Can Moral Education Be Grounded in Naturalism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is another fun study

http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/darley_samarit.html

Excerpt:
The amount of “hurriness” induced in the subject had a major effect on helping behavior, but the task variable did not (even when the talk was about the Good Samaritan).

Overall 40% offered some help to the victim. In low hurry situations, 63% helped, medium hurry 45% and high hurry 10%. For helping-relevant message 53%, task relevant message 29%. There was no correlation between “religious types” and helping behavior

Great. What does this have to do with the thread topic? All you’re doing is providing more description of what people do, not what they ought.

Also, I object to the fact that these scientists needed to borrow a Christian morality parable to put in their study. Couldn’t they use some scientific naturalist text instead of the Bible?

It again shows that religion is not the fount of morality which was what the original article hypothesised.

And as the scientists were specifically testing this point it obviously made sense to use a passage from the bible as their source of inspiration for the test.

So they couldn’t even come up with a study of their own without stealing Christian intellectual capital. Pretty sad. Surely, there are atheistic naturalist texts from which they could borrow?

What are you babbling on about now? They did come up with the study on their own, they just used the Good Samaritan as the subject matter that the seminary students were supposed to be lecturing on to test the hypothesis that this would prime Christians to act in a more Christian way. What they found however was that humans are human and despite the artificial overlay of religion they react in a standard human way to a human situation.

Again, that they do something is not the same as saying, “They ought to do something.” That’s what this thread is about. There are plenty of nice non-Christians out there that act perfectly fine. Do they have a rational way of expressing why they act that way other than preferences?

[/quote]

Yes, they express it in terms of a philosophy.

So please explain to me where the bible talks about Christmas Trees, Father Christmas, Easter Bunnies or Easter Eggs. These are all parts of modern Christianity, they are all lifted from other religions.

Within the Bible there are also plenty of examples of concepts lifted from other religions. This is obvious and to be expected given that Christianity evolved from Judeism and Judeism evolved from older religions. Your God started out as the war god of a polytheistic bedouin religion.

82

So please explain to me where the bible talks about Christmas Trees, Father Christmas, Easter Bunnies or Easter Eggs. These are all parts of modern Christianity, they are all lifted from other religions.

Within the Bible there are also plenty of examples of concepts lifted from other religions. This is obvious and to be expected given that Christianity evolved from Judeism and Judeism evolved from older religions. Your God started out as the war god of a polytheistic bedouin religion.[/quote]

You are very right that the Bible does not talk about those things. Father Christmas comes from the other person Santa Clause or St. Nicholos. Saint Nicholos was a priest who would make toys and give them to the poor children around his church. All the other things are not part of modern Christiantiy but a secular belief it is part of Christianity.

On your second paragraph, could it be that God was trying to use the other religions to make himself known to the people he created, but the people he first spoke toperverted the truth that God intended? Once he spoke to Abram/Abraham he put it all together and that is why Judeism has parts and pieces of other religions in it.

The 10 comandments are rules given by God to man to help us live in good relationship with God and our fellow man. God knows our nature so he wanted to help us get better. The whole Old Testament shows how us humans are falible. The Hebrews screwed up all the time. I myself screw up all the time. I am the chief hypocrite.

83

morality predates Christianity. I have no problem with people believeing in god though I choose not to. The ten commandmants are decent moral standards, however they are not some sort of revelation that only Christianity provided.

Morality stems from ones rational interpretation that life is finite and is the supreme value. Actions which are taken to further this value are moral, actions which are not are immoral. This statement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, however I would need many pages to write its intracacies. Rosseau’s depiction of man in the state of nature is probably an apt description of where morality and social contracts come from.

84

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

You are missing the point, anything you do becomes a moral imperitive for everyone else. You steal to benefit yourself in an environment where stealing is not the norm. The second that everyone else joins in you nolonger have a benefit and your world has gone to shit.[/quote]

No, I got the point. The world may or may not go to shit for me depending on how capable I am of operating in it. If I’m a ruthless clever guy (the kind that evolution favors), I may or may not do just fine. Just because everyone else is stealing doesn’t mean that stealing won’t work for me.

But still, people have different definitions of what constitutes “gone to shit.” Some people prefer things one way, others don’t. Moreover, doing something because if you don’t do it, everything will “go to shit” is not actually moral - it’s drudgery. The less people confine themselves to the current norm, the more burdensome conforming to the norm becomes for you.

85

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
ds1973 wrote:
These naturalists are confused.

The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual’s life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man’s nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

…

There is indeed morality without religion–a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.

