than the morality of Jesus, which is in turn the subjective morality of a human being and his apostles which our society has now moved beyond in ways such as we no longer instruct women to be silent and not have authority over men, we longer keep slaves and people are starting to realise that homosexuality is neither a choice nor immoral since it harms no one. The moral zeitgeist is always changing and nowhere is this more evident than in the bible

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nope, this isn't what I'm saying - I don't believe I have mentioned empathy at all. Nor am I arguing that an objective morality proves God's existence. (This said I wonder how such a thing could exist it doesn't come from God.) Indeed, debating God's existence hasn't been the reason for my posting. I'm actually trying to understand what the golden rule actually means and what it's worth if it's not binding and it's contingent on circumstances.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by binding. In your example of the woman fighting against FGM, I could go up to the people and say that they are harming another human being for no good reason and they have no right to do that whereas you could say that you have this book that contains what you believe to be the objective moral law that says this is wrong (although I'm not sure how you can argue that since the OT commands MGM: male genital mutilation).

Either way their answer could be the same: they had lived this way for countless centuries and FGM was an integral aspect of maintaining order in their society. They don't care that I tell them it's wrong and they don't care that you tell them it's wrong either. You believe you have the objective moral law but they don't so what good is it? And even people who believe in christiantiy have been shown to interpret the moral law to whatever they see fit and often use this authority to carry out horrendous acts so again, what good is it?

How is the law immutable and binding if it can be interpreted in many ways and if I don't have to follow it?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you need to pick up Mere Christianity to clarify exactly what he said.

I tried reading some of it and it just angered me for two reasons: 1) It made absolutely no sense and 2) I had seen most of it before and I realised that this is where theists got many of the arguments that they thought were oh so logical.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious how you know that penguins can distinguish between right and wrong or even have any concept of such things? Are you saying that they examine the available choices to determine the correct moral decision?

I think this illustrates the different ways that we view morality. You see it as something divine that is imparted on us where I see it as an animal instinct just like the fight or flight mechanism that we use in our decision making process and most importantly overrule when it steers us wrong such as its tendency towards in-group morality. With the penguins there is no higher reasoning involved, they don't sit around and ponder the metaphysical implications of stealing a child, but they have wired into their brains an instinct that says that stealing another's young is unacceptable. They have these instincts because such instincts are crucial for living in social groups. Penguins huddle together in the winter for warmth so penguins that cannot live in social groups because of not having these instincts die. By the way another example of their sense of fairness is that when huddled in a group penguins will take turns being on the outside and taking the brunt of the cold.

Humans have the same instincts wired into our brains. In many areas both in and out of the sphere of morality our subconscious minds make our decisions for us and our conscious minds often just try to rationalise a decision that's already been made. When somebody "feels something in their gut", that's because their subconscious has already made the decision for them but they have no rational reason for having made the decision. When people "just know" something is wrong that is because of a circuit in their brain telling them its wrong and as the video I linked you to says: because these cognitive mechanisms are so hard to be conscious of, religions hijack them and claim that we wouldn't have morality if it weren't for them.

Honestly, I think it's so much more fascinating to try to understand how these cognitive mechanisms function and influence our decisions and how they came to evolve rather than to just say "god did it" as we used to do for our physical bodies and as religious people still do for our minds. They all evolved through the same process and the fact that the vast majority of us view killing as wrong is no more miraculous than the fact that the vast majority of us have two eyes and ten fingers. For social animals an instinct that compels an individual to care for its group and punish transgression is just as advantageous (and therefore prone to natural selection) as opposable thumbs

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So there is no golden rule? All we have is morality that is contingent on circumstance and nothing is really good and nothing is really bad; it's all just shades of grey. What I'm gathering is that rape might be disagreeable to you, and you might say that it is wrong according to our society, but what you can't say is that it's wrong or wicked full stop.

