Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 166 of 1221 (679177)
11-12-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by GDR
11-12-2012 6:39 PM


X Wthout God
So hatred and selfishness and evil are just as much god's work as morality?
We could have a thread called 'Nastiness without god' and you could make all the same arguments you are doing in this thread except we could replace 'morality' with 'evil' - Right?
GDR writes:
When I say that God is responsible for intelligence and morality....
Is there anything God isn't responsible for?
Is God responsible for stupidity and evil?
Is God responsible for selfishness and indifference?
Is God responsible for ignorance and hatred?
Could we have a thread entitled 'X without God' and expect all the same arguments from you as the ones you are presenting in this thread?
Despite your protestations you still seem to be special pleading morality (and intelligence) to a large extent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by GDR, posted 11-12-2012 6:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by GDR, posted 11-12-2012 11:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 167 of 1221 (679220)
11-12-2012 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Straggler
11-12-2012 7:46 PM


Re: X Wthout God
Straggler writes:
So hatred and selfishness and evil are just as much god's work as morality?
We could have a thread called 'Nastiness without god' and you could make all the same arguments you are doing in this thread except we could replace 'morality' with 'evil' - Right?
It wouldn't be the same argument though. My view is that God created a world that was designed to be good but with free will the possibility of evil was left open. Evil is a necessary evil so to speak so that goodness is possible. I believe that ultimately with the renewal of all things those that have freely chosen unselfishness over selfishness will live in a world where unselfishness is always the norm.
Straggler writes:
Is there anything God isn't responsible for?
Is God responsible for stupidity and evil?
Is God responsible for selfishness and indifference?
Is God responsible for ignorance and hatred?
No we are responsible for those things in a world where God has made the choice of those things possible. I'd also point out that as Robert Wright says our morality is evolving, so that over time we have become a kinder society. In light of that I would also say that God has provided through some mechanism a system that has established a trajectory towards a kinder and more just human race.
So I would also say that in one sense we are responsible for the good things but that God is also influencing us in that direction.
Straggler writes:
Could we have a thread entitled 'X without God' and expect all the same arguments from you as the ones you are presenting in this thread?
No, for the reason I cited above. I agree that if God has made it possible for evil to exist then He is responsible for it, but IMHO He influences us in the other direction.
Straggler writes:
Despite your protestations you still seem to be special pleading morality (and intelligence) to a large extent.
I continue to protest.
Well thought out and well stated points of debate by the way.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2012 7:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2012 11:14 AM GDR has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 1221 (679346)
11-13-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dawn Bertot
11-07-2012 5:19 PM


It does is if you remove yourself from trying to find standards only in and from a human perspective.
I am a human, though. Everything is from my perspective and I can't change that.
Which means that you would have to show that the animal kingdom would have to share your so-called standards.
Why? Why can't I derive morality from a relative one?
Lets assume you were instantly transported to the Aztecs and Incas time period. How would you convince them that there behavior was immoral and yours Moral?
I don't think I could, but I would still have my morality. But, how would you convince them? By saying that "God said so". You think that'd work or you think you'd be eating spear?
How do you establish that your so-called Morality is superior to or right or wrong.
We talk about it and form a consensus.
Pure reson and reality, without God, an infinitely wise God, does not allow you a standard of morality, even if you choose to call it that
Why not?
Surely you are not so simple that you cannot understand, that simply calling something doesnt make it right in or wrong.
But you're doing the same thing. You're just adding a "God says that" in there. I say that some thing is moral. You say that God says that some thing is moral. But you simply saying that doesn't make it right or wrong by your own standard so how is your's any better?
Too, you're not establishing that what you say that god says is abosulte morality acutally is. You're just assuming that it is by assuming that it comes from God. Your's is no more absolute than mine by establishment.
For it to be morality it has to be either right or wrong. Defining right or wrong, from only within the human perspective makes your so-called morality silly at best
I don't care if you think its silly, its a morality nonetheless. And I still don't have an answer for you for why it cannot be one.
You first have to demonstrate that yours is the only standard by which to judge what murder is, before you take the cows life for your consumption. If you cannot do this, then your so-called morality is nothing more than molecules in motion, even if you call it morality
But that's what morality is, and you cannot demonstrate that it isn't. For you to simply declare that it isn't doesn't make it not one.
Now watch, let me ask you a simple question, then you answer it as a part of the debate process. If I disagree with you that you have an actual morality, that which actually describes what is right or wrong, how will you establish that either or both of us, is either right or wrong
Having a morality doesn't require that. The prisoner might not agree that he should be in jail, but there he sits.
You cant even get past this hurdle, to even address the qurestion of wether it is right or wrong to murder
I've already answered why its wrong. We don't want to be murdered. We have empathy. We make murder immoral. Its that simple. Why is that not a morality?
You cant proceed in discussion about morality, as if you have delt with the basic problem as to how you arrive at a standard of right and wrong. Logic and reality doesnt allow that luxury
Why not?
A relative morality is still a morality even though you don't like it because it isn't absolute.
So CS, deciding to call it morality, doesnt make it morality
And you deciding to call it not-a-morality, doesn't make it not one.
So why isn't it one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-07-2012 5:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 8:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 169 of 1221 (679616)
11-14-2012 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dawn Bertot
11-07-2012 5:21 PM


