Moral Argument for God

Thats just stupid. Its like asking me to prove to you that anything exists, or that this isn't just some dream, or that we don't really live in the matrix. There is a basic structure to morality that all the societies share, a fundamental morality. The moralities do differ on an extraneous level, but the core is the same. For example, the golden rule.

quote:

---

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

​

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

​

Confucianism: Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

​

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

​

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

​

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

​

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

​

Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

​

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

---

let me quote you from another thread:

quote:

---

God.

​

Get a dictionary.

---

p.s. I'm leaving work now and won't be posting anymore tonight for a while, if at all.

Yeah, its exactly like that. Which is why it forms a pretty shitty basis for an argument. You say that the moral-like actions of animals are instinct and not consciousness and proceed from there, but why should anyone believe you when you can't possibly show any evidence that you're correct? Um, maybe you hadn't heard, but there's way more religions and societies than seven. And no, they don't all have the golden rule.There is no basic structure to morality that all societies share. Individual moralities come in all configurations, which is how we know that no "fundamental morality" exists. If it's so fundamental then why doesn't everybody share it?

My dictionary has a bazillion definitions, but none of them are "something God breathed into animal bodies that were decended from apes via evolution." So you're clearly operating under your own definition.At any rate I don't seem to have a soul that I can detect - just a mind and a body, as if those are even separate things - so I need you to, at some point at least, be a little more clear about what you mean when you say "soul."

I think you do not understand what an instinct is. Instinct does not mean that the animal is a mindless automaton, like in us, it simply provides the impetus for certain actions.For example:My dog has puppies, her instinct is to keep anyone and everyone away from them. At first she would growl at me when I aproched to inspect the litter. She was unsure what I would do, and her instincts provided impetus for her to be alarmed and issue me a warning.When she saw I was not a threat to her puppies she allowed me to inspect them. Keep in mind, she won't allow the other dogs we own near them, but she allows me because she trusts me.Now... this says two things to me. The dog a) made a conscious decision to not simply chase me off by snapping at me. She knew from prior experience that I am her friend, I feed her, play with her, and take care of her. She chose not to jump to a conclusion about my intentions. She was even friendly enough to give me a warning by growling. b) After it was shown that I meant no harm, she now trusts me around her pups.If my dog was an automaton, she would have roboticly barked at me and chased me away, instead we have a creature assessing a situation based on her instincts, then proceeding to make a rational decision about how to react to those instincts.If this doesn't blow your misguided assumptions about animals right out of the water I don't know what will. Oh really? How about this famous tale: Or how about bobby: Greyfriars Bobby - WikipediaAnd as a personal anecdote:My dog once lunged infront of me to protect me from an attacking dog. My dog stood his grownd and kept the other dog away from me even though he got torn up pretty bad. I was not hurt, and my dog had several stitches put in.So I don't know what your talking about. Alltruism is exibited by many animals in many forms.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-19-2005 09:33 PM

If you don't mind clarifying this point a bit I have some questions:Based on your standard of morality if I like anal sex then if I have anal sex with my partner and that would be a "moral" act? Even if they don't like it? Even if we are both men?

Altruism is exhibited by no one--not people, not animals.It is true we and animals do things that benefit others sometimes. But that is not altruism.We do it for ourselves.

On one level we do, after all we do things because OUR feelings tell us to do it. So yes, we do things to gratify ourselves.But saying that there is no altruism is silly:What those firemen did on 911 was altruistic, because they willingly walked into the jaws of death in the hopes that others would survive. This is an altruistic act, it dosn't matter if on some level the act is meant to gratify a primal sense of duty or something, it dosn't make the act any less selfless. I think we fit quite well within both these deffinitions.

Hi Yaro, thanks for disagreeing with me. well I contend no. Other animals such as predators or prey fall into birthing patterns that tend self regulate populations. If prey is abundant more pups will be born. If overgrazing and lack of food or harsh winter fewing calves born. Wolves tend to cleanse the herds of sick or poor genetic stock which in turn strenghthens the herd which in turn strenghthens the wolf populations. A perfect harmony. So are you saying that many species "die" out because of predation? Please find me some examples of this MANY. The only example I can think of is by careless ignorant human intervention.The Dodo bird hunted to extinction 1681
The Passenger pigeon hunted to extinction by 1911
The Great Auk hunted to extinction by 1850
The Labrador duck hunted to extinction by 1870
The carolina parakeet hunted to extinction by 1920
The Gualdelupe cara cara hunted to extinction
The Stellar sea cow hunted to extinction by 1741
The English wolf hunted to extinction by 1486
in Scottland by 1743 and in Ireland by 1770
The Quagga zebra hunted to extinction by 1883
The Caspien Tiger hunted to extinction by 1957This is just a small example and the endangered list is much more horrifying. I agree, but should we take along the rest of our animal cousins as well in the process? It is true that the Earth cares not if it houses cockroaches on a barren radio active rock. Or humans but It is obvious which species has had the largest negative impact in such a short amount of time.Although I agree humans are phenomenal creatures and that we have large creative brains we tend to be arrogant and self absorbed. Most anthopomorphsize the universe and nature and feel that we are the reason it is all here. To bend to our will.Rather than co-exist we simply force our existance on nature.
I think humans kinda suck in many regards.

