Jakkass wrote: » You're no longer discussing the Judeo-Christian God if we go on this tangent.
I've already explained my views concerning how evolution works in this.
Malty_T wrote: » So you're only argument that morality is derived from God is because the bible says so?
Malty_T wrote: » Yeah, and these were a strawman. Please just read up on the topic. Please...
Jakkass wrote: » You're still strung up about me asking doctoremma about eugenics and Social Darwinism. That was only to clarify more about what she was saying, not to put forward an argument.
Jakkass wrote: » his is what I meant when I said to doctoremma that humans have a great way of justifying immoral behaviour.
Jakkass wrote: » Your solution, that God must have an external moral standard is fallacious, because it assumes an infinite regress of moral sources.
If God is the source, one would have wonder why he chose such a crazy path to implant morals into humans and other animals. The only valid argument that I can presently see is that morals are independent of God and that he has no control over how they evolve between societies, only that he can help guide people because he has a higher sense of morals than anyone else that lives on Earth.
Jakkass wrote: »
I said that evolution provides us the biological ability to hold moral systems. It does not itself provide us an external measure of what is right and wrong though. Claiming that evolution itself is a source of morality is just absurd
Malty_T wrote: » You haven't really given an explanation as to why it is absurd. You just keep repeating this line.
Jakkass wrote: » I've made clear why it is. There is a difference between evolution as a biological phenomenon, and Moral Zeitgeist as an ethical phenomenon. Biology doesn't determine what is moral behaviour from what isn't. Only ethical codes can do irrespective of whether they are contrived by humans, or revealed by God. Biology does however, tell us about how our brains are capable of moral behaviour. There's a difference, and it's a fallacy to say that there isn't.
Jakkass wrote: » Your solution, that God must have an external moral standard is fallacious, because it assumes an infinite regress of moral sources. I'd find that much more unlikely. The ball's in your court though on that one.
Jakkass wrote: » I said that evolution provides us the biological ability to hold moral systems. It does not itself provide us an external measure of what is right and wrong though. Claiming that evolution itself is a source of morality is just absurd.
Sam Vimes wrote: » Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral.
Sam Vimes wrote: » I don't want myself and my family to be killed for the exactly the same reason that you don't want yourself and your family killed. We both want to live and we both love our families. We both have the same values in that case because we are both human beings and in many many cases, if something is good for you it's also good for me. It is mutually beneficial if neither of us kills the other person's family.
Sam Vimes wrote: » I can tell you with absolutely 100% certainty that we will never meet a race of aliens that considers massacring people moral in the same way that helping the poor is moral and my reasoning has nothing to do with our inability to get to their planet; I know that we will never meet such a race because if such a race ever comes to exist it will last only weeks before driving itself to extinction.
Sam Vimes wrote: » If god had indeed imparted objective moral values on us they would all the the same down the the very last detail but that is obviously not the case. Certain moral "opinions" are common across the whole species (the sane members anyway) because certain things are fundamental to our functioning as social animals, if we did not all share these values we would have to go and live alone in caves and kick our children out as soon as they were big enough to be a threat to us. Our entire civilisation would collapse. The fact that human beings share many common goals is not evidence of a deity in any way.
Soul Winner wrote: » But that is my point. From your perspective it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral. But to a species that has evolved a moral code which includes massacring other peoples families it's not. Suppose that everytime they massacred a family, dormant eggs were free to hatch from the corpses of the dead bodies which enabled a new generation of aliens to hatch using the corpses as food? Would the fact that because the massacring of the family promoted more life be a sufficient reason to adjudge the act of massacring OK or moral? If your answer is no, then why? If your answer is yes then you have shown that moral values are subjective not objective.
Soul Winner wrote: » They say: "All is fair in love and war." But maybe all is fair when it comes to the survival of a species. If that is true for us and a time comes when this kind of culling might be necessary in the process of our evolution in order to keep our species going, would you still feel the same way about people massacring other people's families?
Soul Winner wrote: » Or even humanly killing other people's families as long as our species survived? If yes then objective morals do exist and no matter what it is always going to be wrong to kill others so that others may live. Or if your answer is No, then your objection to people massacring other people's families now is just a subjective opinion which has no real meaning or value in the greater scheme of things. Tis one or the other.
Soul Winner wrote: » You sort of answered my question above just there. So the only real value that is worth holding onto is that our species survives no matter what. My question to that is: WHY???
