[quote]Rza UK wrote:
Can someone explain the whole “The Bible is not facturally correct but its the truth” really doesn’t make sense to me.
If you gave me a math book that had the followings sums:
1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=6
After that final sum I could’nt beleive anything else I read because I can prove its wrong. Surely the same can be said for the bible?[/quote]
well… not necessarily. What you have found in your example is a single error. That would not negate the validity of the central premises of the book, which you have not presented here.
In the case of the Bible, though, the central premises are so outlandish that there really is no burden to disprove them. Whereas, there certainly is a burden of proof upon its proponents.
metaphysics, philosophies and religions are constructs, but they are not simply “imagined”.
[quote]No. Moral relativism states that the answer to the question, “what ought I do,” is relative to the dilemma. This is subtly different than what you propose to define relativism, but it is different nonetheless. For instance, if the dilemma is whether or not to take one life to save hundreds, the “right” answer does not change with to whom the question is posed. If, instead the dilemma is to take one life to save one other life, then the “right” answer MAY change. (there are a lot of variables here beyond my simple example)
Does this make sense? [/quote]
relativism states that morality is relative to its historical, cultural, psychological or sociological context.
it’s the moral version of “to each their own”.
usually this position is based on the asumption that there is no universal moral law and/or the asumption that, in the last analysis, moral propositions are meaningless and/or the asumption that, in the last analysis, moral propositions can be reduced to non-moral factors and meanings.
what you describe (the answer to the question “what ought I do” is relative to the dilemma) is called casuistry.
it’s a specific kind of moral absolutism, and was once the speciality of… the jesuits.
[quote]kamui wrote:
metaphysics, philosophies and religions are constructs, but they are not simply “imagined”.
[quote]No. Moral relativism states that the answer to the question, “what ought I do,” is relative to the dilemma. This is subtly different than what you propose to define relativism, but it is different nonetheless. For instance, if the dilemma is whether or not to take one life to save hundreds, the “right” answer does not change with to whom the question is posed. If, instead the dilemma is to take one life to save one other life, then the “right” answer MAY change. (there are a lot of variables here beyond my simple example)
Does this make sense? [/quote]
relativism states that morality is relative to its historical, cultural, psychological or sociological context.
it’s the moral version of “to each their own”.
usually this position is based on the asumption that there is no universal moral law and/or the asumption that, in the last analysis, moral propositions are meaningless and/or the asumption that, in the last analysis, moral propositions can be reduced to non-moral factors and meanings.
what you describe (the answer to the question “what ought I do” is relative to the dilemma) is called casuistry.
it’s a specific kind of moral absolutism, and was once the speciality of… the jesuits.
[/quote]
You can certainly draw comparisons between casuistry and relativism. I think the difference is that casuistry is specifically a practice of ethics and not a theory of moral codes, which relativism is. Casuistry could apply both relativism and absolutism… this is why it is more commonly associated with law than with moral codes.
Though, you could take the view that the complete model of moral relativism begins with Joseph Fletcher in 1966, when he published Situation Ethics , which holds more to my definition of relativism.
As I responded earlier to Cortes, I think that moral relativism is poorly understood and generally used as a pejorative in that ignorance.
Divine morality requires divine authority and divine accountability.
Human morality requires human authority and human accountability.
Pseudodivine morality requires human authority and human accountability pretending to be divine authority and divine accountability.
Claiming it’s impossible for an atheist to be moral artificially constrains morality to the supernatural realm, and completely ignores the laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine morality requires divine authority and divine accountability.
Human morality requires human authority and human accountability.
Pseudodivine morality requires human authority and human accountability pretending to be divine authority and divine accountability.
Claiming it’s impossible for an atheist to be moral artificially constrains morality to the supernatural realm, and completely ignores the laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves.[/quote]
Ah, this is what I’ve wanted to say but couldn’t quite word it properly. Well said.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine morality requires divine authority and divine accountability.
Human morality requires human authority and human accountability.
Pseudodivine morality requires human authority and human accountability pretending to be divine authority and divine accountability.
Claiming it’s impossible for an atheist to be moral artificially constrains morality to the supernatural realm, and completely ignores the laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine morality requires divine authority and divine accountability.
Human morality requires human authority and human accountability.
Pseudodivine morality requires human authority and human accountability pretending to be divine authority and divine accountability.
Claiming it’s impossible for an atheist to be moral artificially constrains morality to the supernatural realm, and completely ignores the laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves.[/quote]
True, the Taliban has laws. So did Mr. Stalin.[/quote]
there is bad societies
therefore you cannot directly derive a working definition of Good and Evil (morality) from the “laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves”.
in other words :
since you can’t take social values for granted, defining morality requires a way to evaluate values.