Read:

Moral Values Without Religion: Does Morality Depend Upon Religion?
by Peter Schwartz

at:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4241

I don’t see how Schwartz’ argument escapes the dilemmas Clark elucidates:

The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual’s life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man’s nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

How is reason possible without the laws of logic? How do the laws of logic exist without a God so ordering the universe that they do exist?

If “an individual’s life” is the value from which all others spring, how does it follow that I shouldn’t murder/steal to sustain it if necessary?

Since life requires man to produce what he needs, productiveness is a moral value–thereby making moral opposites out of the industrious worker and the parasitic welfare recipient.

Life could also require me to steal what I need, couldn’t it? Why do I need to work when others can work and I can take from them?

[/quote]

Here it is, in a nutshell:

  1. mans life is his own. In order to sustain his life, man must use his mind to grow, hunt or gather food, build shelter and tools, etc… Mans tool of survival is his mind, logic and reason are NOT a product of some unseen diety. They are tools of a rational mind. Logic: “Bob fell off the cliff and died. If I fall off the cliff I will die.”

  2. In order to be able to sustain his life, man must be free to act in a self-generating, self-sustaining manner. Rights are the freedom to act.

  3. the products of mans thoughts and labor are his property, used by him to sustain his life. The Right to property is the freedom for a man to use, keep and dispose of the products of his thoughts and labor as he sees fit, through voluntary trade.

These are the basic rights (freedoms of action) that a government for the people, by the people was instituted by men. These rights stem from the fact that a man (or womans) body is their property and that they should be free to sustain thier life through their own thoughts and actions without their property rights being violated. In turn, they do not violate others property rights. The governments role is as an arbitrator of contracts and defender of rights (freedom to action).

If you steal from others, you are initiating force upon them and harming their lives.

86

im willing to wager the above poster follows objectivism…

87

[quote]666Rich wrote:
im willing to wager the above poster follows objectivism…[/quote]

You would be correct. :slight_smile:

88

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Only problem is that if you standardise the IQ testing for language using phrases that are more common in black or latino communities there is no difference in IQ between US whites, blacks or latinos.

I see your understanding of IQ testing is about as solid as your understanding of natural selection, both of which tell us uncomfortable things about humanity.

I did well enough in IQ tests to join Mensa at the age of 10 so go on, enlighten me where am I wrong?[/quote]

Do they still hassle you to this day?

89

[quote]lou21 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
If you really think that Morality comes from Religion then you are saying that every religious person holds back from murdering, raping and stealing only because of their religion. Clearly this is ridiculous and humans have an innate sense of morality. This makes sense in evolutionary terms as groups of people living together will historically have tended to be genetically linked therefore genes that select for some form of morality will increase their chances of being propagated.

Incidentally studies have been done that show no greater tendency to morality in strongly religious people than in people who claim no religion.

Maybe it is because God wrote on all our hearts the law. Maybe that is were you get your morality, it is a better explanation then it came from no where.

Just to play devils advocate… Where did God come from? How did he determine what is moral?
[/quote]

God is the Alpha, He did not come from anywhere, God has always been. He determined what is moral, because God’s character is good. So, all things he created were good.

90

the burden of proof lies on those making the claim of existance. So where is your proof that god exists? Only existance exists, to say otherwise is to nullify perception. If you nullify perception then you essentially forfeit your right to be taken rationally, ie your argument is contradictory.

This has been covered in a great deal by subjectivists (religion, Kant, keirkegaard) vs objectivist (rand) and neitzchean thought. To say that god is the alpha and he just “exists” is as viable a claim as me saying the boogeyman exists.

The counter argument is "“well I just know he exists”. The presupposes that ones logic is based on feeling and emotion, which in turn means the world is entirely subjective, thus the term subjectivism. This would refute the notion of absolutes and axioms, which we know is not the case because existance exists.

That is the first axiom of a sound philosophy rooted in Aristolianism. Furthermore, one cannot choose to say “Well, ill believe in god because im just used to it from growing up, but ill be rational the rest of the time”. This evasion is tantamount to cognitive suicide. Aristotle referred to man violating one premise of his values is violating them all, and that example is a crime of cognition.

Ill ignore reality sometimes, and adhere to it only when it benefits me! That is a mantra that is against life.

91

PRCalDude,

I rarely post, but…interesting thread! Here are some criticisms (although by no means are they complete criticisms):

  1. Socrates’ puzzle: if God is rational, and we have morality for certain reasons…then it’s the reasons that make things moral…not God. In that case, wouldn’t anyone (Christian or otherwise) have access to the reasons? I think Sidgwick raised something like the following: what if God commanded us to be amoral? What should we do then? Puzzles like that seem troubling for your view (to me, at least).