Soul Winner wrote: » The whole point of my post was to show that objective moral values do indeed exist, but in a universe without God only subjective moral values exist, because in a universe without God there would be nothing absolute onto which we could anchor our moral compasses for direction and purpose, which would render everybody's moral value system as valid as the next person's.
astroguy wrote: » I don't think the beauty should be removed at all. Given that we will all die soon, I think we should marvel at the fact that we are here at all and have evolved the consciousness to ask these questions. What I meant was that religious faith teaches people to accept what they have, with the promise that there will be a better place. My point is that, when you die that will be the end, so enjoy life as much as possible. I would say that the fact that we are only here because of self-replicating entitites such as DNA is all the more reason to hold this viewpoint.
chozometroid wrote: » I really don't see the point of enjoying life when you just happen to exist for a time. Who or what is experiencing the enjoyment anyways? It only matters from the point of view of the illusory "self" created by neurons which will vanish momentarily as if it had never been.
Sam Vimes wrote: » So what if it will vanish momentarily? Does that make a movie any less enjoyable?
I consider myself incredibly lucky to be given a chance to experience this universe and I am going to experience as much of it as I possibly can while I can. Then I will go on in the memories of my loved ones.
On the other hand, if I believed that this life was followed by a second eternal life where there was no suffering and nothing but joy, then I wouldn't really see the point of enjoying this life, especially since there is a very real threat that I could do something in my life to jeopardise my place in that paradise and earn myself eternal torture. In comparison to that, this life full of pain and cruelty and suffering and evil seems positively diabolical and I'd want to get it over as quickly as possible so I could start living my real life.
chozometroid wrote: » From who's perspective?
chozometroid wrote: » I agree with the part in blue. The life we have is a great gift indeed, and it shouldn't be wasted.
chozometroid wrote: » I disagree with the part in red. You will not "go on" in anyone's memories. What does that even mean?
chozometroid wrote: » I see this life as a probationary period where we are given the chance to develop a relationship with our Creator, and demonstrate our love for our fellow brothers and sisters.
chozometroid wrote: » There is no reason not to enjoy this life, even with an eternal afterlife awaiting.
chozometroid wrote: » Wanting this life to end prematurely is an insult to the gift of life God gave us. We are abandoning our lost brothers and sisters and "dropping out" of God's school of life.
Sam Vimes wrote: » So your reason for not killing yourself today is so that you don't insult someone else?
booksale wrote: » Havent been on this thread these days and found out the interesting debate here. Delighted to learn a lot here. Yes, for belief, I did mean 'religious belief', for rules, I did mean 'rules of that religion'. More precisely, I mean, the Christianity belief and Christianity rules because this is a Christianity board. Living a life within God's boundaries seem very safe, but there's the boundaries... and the boundaries are God's, not yours. Making God's. rules yours, making your not a human, as GOD is not a human (yes, I know Jesus was once a human, but he is SUPER human you know what I mean. Anyway thoughts and debates appreciated.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » While an individual is very unlikely to plunge to such depths of depravity, as a Christian I think we are on a slippery slope if we deny that there is an overarching morality that says some things are always wrong irrespective of societal mores or whatever one believes about the moral evolution of our species. From yesterday, through to today and for every day after there are some deeds that are always wrong.
Sam Vimes wrote: » I would tend to agree but I see no connection between that and believing that a Jewish guy raised from the dead 2000 years ago. What's always wrong is harming another person for no overriding good reason. Every sane person on the planet wants to avoid suffering for both himself and his loved ones so all you have to do is ask: would you like that done to you? The golden rule of morality makes sense independently of the existence of god. You don't have to believe in a particular holy book to tell someone that child rape is wrong
"From a biological point of view he seems completely normal. He has hands and feet and a sort of brain. He has eyes and a mouth. But, in fact, he is a completely different creature, a horror! He only looks human, with a human face, but his spirit is lower than that of an animal. A terrible chaos runs rampant in this creature, an awful urge for destruction, primitive desires, unparalleled evil, a monster, and subhuman."
Fanny Cradock wrote: » While the golden rule is useful, it certainly isn´t binding. People break it every day and there is nothing in say that X is always wrong no matter what. From an evolutionary perspecrive, presumably anyone attempting to protect their tribe, progeny or themselves is justified in taking whatever measures are necessary to do so no matter the effects.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I´m sorry to drop the G-bomb, but the Nazis found ways around this rule with disturbing ease - they dehumanised humans. The golden rule was never applicable to Jews, Gypsies, the disabled and whoever else they had a beef with. I think it´s quite plausable to suggest that the golden rule is more like a selective suggestion when you analyse it. (From the audio link)
Sam Vimes wrote: » It's binding on anyone who wants to live in a society. You can't just go around harming whoever you want, it doesn't make you popular
Jakkass wrote: » It makes you incredibly popular if it's the right group of people.
Jakkass wrote: » It makes you incredibly popular if it's the right group of people. Since when is popularity a decent basis for ethical behaviour?