Re: God and War
Unfortunately, emotional responses to logical propositions, dont get anything accomplished. What people do in the name og God, has nothing to do with weather he is infinte in wisdom and eternal in character. If he is, then there is no other standard and he is the standard
Well that's a really big IF though isn't it? I mean, God commands those who worship him to commit acts of genocide on other humans. To rape and murder after war. You say it's right to do that because IF he is infinite in wisdom and eternal in character (don't really know what that means by the way) there is no other standard -- He is the standard? Have I understood your position here correctly?
God does command people do commit terrible acts, right? Are you saying those things are ok to do because God has infinite wisdom?
If that IS what you're saying then: Again, that's one BIG if. Because IF you're wrong, and your particular God and scriptures are no more "truth" than any other written in the past, then you've just commited an act of genocide and rape for absolutely no reason. And IF the only thing you are using to "know" if you're right or wrong is your own presonal belief and applying nothing more than blind faith, well sir you've really messed things up pretty bad don't you think?
It seems therefore logical, that there are no other choices that logic will allow. Unless you or others could provide valid reason to show why humans standards are the only correct choices. Or why they should be considered the standard of right or wrong
Well no matter what you call it, or what you claim the source to be, it is still a human standard be it secular or wrapped up in religious scripture written by men.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-07-2012 5:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 7:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 170 of 1221 (679658)
11-15-2012 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Stile
11-06-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Golden Schmolden
Well, there's a certain amount of abstraction required. I like hot chilli, my wife likes it mild. "Do unto others etc" does not mean that I should give her hot chilli, it means that I should give her the kind of chilli she likes. That is what I would like others to do to me.
And people who are not actually autistic can surely wrap their brains around the distinction.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Stile, posted 11-06-2012 8:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Stile, posted 11-15-2012 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 171 of 1221 (679707)
11-15-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
11-15-2012 5:12 AM