Yes, I don't deny that we have a horrifying effect on the world, and in no way am I suggesting that what we have caused in the environment is right. But it's funny you should bring this list up as I was recently reading a national geographic which discussed endangered species.They have quite an extensive chart a small section of which is devoted to 'Unknown Causes'. At least a few species are endangered not for fault of man, but for the following reasons:-Poor Reproduction Rates
-Poor Competitors for resourcesThis tells me, that at least some animals just plain suck at surviving.Specific creatures whos extinction can be traced to natural predation, climate change and so on, includes many species of dinosaurs, the giant mammals of the Ice Age. And scores of other creatures that have disapered from the planet over the ages.The biodiversity of earth is a record of only those who survived, we stand on the bones of billions of species that expired long before we ever arived. So yes, animals do die out naturaly.Now, we were put on this earth by nature, our effect on the earth is thus natural.As to equilibrium, I find it interesting that our big brains allow us to cause great harm and at the same time remedy that harm.

As you point out, the current crop of living species are only a small fraction of all the species that ever lived, and as far as I know every currently living species has not been around all that long. So clearly species do go extinct even without the help of humans.At worst, humans are the cause of one mass extinction among the many mass extinctions that have occurred. Doesn't make it any easier to deal with, I guess, except for the thought that when humans are no longer around the world's ecosystem will make a recovery in just a few tens of millions of years.

Ill just add to this. We are part of nature, what we do is due to our nature.The equilibrium is achived when those we affect adjust to us.When the ice ages began and scores of creatures just couldn't survive and died off, no one was whining about the big nasty winter, it was adapt or die.Many creatures Rats, Roches, Dogs, Cats, Pigeons, and Even eagles, have adapted to live in even the most urban of settings. So just because we seem to be having a big effect on things dosn't make us all evil and awfull.When the eukeriotic bacteria filld the air with then poisonus oxygen and changed the cource of nature for ever, were they evil bastards?With that said, I don't think humans suck. I like being human, I like the things I can do, and I think our human abilitys allow us to achive the same level of coexistence you desire.Do we do it now, unfortunetly no, but I am optamistic.

You seem to be saying that humans are justified in doing whatever we please to the world around us, good or ill, becuase it is "in our nature." That argument is flawed.The bacteria you mention were not evil for adding oxygen to the atmosphere. However, bacteria are unable to observe the consequences of their actions and alter their behaviour accordingly.The biosystem of Earth is not static, and change is both ever-present and beneficial. However, humans can observe the effects of our interference - pollution, extinctions, deforedstation, etc. We can see that these things will have a detrimental effect on future generations of humanity and the Earth's biosystem as a whole. Certainly, new species would arise that would have evolved to take advantage of whatever the future conditions may be. The fact that "life" would go on, if not in the same forms we see today, does not justify humanity wiping out itself and a large portion of the Earth's biodiversity when we know exactly what the causes are and how to change them.If a pack of hyenas were to hunt local prey to near extinction, they would not be evil. They cannot realize the consequences of their actions. They would, however, soon starve from lack of food.Similarly, humans are wiping out rainforests and are contributing (whether the contribution is significant or not is up for debate) to global warming, as well as hunting various species to near extinction. These actions are immoral because we are fully aware of the consequences and do them anyway. If we hunt elephants to extinction for their ivory (we have hopefully prevented this, buit the example still stands), there will be no more elephants. If we continue to eliminate the rainforests, the oxygen content of the world will be decreased, casueing worldwide ecological changes that we, too, will need to adapt to or die. If we continue to contribute to global warming and cannot find a way to slow or reverse the trend, ecosystems and climates worldwide will change, and again we will have to adapt or die with every other species. The fact that we know what we are doing and do it anyway is what makes the action wrong, whether it is in our nature to do so or not.Another example: It could be argued that to murder is in a serial killer's nature. That he is driven to murder by internal urges in no way justifies his actions, because he knows the consequences and still has a choice.

Rahvin,I agree with you whole heartedly. I don't think that whatever we do is right, I agree with conservation, and the measures we take to protect certain endangered species.I was just noting that what 1.6 was saying about humans being so terrible and such was a bit harsh. That this happens in nature all the time despite our intervention.And like the bacteria, for a long time in human history we weren't aware of the effects we were having, so in a sense we are a bit innocent of it. But as time goes by you see more and more efforts being made to sustain the environment, I believe this is a good thing and a testament to the fact that humans are not all a giant pack of a-holes.But ultimately, as careful as we try to be, we will displace some organisms, we will impact the environment to some degree, this is nature and it cannot be helped. However, what we can help, we should.Furthermore, some mass extinctions we have caused are for the btter:i.e. Small Pox, Pollio, and scores of other deseases now unknown in the world.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-20-2005 03:08 PM

HI, thanks for your incite. Agreed. I think you and I both know that extinction is inevitable for many creatures, my point was that although change in climate and the inability for a creature to adapt will select them for extinction is one thing,( BUT), Humans slaughtering a entire species of animal time and time again in very short periods of time is an example of us not living in harmony with nature. I also realize that human beings precence on Earth is "natural" otherwise there would be something else here instead of us. That being said; I believe that humans are now beginning to understand the complexity of the ecosystems that we influence and we are now taking steps to attempt a reduction of our negative impact on them.
I know I probably sound like a tree hugging environmental zealot, but Im not. I drive a car, I pollute just as much as the next person.