The world is a complex place and everything has to be contingent on circumstances but that's not the same as saying nothing is really good or bad. I can say killing is wrong but killing someone who's trying to kill someone else is not wrong. But killing someone who's trying to kill someone who's trying to kill someone is back to being wrong. No act is in itself inherently wrong. What makes it right or wrong is the reasons for carrying out the act and the consequences of the act. The closest you will ever get to something being absolutely wrong is if there is no conceivable justification for carrying out the act, if somebody harmed another living being for absolutely no reason other than their own selfish gain. That's why people see a distinction between hunting and the meat industry, between murder and euthanasia, between Americans killing Germans in WW2 and killing Iraqis right now, between paedophilia and homosexuality.

I mentioned the last one because it shows one of the problems with religious morality. Once you drop religious dogma there is no rational reason to even consider those two similar because the latter involves two consenting adults and the former is child rape but many religious people compare them such as Iris Robinson. That's not to say that religion is the only reason people dislike homosexuality, it's one of our many evolved cognitive mechanisms, it's one more thing people "feel in their gut". What religion does in this case is it gives the only possible rational justification for this gut feeling, that the ultimate unquestionable authority dislikes homosexuality. Once you associate the two you no longer have to explain yourself, you just point to the moral law. You say of your idea of morality without god that "it is somehow terribly unsatisfying" and you may very well be right but your declaration that you consider it to be unsatisfying, your desire for particular moral opinions to have the weight of unquestionable authority does not make it so but it does explain why religion was invented in the first place.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, if there was a such a thing as objective truth (and it was somehow proved) what would this mean to you? Would you be revealed?

If it could be shown to exist independently of humans and be supernatural in origin then I still wouldn't become a christian because that fact would add weight to a great many religions, not just yours, and I would probably still remain an atheist in that it doesn't necessitate a theistic god either any more than the law of gravity does. Having said that it would indicate something more than our material existence.

The important question then becomes: how do we test for objective morality? As I said, the fact that most people have largely similar moral opinions is no more miraculous than the fact that we all have largely similar bodies because our brains evolved just like our bodies did so how else can we test for it? Surely for there to be objective morality it's not enough for you to point out a few things where the vast majority of people view something as morally repugnant (except obviously the people who carried out the act), surely if our moral code was imparted on us by a divine being we would all have to share exactly the same moral opinions on every single subject? The reality of largely similar but somewhat different morality points to evolution, not to divine intervention.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

I've herd of that. :pac:

To quote from the book:

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help(due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.

No you're right it can't. The third one is our social instincts, the ones that compel us to help our pack that are crucial for social animals. It's the same instinct that causes penguins to take turns enduring the brunt of the cold and to put themselves at risk of injury by preventing a grieving mother from stealing the young of another. This is simply an argument from ignorance, an "I don't know so it must be God" argument. People have known for thousands of years that we have these compulsions and they have mostly been attributed to divine sources but just as science has explained the complexity of our bodies, it is beginning to explain the complexity of our minds. Cognitive neuroscience is chipping away at the mechanisms that compel us and other animals who exhibit similar behaviour to behave in the way we do.

philologos

You keep bringing up evolution, but I haven't heard a decent justification for this yet.

Evolution can explain how we are biologically capable of holding to moral codes. It does not explain the moral codes themselves.

Carrying on though. We have the typical Moral Zeitgeist notion. This doesn't refute the notion of universal morality, rather it shows how human opinion fluctuates throughout time. If there is a universal standard of morals, any Moral Zeitgeist is utterly irrelevant. What will matter will be God's standard, not human standards.

Humans have a great ability to justify their own actions even when they are blatantly wrong. An objective moral standard (in this case God's) allows us to soberly look at our actions with a different litmus test to that of our own. Our own very often gets skewed.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You keep bringing up evolution, but I haven't heard a decent justification for this yet.

Evolution can explain how we are biologically capable of holding to moral codes. It does not explain the moral codes themselves.