Re: Golden Schmolden
Dr Adequate writes:
Well, there's a certain amount of abstraction required.
I agree... for both ways of saying the idea.
I like hot chilli, my wife likes it mild. "Do unto others etc" does not mean that I should give her hot chilli, it means that I should give her the kind of chilli she likes. That is what I would like others to do to me.
And people who are not actually autistic can surely wrap their brains around the distinction.
Again, I agree.
I'm just saying that for simple, everyday situations, the amount of abstraction required is less if we say "do what other people want" as opposed to "allow others their freedom of choice in the same way you like to have freedom of choice."
Like your chilli example, as you say: "it means that I should give her the kind of chilli she likes." Exactly. So, instead of layering a level of abstraction, why not just say "treat your wife the way she likes?"
I understand that this adds a layer of abstraction in the other direction (ie. giving away all my money because other people like it...)
But I think messing up that layer of abstraction is less likely than messing up the Golden Rule's direction of abstraction which can lead to a justification for selfish behaviour.
Mess up my proposed layer of abstraction... and you have people wasting their lives and resources in crazy attempts to make other people happy.
Mess up the current Golden Rule's layer of abstraction... and you have a justification for people being selfish assholes and trying to force their ideas on other people.
Which do you think is worse?
For those people who aren't able to fully grasp the layer of abstraction (be it a lack of empathy for some reason, or maybe just lack of intelligence or education...) I think it's better to try and teach the focus on other people directly instead of indirectly.
I'm just saying that I think my proposed version is "the lesser of two evils" in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 5:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2012 1:51 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 172 of 1221 (679773)
11-15-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rahvin
11-09-2012 6:57 PM


Re: God and War
Rahvin writes
That depends largely on the species in question, and the person.
PETA members seem to feel quite a lot of moral outrage regarding the killing or mistreatment of just about all animal life above that of the cockroach.
Most Americans would experience moral outrage over the unnecessary killing or and form of abuse of a cat or dog.
Some people care more about their pets than they do human beings, if those human beings live far enough away or can otherwise be conveniently ignored.
Only a few people (religious extremists of the pacifist variety) actually morally care about the killing of microbes, but they exist as well.
But as usual, reality doesn't actually factor in to your ramblings.
Bertot writes: I was going to respond to each of the individual posts to my last posts, but this one is sufficiently self defeating enough to demonstrate that most if not all do not understand what is involved in questioning morality without God.
Most of the post are repeats of things that are not related to the actual subject at hand. or they are not actual arguments against what I have presented
I will try to simplify the topic, so perhaps it can be understood, what is actually involved in setting out the propositon that is needed to bring it into the focus
Here it is. Before you can establish that morality exists, you first need to establish that right and wrong are actually real entities. Right and Wrong do not actually exist, anymore than emotions. they are manifestations of molecuar processes. Hence right and wrong dont actually exist in the first place
Since right and wrong are derived from emotions and emotions vary from person to person and reason to reason in an exitence where alll theings are equal (physical properties), if follows that not only are they not real, they are not valid to establish an actual morality
What we percieve as actual is not. What we call right and wrong, and morality do not actually exist.
Now there is simply no way to avoid this conclusion. If there were it would have been presented.
Now lets see the only possible logical solution for actuaaly having an actual morality that can have atleast some actuality.
We have seen what the logical possibilites are without an absolute standard, now here they are with an absolute standard. While Right and Wrong still would not be actual entites, (having actual existence) assuming the existence of God, we would have a standard by which we could conclude that no more information could be gathered to contradict the conclusions of such an entity. So the standard would be absolute, even if the they are not actual realites.
Your premise is, in this thread that morality can eixst without such a standard. To establish that you would first need to find an absolute standard by which you could evaluate the differences in not only peoples opinions but reality itself concerning what is actually right and wrong
The items that you have provided in the area of selflessness, self preservation and related topics simply will not work from a logical perspective. they do not provide a logical format for you to proceed to establish any kind of real standard that can be used to establish the existence of right or wrong, moral or immoral
If you think this proposition can be overthrown, simply put forth the evidence to demonstrate it otherwise.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 6:57 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Omnivorous, posted 11-15-2012 6:45 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 173 of 1221 (679786)
11-15-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2012 5:19 PM


Re: God and War
Dawn writes:
Right and Wrong do not actually exist, anymore than emotions. they are manifestations of molecuar processes. Hence right and wrong dont actually exist in the first place
Molecules don't exist?
I think I see where you went wrong.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 5:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 174 of 1221 (679787)
11-15-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2012 5:19 PM


Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
Right and Wrong do not actually exist, anymore than emotions. they are manifestations of molecuar processes. Hence right and wrong dont actually exist in the first place
Ah, like my house doesn't exist. It is merely a manifestation of bricks, and so it doesn't actually exist in the first place.
Because, it seems, something that is made of real things doesn't exist. Since I can explain my emotions by reference to real things, such as molecules, my emotions don't exist, just like if I can explain my house by reference to real things, such as bricks, my house doesn't exist. There's nothing so non-existent as something which has a firm basis in physical reality. Imaginary castles in the air are real, houses built out of bricks are fictitious, because bricks are known to exist
And so because my emotions of (for example) love are instantiated in the form of real, substantial, material things, such as molecules, that proves that I don't really have any emotions. Why, you might as well say that I have a house! Sure, it keeps the rain off, but it can't really exist because it's made of real things.
Well, either that or you're nuts.
You're nuts.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 5:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 175 of 1221 (679789)
11-15-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by onifre
11-14-2012 7:56 PM


Re: God and War
Well that's a really big IF though isn't it? I mean, God commands those who worship him to commit acts of genocide on other humans. To rape and murder after war. You say it's right to do that because IF he is infinite in wisdom and eternal in character (don't really know what that means by the way) there is no other standard -- He is the standard? Have I understood your position here correctly?
Again with respect, you have read emotion into a strickly logical propositon. You have only decided that a certain thing is genocidal because you dont like it perpetraded on those of your species. I am going to bet you dont feel the same way when a group samon are scooped up into a net, then dismemberd and gutted.
Would you call that genocide or just buisness as usual?
Remove yourself from the purely emotional aspects and you will see clearly to the only thing that remains, logic and reality
Right and wrong are not actual entities and they cannot be established where there is a lack of total knowledge.
God does command people do commit terrible acts, right? Are you saying those things are ok to do because God has infinite wisdom?
Without envoking emotion, what makes them terrible acts. How did you decide they were terrible acts?
And IF the only thing you are using to "know" if you're right or wrong is your own presonal belief and applying nothing more than blind faith, well sir you've really messed things up pretty bad don't you think?
Personal belief has nothing to do with simply reality. Im only suggesting and pointing out what logic and realty will allow.
Unless you can demonstrate it otherwise
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by onifre, posted 11-14-2012 7:56 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 11-15-2012 7:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 176 of 1221 (679790)
11-15-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2012 7:42 PM


The Bible says ...
The Bible says that man knows what is right and wrong and does not need god to establish that.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 7:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 8:15 PM jar has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 177 of 1221 (679792)
11-15-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
11-15-2012 7:15 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot's Entry For Stupidity Of The Month
There's nothing so non-existent as something which has a firm basis in physical reality.
thats non-sense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 10:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 178 of 1221 (679793)
11-15-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
11-15-2012 7:51 PM


Re: The Bible says ...
The Bible says that man knows what is right and wrong and does not need god to establish that.
Where does it say that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 11-15-2012 7:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 11-15-2012 8:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 179 of 1221 (679794)
11-15-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2012 8:15 PM


Re: The Bible says ...
Ah, I assumed you had read the Bible. My mistake.
Gen 3:22 writes:
22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Note that it is not some minor bit player like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, not some small person like Paul or Peter, but God saying that.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 8:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2012 8:35 PM jar has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 180 of 1221 (679795)
11-15-2012 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by New Cat's Eye
11-13-2012 12:16 PM


But that's what morality is, and you cannot demonstrate that it isn't. For you to simply declare that it isn't doesn't make it not one.
If a guy decides he wants human flesh instead of animal flesh for consumption and survival, why is that murder? Because you decided it was murder? You cant be the STANDARD where both species are equal in physical attributes. "Morality" decided and based upon ones own perspective is neither rational or reasonable
Conversely it makes no sense to say a lion killing a child is not murder, yet we do not call it murder, which is a moral principal, correct
The point is what makes it "moral" in one instance and not immoral in another ? When you can establish that logically, then you will understand
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-13-2012 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2012 12:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2012 4:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024