Too many here are contending that absolute morality comes and can only come from god.
Those peopl haven’t however, provided any evidence to demonstrate that it actually comes from god. It most likely came from men, and masquerades as divine.
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.[/quote]
Okay, THIS is where we disagree. I contend that morals are not metaphysical concepts. I contend that describing them as such is a half-assed attempt at understanding their origins.
I also contend that evolution is the source of our morals and does not “destroy” them. Consider the ability to reason change in content… a psychologist, Piaget, is famous for conducting a series of studies in which infants were presented with different objects and pictures to look at. In some experiments they were conditioned by repeatedly being presented with the same picture. When presented with that picture (say 3 dots instead of 2) the infants showed increased interest in the picture. The inference drawn form these studies (there were many, and his publishings of the work do them more justice than I can here) is that these nearly new-born children have an innate cognitive facility to discern change in objects. Similarly, I contend that the drive to behave in certain moral fashions is innate to us, an evolutionary tool that has served our species well and thus persisted.
[/quote]
So, what about those many, many, many instances in history where this evolutionary tool failed spectacularly?
The Aztecs were, what, doing it wrong? Or were they actually moral, at that time?
The Nazis were just following, uhh, evolution?
What was the body count in Russia under Stalin again? 20 million? 60? Was that because they should have adopted a representative government?
Was evolution taking a coffee break?
Okay, I think I’m starting to get it. Babies seem to be able to discern change in objects (whodathunkit, no?), therefore evolution explains, well, absolutely everything. If I act in accordance with my innate instinctual urges. That’s evolution. And if I act against my innate instinctual urges? Well dontcha see, that there’s evolution, too.
Saaaaay, this is a pretty good system you’ve worked out for yourself. It reminds me of another system. What was it? I just can’t quite put my finger on what other system it is that starts with a decided conclusion and then forces its premises to fit it…
You addressed everything! Thanks!
Okay, I know it’s “plainly obvious,” but I’m slow. Would you mind explaining to me what benefits individuals and societies receive from morality?
Does the existence of the Taliban in any way imply that democracy is invalid, and people should accept the moral values of the Taliban as equal to their own?
Obviously not, and that’s my point. People can believe deeply in democracy, even to the point of giving their lives to preserve it, without needing a supernatural sanction to do so.
Human morality is still morality. Recognizing the source as human rather than supernatural says nothing about the degree of commitment people demonstrate toward their moral system, or the level of tolerance they might have toward conflicting moral systems.
In my opinion, there is no such thing as divine morality. There is only human and pseudodivine morality. If there were a divine morality, religious people would agree on these morals, instead of squabbling over whether measuring one’s steps on the Sabbath is a Good or Bad thing according to god X. There is just as much relativism in the religious world as there is in the mundane world.
Claiming that your god can beat up my god is no different than claiming democracy is superior to the radical morals of the Taliban.
there is bad societies
therefore you cannot directly derive a working definition of Good and Evil (morality) from the “laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves”.
in other words :
since you can’t take social values for granted, defining morality requires a way to evaluate values. [/quote]
I can make the same argument about religions… as I said earlier, it’s a sophomoric one and easily disputed looking at the historical advantage of consensus.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
yeah… that thread was painful.
I decided to quote here something that you wrote, Cortes. It appears to me to be the only point at which you addressed evolution and morals;
What exactly is it that you find lacking in the theory of evolution… or what is it that you refer to that it can not explain?
This is as far as I ever saw you go in the way of addressing morality in the context of evolution, such as I’ve presented it. Do you care to take a stab at it now, or will you continue to dismiss it as an affront to some status that you have gained in these threads?[/quote]
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.
Morals are not behaviors. They inform behaviors. If the concept happens to be genetically derived neither is this a refutation against an overarching absolute Moral Law (see the Genetic Fallacy). And again, as I have already said about a thousand times, certain acts (behaviors) can never be right, regardless of circumstances.
If you still have a problem with this, then you are going to have to do a better job of explaining your beef than, “Well, you don’t know what moral relativity is,” and “you never even answered the question that I never even asked, so there!”
[/quote]
Ok - I partially agree with you - But another perspective might change your view, I challenge you to actually understand and research the model before replying.
Firstly, “morals inform behaviours”, I agree. BUT how do we come to moral conclusions? By your reasoning they’re…“just there”… But really its the brain? right? … Let me draw your attention to our major point of evolution and that of classical conditioning. Generally this is defined as a strong stimulus and a weak stimulus being fired together to produce a response. And eventually the weak stimulus is equally as effective at evoking the “strong” response. If you wish to look it up, in other contexts pavlov’s dog, Hebbs rule “cells that fire together wire together” etc etc.