Carrying on though. We have the typical Moral Zeitgeist notion. This doesn't refute the notion of universal morality, rather it shows how human opinion fluctuates throughout time. If there is a universal standard of morals, any Moral Zeitgeist is utterly irrelevant. What will matter will be God's standard, not human standards.

In fairness Jakkass I'm not having this discussion with you again. I and several others have already attempted to explain your misunderstanding on this matter many times and you keep saying the same things that we have already tried to explain are missing the point so I don't see anything to be gained in saying the same thing for probably the 6th time at this stage. The short answer is: yes it does explain the moral codes themselves

Here you are trying to get me to disprove universal morality, as usual placing the burden of evidence where it does not belong. If you're going to claim that there is a universal standard that people just ignore and rationalise then it's unfalsifiable, just like all good religious ideas.

edit: btw, you say that people have a great ability to justify their own actions even when they are blatantly wrong and I wholeheartedly agree. One of the major ways people do that is to claim, or convince themselves, that its god's will

philologos

You haven't really produced a viable explanation of this, and if you're going to throw it into the discussion, an explanation is warranted.

It's a simple question. How does evolution explain moral codes beyond our ability to hold them?

Sam Vimes wrote:

Here you are trying to get me to disprove universal morality, as usual placing the burden of evidence where it does not belong. If you're going to claim that there is a universal standard that people just ignore and rationalise then it's unfalsifiable, just like all good religious ideas.

You might want to check the Charter.

1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.

I'll be asking for your reasoning, if you are going to bring things such as Moral Zeitgeist and evolution up. There is no "get out" clause in this case. Your positions are up for justification as well as mine.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You haven't really produced a viable explanation of this, and if you're going to throw it into the discussion, an explanation is warranted.

It's a simple question. How does evolution explain moral codes beyond our ability to hold them?

A subconscious compulsion to care for the well being of a member of your family/tribe/pack/species is not inherently different to a compulsion to run away from danger. Both are cognitive mechanisms that we are not consciously aware of and both aid survival. With the latter the benefit is more obvious but the benefits of a group that look out for each other and protect each other should also be obvious. And these cognitive mechanisms are not inherently different to our physical mechanisms. Our entire physical make up is encoded in our genes, both the mechanisms that make up our bodies and the mechanisms that make up our minds.

A huge amount of our perception is filtered through these mechanisms before we ever become aware of them. Just think of the fact that you can pick a single face out of a crowd of hundreds of people and think of the amount of cognition that must go into that that you don't even think about.

All that is required for morality to evolve is:

1. The ability of DNA (or memetics for that matter) to encode a mechanism that compels an organism to care for its kin
2. An environment that makes this encoded mechanism advantageous for survival

So are you claiming that number 1 is impossible and do you have any evidence to back up this claim, since there is a body of evidence to support it?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You might want to check the Charter.

I'll be asking for your reasoning, if you are going to bring things such as Moral Zeitgeist and evolution up. There is no "get out" clause in this case. Your positions are up for justification as well as mine.

The thing is you weren't asking me for my reasoning, you were asking me to disprove universal morality. I can give you my reasoning and I have done but I cannot disprove an unfalsifiable position. I can however attempt to explain it in another way which is what I have done

philologos

Where did I ask you to do that? I merely asked you to justify your own position on evolution.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did I ask you to do that? I merely asked you to justify your own position on evolution.

Here:

Jakkass wrote: »

We have the typical Moral Zeitgeist notion. This doesn't refute the notion of universal morality, rather it shows how human opinion fluctuates throughout time.

I wasn't attempting to refute the notion of universal morality; as you have presented it the notion is unfalsifiable partly because anything that doesn't fit with it is explained away by man's imperfection. I was attempting to explain why we are prone to thinking such a thing exists.

wolfsbane

rugbyman wrote: »

Wolfsbane, i get value out of a lot of your posts. Though i disagree with most of them, you are a calm and rational debater.

the following was written by you, though tongue in cheek,

"God is not in control, bad things happen because He is unable to intervene. We are at the mercy of nature and our fellow-man. When they decide we suffer, we do - unless we are stronger than they. No point praying to God about it. "

I think this is , though you may not have meant it to be, just about right.