They didn't find a way around the rule, they ignored it. They wouldn't like someone else to class them as sub human for the purposes of doing them harm and yet they did it to others. As long as somebody is sane you can tell them that what they're doing is wrong on the basis that they wouldn't like it done to them. People can ignore this rule but they can also ignore god's rules. That's not the same as redefining right and wrong to suit, it's knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway
And yes people can convince themselves that something is acceptable when it's not but they can do the same with god's rules. All manner of wrong has been committed throughout history by invoking the authority of one god or another, in fact in many cases the only justification possible for the given action is that it's god's will because it otherwise makes no sense
The only moral imperative you need to tell someone they're doing wrong is that they're doing something to someone else that they would not like done to himself
I can acknowledge that objective morality given by a god would be a lot easier to deal with and a lot more cut and dried but there are three problems with itI'd change a few bits of biblical morality before accepting it as the objective standard When the morality is corrupted by someone with an agenda it's far more dangerous because someone's agenda is being treated as the infallible word of god Arguing that objective morality given by a god would be superior unfortunately does not mean that such a thing exists or can be shown to exist. In the absence of proof of a specific god, subjective morality based on the golden rule etc is the best we've got
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Hold on a minute... isn't that exactly what the Nazis did in their society. They chose to egregiously harm a number of minorities and majority of their society encouraged it (tacitly or otherwise) and applauded them for it. Sadly these goons aren't the exception to the golden rule.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I'll have to disagree with you. Clearly even the Nazis had some grasp of morality. For example, I would wager that they never considered it right to kill a fellow Nazi, a good Nazi. Their slaughter was made possible because they sufficiently dissociated their targets from what people though of as ordinary decent human beings. Even with this attempt Budziszewski suggests that they could never fully succeed in reclassifying these people as a separate species to humanity and hence the many psychological traumas noted in prison guards.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Even if you are correct and they did simply ignore the rule. What can we then say of the worth of the golden rule? Again, it seems to me to be more of a suggestion - one that has and will be ignored depending on the gain to be made.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » ll we have said is that morality is either relative (which is quite worrying) or that there exists an overarching morality but we aren't very good at sticking it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » The law (as opposed to a rule) stands over against us irrespective of our actions or our beliefs. Therefore, the Nazis will always be wrong even if they won the war and we were all convinced that it was a good thing to kill Jews.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Read the Gulag Archipelago and tell me how the golden rule applies to prisoners who had too few resources for all of them to survive
Fanny Cradock wrote: » 1) Fair enough - challenge away. I'd be wary of anyone who claims that they categorically know best.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » 2) It's largely irrelevant. I'm repeating myself again, but that doesn't say much about an overarching morality existing or not, only that we can pervert it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » 3) Well, then I think we are screwed. Under the correct circumstances (however fanciful or unlikely) it might be that any action is acceptable if the end (protecting your interests) justifies the means (screwing someone over).
Sam Vimes wrote: » No that actually isn't what they did, they didn't harm whoever they wanted. As you say yourself:
Sam Vimes wrote: » The nazis didn't forget what right and wrong were and they didn't just kill whoever they wanted, they decided to apply their morality only to their in-group. The problem is not teaching people right from wrong, it's teaching them to apply that morality to people outside their own group. Unfortunately our evolutionary instincts largely don't work that way so we have to use the higher reasoning ability that evolution has also given us to overrule our tendency to favour our in-group and apply our morality to everyone. Having said that, a certain amount of it is necessary even today, it's what has prevented me from hopping on a plane to Haiti. Yes it would be great for me to help but you can't help everyone, you have to choose who you help.
Sam Vimes wrote: » One can assume that many of them were religious and they ignored those rules too so what worth are they? The fact is that both subjective and objective morality work just as well as long as the rules are followed but in some cases people are not all too inclined to follow either of them.
Sam Vimes wrote: » So what good are objectively perfect rules if people don't follows them?
Sam Vimes wrote: » And for that matter what good is claiming to have objectively perfect rules when you have no proof that the supposed source of them exists? Until you do that your book is no more binding on me than any other form of morality
Sam Vimes wrote: » I'll tell you one thing that suggests to me most strongly that the bible is the work of men and that's the whole "chosen people" thing. On god's command the Jews could essentially kill whoever they wanted. That is so very clearly the in-group morality of primitives being given the authority of a god and this in-group morality is now what you're fighting against as the outcome of "subjective morality". If you're looking for a guide to try to get people to overcome in-group morality and apply their morals universally the old testament is not the greatest example.
Sam Vimes wrote: » Only if you tell me how well they followed your objective morality. When people need to survive they will do whatever it takes, god or no god.
Sam Vimes wrote: » Then maybe we're screwed. Personally I just think you have a misunderstanding of human nature in that people on the whole will tend to do good unless they are pushed into doing wrong but pointing out that you think we're screwed without your god unfortunately has nothing to do with whether he exists or not, although it does go a long way to explaining part of the desire people have to believe and why it was thought up in the first place. The extreme example of this is of course creationists who deny the plain facts because they think that if evolution is true a situation much like the one you describe will occur but the same logic is applied to belief in all religions that claim to be the sole source of morality