Over time we learn and this becomes “normal” depending on the “stimulus-response” model.
So in context for us, there are situations that are put in front of us (ie. right and wrong, weak and strong) which condition us to think a certain way. So, through evolution we have been conditioned over time to react to certain situations in certain ways, and conditioned in such a way that it advantages us and our society.
IE - I contend morals are physical and a DIRECT response to evolution. (Not only because of this ONE example)
Also alleviating your argument of free will - We might KNOW what is right or wrong but which behaviour outcome we choose to act upon is free will…pretty simple stuff.
[/quote]
So, in the instances I listed above, and in the instances of, for example, Rwanda, Cambodia, Ethiopia, the early American South, China, Armenia, and on and on and on and on and on, what was going on with evolution?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Divine morality requires divine authority and divine accountability.
Human morality requires human authority and human accountability.
Pseudodivine morality requires human authority and human accountability pretending to be divine authority and divine accountability.
Claiming it’s impossible for an atheist to be moral artificially constrains morality to the supernatural realm, and completely ignores the laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves.[/quote]
True, the Taliban has laws. So did Mr. Stalin.[/quote]
What’s your point?[/quote]
I was demonstrating how everything is moral, therefore, nothing is moral. If a human can think up the standard, then it must be moral. If others have differing standards, then no one is morally correct…or, perhaps all are. If the laws and values of one society executes raped women because they lacked sufficient eyewitnesses to their vicimization, yet another soceity protects the victim and incarcerates the rapist, then both are moral. Or, both are immoral. Or, more precisely, neither are moral or immoral.
So risk takers are moral in vicitmizing others, while the potential victim is moral in oppossing them. Further, the risk takers are moral and validated in their triumph over the victim. And the victim is moral and validated when they triump over the risk taker. Basically, nonsense.
Even the inclusion of divinity in two of the 3 options, would be as moral as the the one lacking. And the divine-less option no more moral than the first two. Furthermore, if geno and phenotype are all there is too it, then religious morality is no less or worse a human standard than…well, whatever. Unless of course, one of the most common shared systems in human history isn’t a human standard. Or, if religious predisposition just so happnes to be the orientation conviently missing (though religious thought has been about as wide-spread as it gets).
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.[/quote]
Okay, THIS is where we disagree. I contend that morals are not metaphysical concepts. I contend that describing them as such is a half-assed attempt at understanding their origins.
I also contend that evolution is the source of our morals and does not “destroy” them. Consider the ability to reason change in content… a psychologist, Piaget, is famous for conducting a series of studies in which infants were presented with different objects and pictures to look at. In some experiments they were conditioned by repeatedly being presented with the same picture. When presented with that picture (say 3 dots instead of 2) the infants showed increased interest in the picture. The inference drawn form these studies (there were many, and his publishings of the work do them more justice than I can here) is that these nearly new-born children have an innate cognitive facility to discern change in objects. Similarly, I contend that the drive to behave in certain moral fashions is innate to us, an evolutionary tool that has served our species well and thus persisted.
[/quote]
So, what about those many, many, many instances in history where this evolutionary tool failed spectacularly?
The Aztecs were, what, doing it wrong? Or were they actually moral, at that time?
The Nazis were just following, uhh, evolution?
What was the body count in Russia under Stalin again? 20 million? 60? Was that because they should have adopted a representative government?
Was evolution taking a coffee break?
Okay, I think I’m starting to get it. Babies seem to be able to discern change in objects (whodathunkit, no?), therefore evolution explains, well, absolutely everything. If I act in accordance with my innate instinctual urges. That’s evolution. And if I act against my innate instinctual urges? Well dontcha see, that there’s evolution, too.
Saaaaay, this is a pretty good system you’ve worked out for yourself. It reminds me of another system. What was it? I just can’t quite put my finger on what other system it is that starts with a decided conclusion and then forces its premises to fit it…
You addressed everything! Thanks!
Okay, I know it’s “plainly obvious,” but I’m slow. Would you mind explaining to me what benefits individuals and societies receive from morality?
[/quote]
This will have to be brief, because I’m heading off to work for the day.
Natural selection does not predict or even necessarily predicate adaptations. It selects for advantageous adaptations by the mechanism of survival. This in itself is not always a perfect selection tool as there are instances of advantageous adaptations that were eliminated by externally catastrophic events.
Genotype, which is more and more the active selector of adaptation in humans kind of works the same way… though, not exactly… it’s more of a stress-based system.