Since I have no reason to beilieve in a God, so for me he does not exist, he cannot be in control, and cannot intervene.

re mercy of nature, stronger than they, no point praying, my thoughts exactly.

Regards Rugbyman

Thank you for the compliment.

Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept there is no good or evil, that murder and paedophilia are of no more or less significance than mowing the lawn or pissing in the snow?

Many atheists like to pretend some things do matter more than others, and they invent their morality and tut-tut about those that violate it. Few seem willing to say there is no 'ought' and to live by whatever pleases them at the time.

I think that is because they know in their hearts that there is actual good and evil, that some things do matter. But rather than accept there is a God to whom they must give account, they pretend to themselves they are just a self-aware collection of atoms.

I hope you apply your rational thoughts to this, my friend.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept there is no good or evil, that murder and paedophilia are of no more or less significance than mowing the lawn or pissing in the snow?

And why would you think Atheists believe that ?

I can only speak for myself but here is my reasoning, and I must stress this is not an atheist 'position', it is my position. Maybe others agree, I don't know (or care).

Murder is wrong to me because it causes suffering, I don't want to suffer and I don't want to cause suffering to anyone else. I believe that we are extrodinarily lucky to be alive, I feel privileged to be alive and to experience sentient existence. Murder is wrong because it extinguishes that life.

Paedophilia is wrong because it causes suffering to the defenceless.

This argument is so old and so wrong that I am sick of hearing it. I don't believe in any deity, I don't believe I will pay for my actions after I die. And in opposition to many atheist views I also don't particularly think the punishment by law is a big factor in these things.

Murder is wrong because of the factors I have highlighted, I don't need to fear any supernatural being or any legal repercussions to come to that conclusion.

I think that is because they know in their hearts that there is actual good and evil, that some things do matter.

If I really believed in good and evil then I most definately would NOT be a fan of your deity. If these supernatural beings believed to be deities in this world existed then I would consider them to be evil.

Fanny Cradock

Previous post moved to this thread and is in response to this post by Wolfsbane.

P.S. Sam, that's a long post. I'll type a truncated response whenever I can.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept there is no good or evil, that murder and paedophilia are of no more or less significance than mowing the lawn or pissing in the snow?

Many atheists like to pretend some things do matter more than others, and they invent their morality and tut-tut about those that violate it. Few seem willing to say there is no 'ought' and to live by whatever pleases them at the time.

I think that is because they know in their hearts that there is actual good and evil, that some things do matter. But rather than accept there is a God to whom they must give account, they pretend to themselves they are just a self-aware collection of atoms.

This is what that sounds like to me:

Have you faced up to the logic of what atheism then means? Do you accept brocolli is as appealing as a big mac, that fatty foods and salt are of no more or less significance than steamed vegetables and water?

Many atheists like to pretend some foods are more appealing than than others, and they invent their tastes and tut-tut about those that say they prefer steamed vegetables. Few seem willing to say there is no 'more appealing food' and to eat whatever pleases them at the time.

I think that is because they know in their hearts that fatty foods are more appealing than steamed vegetables, that some things do taste better. But rather than accept there is a God to whom they must give account, they pretend to themselves they are just a self-aware collection of atoms.

How can fatty foods possibly be more appealing than steamed vegetables unless there is a god wolfsbane!!!

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

Evolution can explain how we are biologically capable of holding to moral codes. It does not explain the moral codes themselves.

To take one example of a behaviour:

Behaviour favoured by natural selection: not killing others
Behaviour now "hardwired" (genetically, culturally) into us: not killing others
What we now refer to as "good" behaviour: not killing others
What professional and party philosophers spend a great deal of time discussing: the nature of "morality"
How to solve the problem of "morality": start inviting biologists to parties.

I don't know about you but "not killing others" isn't a matter of choice for me. I don't consciously follow a "moral code" by not killing other people. It's part of my genetic and consequently cultural makeup and, I hope and assume, part of yours. The term "moral" and the concept of "moral behaviour" has been created by people who want to find complicated solutions to something that needs no further explanation than the compulsion to "fight", "run", "feed", "reproduce" etc.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You keep bringing up evolution, but I haven't heard a decent justification for this yet.

By the way Jakkass, since you appear to have dropped off the thread again without answering my question about DNA I thought I'd point out that I attempted to justify my position on this thread several days ago. I asked you several questions which you never answered. I even encouraged you to answer my questions since you were still thanking others' posts but you never responded.

It's quite frustrating to find myself in a situation where I have attempted to justify my position only to be ignored and then accused of never having made a decent attempt to justify it. If you felt that my initial point was inadequate you should have said so and explained why rather than not responding to it and days later declaring that I had made no decent attempt to justify it.

You of course have no obligation to respond to me but please do not claim that I have made no decent attempt to justify my position when you have simply not responded to my attempt

Gary L

neuro-praxis wrote: »

If you could show me a human being who does not have beliefs and does not obey rules, I'd be very interested.

I spend a lot of mental energy trying to be that way. I feel ignorance is fundamental to my existence. I try not to have set notions of the world around me. Firstly because I am fallible and secondly because it is always changing. Theres a kind of absurdity to life, its beyond my understanding and I have to accept that. Its actually very satisfying. I guess its my way of coping with the big questions without God. They are very depressing questions to not have an answer to let me tell ya.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Behaviour favoured by natural selection: not killing others

Killing others could actually be very favourable to survival. Which is why I regard survival as a tenuous basis of morality.

doctoremma wrote: »

How to solve the problem of "morality": start inviting biologists to parties.

How is basing morality on survival going to help?

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know about you but "not killing others" isn't a matter of choice for me.

Obligation, duty and God given empathy do it for me just fine rather than the selfish purpose of survival.

doctoremma wrote: »

It's part of my genetic and consequently cultural makeup and, I hope and assume, part of yours.

Why do people murder others then?

doctoremma wrote: »

The term "moral" and the concept of "moral behaviour" has been created by people who want to find complicated solutions to something that needs no further explanation than the compulsion to "fight", "run", "feed", "reproduce" etc.

This is an utterly selfish basis for ethical behaviour.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

.

Killing others could actually be very favourable to survival. Which is why I regard survival as a tenuous basis of morality.

It could, but it mightn't always be. There might be more "advantages" to not killing.

How is basing morality on survival going to help?

Who said it was solely about survival?

God given empathy do it for me just fine rather than the selfish purpose of survival.

Why are some animals more empathetic than humans then?

Why do people murder others then?

Better question : why don't the majority?
Think about it Jakkass, suppose only 90% of a given population are pacifists but 10% are murderers. Murderer's will survive as long as they reproduce. Btw, that is really over simplifying everything and just looking at from the behavioural point of view (no psychology involved).

This is an utterly selfish basis for ethical behaviour

Is there such a thing as a truly "selfless" act?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Why do people murder others then?

Because there is nothing to suggest that objective morality exists and our evolved instincts aren't perfect. That question is very easy to answer for someone who accepts that morality evolved but I would think more difficult for someone who thinks that god has written his laws on our hearts. Did he skip some people? Or write them less strongly maybe?

I had an idea the other day that I want to float. Theists say that without god all moral opinions are equally valid so let's go with that assumption. In the vast majority of cases it's perfectly fine for all opinions to be considered equally valid but the problem with opinions that we call immoral is that they conflict with other opinions. I have a desire to live but if someone else has a desire to kill me we both have mutually exclusive opinions and a solution must be reached. We cannot both get what we want. These opinions cannot be held to be equally valid because they cannot coexist. The question then becomes: how do we decide which one is more valid?