So, the take away is that evolution is not perfect and OF COURSE you will find aberrant adaptations throughout history. For a purely physiological example look at our spinal column… it has still not evolved to support an upright stance with any efficacy… or our sinus cavities. They still drain from the top, a holdover from being quadrupedal.
I could sit here and write a book on it, as I’m sure has been done… hmm… something I need to look into… but, the ability to create societies based on consensus is likely one of the main determinant factors in the longevity of our species. Of course, playing devil’s advocate, it is also easy to argue that it could be our downfall… like I said, evolution is by nature imperfect.
To answer your last question, societies that are governed by moral codes such as ours (speaking of the US, here) tend to offer more stability and opportunities for longevity than those that don’t.
there is bad societies
therefore you cannot directly derive a working definition of Good and Evil (morality) from the “laws and morals that societies establish to govern themselves”.
in other words :
since you can’t take social values for granted, defining morality requires a way to evaluate values. [/quote]
I can make the same argument about religions… as I said earlier, it’s a sophomoric one and easily disputed looking at the historical advantage of consensus. [/quote]
We’re not talking about religion, we’re talking about morality, so you can put down the red herring, drop the personal attack, and address the issue. If it’s such a “sophomoric” argument, you should have no trouble refuting it.
What is so difficult about this? Evolution is a physical process. Morals are metaphysical concepts. Evolution does not affirm morals. It doesn’t explain morals. In fact, it actually destroys morals, if evolution is indeed the progenitor of our concept of morality, because it reduces all acts to behaviors and reactions to the environment, removing all possibility of free will.[/quote]
Okay, THIS is where we disagree. I contend that morals are not metaphysical concepts. I contend that describing them as such is a half-assed attempt at understanding their origins.
I also contend that evolution is the source of our morals and does not “destroy” them. Consider the ability to reason change in content… a psychologist, Piaget, is famous for conducting a series of studies in which infants were presented with different objects and pictures to look at. In some experiments they were conditioned by repeatedly being presented with the same picture. When presented with that picture (say 3 dots instead of 2) the infants showed increased interest in the picture. The inference drawn form these studies (there were many, and his publishings of the work do them more justice than I can here) is that these nearly new-born children have an innate cognitive facility to discern change in objects. Similarly, I contend that the drive to behave in certain moral fashions is innate to us, an evolutionary tool that has served our species well and thus persisted.
[/quote]
So, what about those many, many, many instances in history where this evolutionary tool failed spectacularly?
The Aztecs were, what, doing it wrong? Or were they actually moral, at that time?
The Nazis were just following, uhh, evolution?
What was the body count in Russia under Stalin again? 20 million? 60? Was that because they should have adopted a representative government?
Was evolution taking a coffee break?
Okay, I think I’m starting to get it. Babies seem to be able to discern change in objects (whodathunkit, no?), therefore evolution explains, well, absolutely everything. If I act in accordance with my innate instinctual urges. That’s evolution. And if I act against my innate instinctual urges? Well dontcha see, that there’s evolution, too.
Saaaaay, this is a pretty good system you’ve worked out for yourself. It reminds me of another system. What was it? I just can’t quite put my finger on what other system it is that starts with a decided conclusion and then forces its premises to fit it…
You addressed everything! Thanks!
Okay, I know it’s “plainly obvious,” but I’m slow. Would you mind explaining to me what benefits individuals and societies receive from morality?
[/quote]
This will have to be brief, because I’m heading off to work for the day.
Natural selection does not predict or even necessarily predicate adaptations. It selects for advantageous adaptations by the mechanism of survival. This in itself is not always a perfect selection tool as there are instances of advantageous adaptations that were eliminated by externally catastrophic events.
Genotype, which is more and more the active selector of adaptation in humans kind of works the same way… though, not exactly… it’s more of a stress-based system.
So, the take away is that evolution is not perfect and OF COURSE you will find aberrant adaptations throughout history. For a purely physiological example look at our spinal column… it has still not evolved to support an upright stance with any efficacy… or our sinus cavities. They still drain from the top, a holdover from being quadrupedal.
I could sit here and write a book on it, as I’m sure has been done… hmm… something I need to look into… but, the ability to create societies based on consensus is likely one of the main determinant factors in the longevity of our species. Of course, playing devil’s advocate, it is also easy to argue that it could be our downfall… like I said, evolution is by nature imperfect.
[/quote]
So, again: Evolution is the cause for everything, and nothing ever needs to be explained, because it’s “plainly obvious” that 60 million dead Russian human beings was an “aberration.”
…what was that belief system I was reminded of? It’s on the tip of my tongue…think it started with an R…
Why are stability and opportunities for longevity good?