And the important thing is that in that case the conflict is not just between me and the person that wants to kill me, there is also a conflict going on inside the person's head. They have a desire to live just as I do but they also have a desire to believe that killing is acceptable. For this reason no sane person can ever arrive at a moral system that thinks killing is fine in general. You don't have to convince someone else that killing is wrong, they have to convince themselves. There is absolutely no way they can come up with a moral system that allows killing that can be universally applied, they have to somehow arrive at a moral system that only applies to others and use a separate one for themselves and their loved ones.

Unfortunately people throughout history have been very good at coming up with such systems, some excuse not to apply the same rules to some other group that they do to themselves, for example the whole "chosen people" thing in the old testament but the fact remains that this system can only ever be applied to "others" and the only one that it is logically possible to have for themselves and their loved ones, the only one that allows people to live alongside others, the only one that works, is one that disallows killing.

And that is why you don't have to argue that killing is wrong, everybody already knows it's wrong because they know they don't want it to happen to themselves and their loved ones, the only thing you have to convince someone of is that the reasons they have given for not applying their rules to certain groups are invalid. Some people don't apply their rules to foreigners, some to black people, some to people of a different religion, some to homosexuals, some to foetuses, some to abortion doctors, some to certain animals, some to all animals etc etc etc. The list is endless but regardless of which group someone has decided not to apply their rules to, they still apply what we would consider moral rules to themselves and their loved ones because those are the only rules that are compatible with social living

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Who said it was solely about survival?

Well, read it for yourself:

doctoremma wrote: »

The term "moral" and the concept of "moral behaviour" has been created by people who want to find complicated solutions to something that needs no further explanation than the compulsion to "fight", "run", "feed", "reproduce" etc.

Christian morality creates in us an attitude of selflessness, rather than an attitude of selfishness. That's why I am glad to be a Christian. It encourages me to be a better person each and every day. That's why I love God, because He really cares about us. I'm glad that God encourages us to go beyond the norm. The admission, "I'm basically a good person" doesn't cut it, rather God says that this is good, but we need to do better.

C.S Lewis in his Mere Christianity said that if you ask Jesus into your life to change one thing, He will transform you entirely. He won't leave you when there is still work to be done. Jesus makes the difference. Anything else is just inferior. That's a controversial view, but one I and I'm sure all of the Christian posters on this forum will agree with.

Malty_T wrote: »

Why are some animals more empathetic than humans then?

This makes an assumption. That some species of animals are more empathetic than all humans. I'd need to be convinced of this rather than just accepting it blindly.

Malty_T wrote: »

Better question : why don't the majority?
Think about it Jakkass, suppose only 90% of a given population are pacifists but 10% are murderers. Murderer's will survive as long as they reproduce. Btw, that is really over simplifying everything and just looking at from the behavioural point of view (no psychology involved).

This is dodging the point and it doesn't answer the question.

Malty_T wrote: »

Is there such a thing as a truly "selfless" act?

Yes. The most selfless act happened in 33AD on Calvary on Good Friday. That's enough evidence to me that selfless acts exist.

bryaner

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't answer the question. A survival mechanism doesn't explain where this comes from.



It's impossible to have a common goal / rule without a common source. Without a common source, you have no place to suggest that your personal morality is any better than anyone elses.



PDN is right, it's an absurd generalisation. Christians believe that God is the source of morality, God is how we compare right and wrong. It exists independently of us. This is the reason why I can say although Stalin may have had popular support in Russia, what he did was absolutely wrong. Why was it wrong?

We were created by God in His image. As such we should respect each other as a common creation. None are better than the other, none are more or less deserving of this treatment.

Morality for me, is reflecting our true potential and living out our moral purpose which God has given us. If we reject God, and stop living out this moral purpose, this is what I would call immoral.

Edit: If we lived without God in any respect, all that we know would fall apart. God keeps everything in order, and binds everything together including human morality.

Guess thats why my friend (35) has 4 weeks to live so

PDN

bryaner wrote: »

Guess thats why my friend (35) has 4 weeks to live so

Sorry to hear about your friend, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the source of human morality?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes. The most selfless act happened in 33AD on Calvary on Good Friday. That's enough evidence to me that selfless acts exist.

In fairness if I knew for a fact that I was going to raise 3 days later and go and sit on the right hand of god I'd die for my cat. Someone who gives up their life without the knowledge of anything coming afterwards makes a far greater sacrifice.

bryaner

PDN wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your friend, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the source of human morality?

Yea sorry bout my post i didn't fully read, i saw

beliefs i posted and then said opps

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness if I knew for a fact that I was going to raise 3 days later and go and sit on the right hand of god I'd die for my cat. Someone who gives up their life without the knowledge of anything coming afterwards makes a far greater sacrifice.

So, let's get this straight. You would willingly undergo excruciating physical torment for the sake of your cat?

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

Killing others could actually be very favourable to survival. Which is why I regard survival as a tenuous basis of morality.

Re: killing other species. Accepted that this could be very favourable to our survival. And the "moral" code as we apply it to killing other species is very much in flux, whether we advocate animal testing of pharmaceutical products or shoot that pesky tiger than keeps hanging around the village. In most cases, the cost : benefit ratio of killing a member of another species is weighed up in terms of benefit to humanity, thus underlining that our survival and well-being is of vital importance in making such decisions. Whether you choose to label that as a "moral" choice is subjective.

Re: killing members of the same species. How do you visualise that a society which operates a "non-kill" policy could be at a disadvantage when compared to a society which operates a "kill-randomly" policy? Unless the "kill randomly" society invades the "non-kill" society...which leads to...

Re: justifying killing members of the same species. We need to factor in the premise that we don't always operate a "non-kill" policy; many people accept a "kill-when-threatened" or a "retributive-kill" policy. I'm unconvinced of the latter but the former is defined by making a value judgement about your own survival, on which one naturally places greater importance than that of a "kill-randomly" invader.

There are some very elegant simulations of how different "harm" policies by varying numbers of individuals can achieve different outcomes. Unsurprisingly, very few are stable over a number of generations. One of these is commonly called "tit-for-tat" i.e. only harm when someone harms you. I'm sure you'll recognise this as the policy by which the vast majority of humanity operates.

Jakkass wrote: »

How is basing morality on survival going to help?

Careful, you sound like you might be about to accuse me of something nasty again.

I'm still unconvinced that you have grasped the point we are trying to make. In my opinion, we do not make a "moral" judgement about whether or not to kill someone. I do not consider the behaviours "kill" or "not kill" to be equally valid as probable behaviours. We have evolved with the behaviour that "not killing members of our species" is the "normal" behaviour. We do not have to make any decision about whether this is "correct" or "moral" or analyse "how do we know it's moral?". I would be seriously worried about us if we needed to make a conscious effort not to kill people.

The label of "moral" behaviour is an artifical construction.

Jakkass wrote: »

Obligation, duty and God given empathy do it for me just fine rather than the selfish purpose of survival.

I don't even know how to address this. If you begin to use "obligation" and "duty" as reasons not to kill others, you're going to rightfully face the anger of atheists demanding how you can remotely dare question their "moral" code in the absence of an authority figure.

Why does empathy have to be "given". Empathy is a chemical reaction in the brain. In fact, I watched a very interesting lecture yesterday about manipulating the region of the brain responsible for our ability "perceiving what other people think/feel". Why do you feel empathy is a "special" behaviour?

Jakkass wrote: »

Why do people murder others then?

Whether they murder or not says absolutely nothing about whether they feel it's right or wrong to murder. Sam has covered this very well so I'll say no more.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an utterly selfish basis for ethical behaviour.

That doesn't say anything about the truth of the situation. Personally, I feel the human species has evolved beyond merely caring for "each and their own". We see a lot of people do a lot of incredibly selfless things with no perceived benefit to themselves. Whether it's part of a subconscious "back-scratching" mechanism? Maybe. Or just an incredibly well-developed empathy circuit? Maybe.