  2. For a view like yours, I agree with those that questioned the existence of God. Really, your view is not a moral theory, your view is an appeal to a certain authority. So (not saying you can’t defend this…I’m sure you would) you probably need less about moral theory and more about why your authority is better than others, why we should believe your authority exists, and so on. So, why should I believe your authority?

3)The biggest problem I see here is assuming morality exists at all…obviously hugely controversial amongst philosophers. What are our reasons to think one ought never kill, steal, or committ adultery? Or would those be permissible at times but not at other times? If so, which times (and will a Christian philosophy get us all of the “times” we need)?

So, it seems like lots of people in this thread are trying to save morality without the divine. I guess I’m wondering, what reason do we have to assume an objective morality in the first place? Maybe empericism is a bad approach to moral theory, as you’ve suggested, but that doesn’t imply yours is a better approach.

Perhaps the Christian education you favor would do a “better” job of securing the morals you’ve mentioned…but that doesn’t imply that we ought to value those morals (for instance, I do think it’s hugely controversial whether or not we ought to never steal…and, should you grant that…the door is open for some of the criticisms I’ve mentioned earlier).

What do you think?

Best,
-David

PS LOVE the avatar!

PSS Apologies for only skimming through the rest of the thread/repeating ideas. I have to go to work soon!

92

You have a gun in your avatar. A symbol of death.

Religious folk here across the pond tend to believe that guns are wrong. A very large proportion of America, (and a lot of other countries), disagrees.

Religion isn’t black and white either. Religion is what the believe makes of it, and if the believe is a ‘bad’ person, he will fit religion around his life to justify his actions.

To say religion is the source of all morals is bullshit. In my opinion.

Of couse, i’m taking the word religion to mean you have faith in a god here, and typically the dominant religions. As doubleduce said, everything around you that you care for could be argued to be ‘religion’ to you. In this sense, yeah, everything about you is down to a religion of sorts, because really were just a load of chemical reactions that take place in a chain reaction over the most part of a century.

93

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Yes, they express it in terms of a philosophy.
[/quote]

Great. Let’s hear it. So far, the “philophy” has been a list of wants and preferences, not oughts.

Aren’t you refuting yourself with your own argument? If the Bible doesn’t discuss these things (as you admit), then how does it “lift them” from other religions? The “faith once delivered to the saints,” as Paul defines it, has been enscripturated and is summarized by the Apostle’s Creed (dating to the first century), the Nicene Creed, and also the various confessions that have come out of the Reformation. These have maintained a chain of continuity back to the apostolic era and certainly don’t recognize popes, easter bunnies, or santa. None of these are found in Scripture, as you’ve admitted, and none of these are found in any of the historic summaries of the Christian faith.

[quote]
Within the Bible there are also plenty of examples of concepts lifted from other religions. This is obvious and to be expected given that Christianity evolved from Judeism (sp)[/quote]
Yes.

Proof? Simply stating that there were other religions that preceded Judaism that sound somewhat similar is not proof.

94

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
ds1973 wrote:
These naturalists are confused.

The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual’s life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man’s nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

…

There is indeed morality without religion–a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.

Read:

Moral Values Without Religion: Does Morality Depend Upon Religion?
by Peter Schwartz

at:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4241

I don’t see how Schwartz’ argument escapes the dilemmas Clark elucidates:

The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual’s life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man’s nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

How is reason possible without the laws of logic? How do the laws of logic exist without a God so ordering the universe that they do exist?

If “an individual’s life” is the value from which all others spring, how does it follow that I shouldn’t murder/steal to sustain it if necessary?

Since life requires man to produce what he needs, productiveness is a moral value–thereby making moral opposites out of the industrious worker and the parasitic welfare recipient.

Life could also require me to steal what I need, couldn’t it? Why do I need to work when others can work and I can take from them?

Here it is, in a nutshell:

  1. mans life is his own. In order to sustain his life, man must use his mind to grow, hunt or gather food, build shelter and tools, etc… Mans tool of survival is his mind, logic and reason are NOT a product of some unseen diety. They are tools of a rational mind. Logic: “Bob fell off the cliff and died. If I fall off the cliff I will die.”

  2. In order to be able to sustain his life, man must be free to act in a self-generating, self-sustaining manner. Rights are the freedom to act.

  3. the products of mans thoughts and labor are his property, used by him to sustain his life. The Right to property is the freedom for a man to use, keep and dispose of the products of his thoughts and labor as he sees fit, through voluntary trade.

These are the basic rights (freedoms of action) that a government for the people, by the people was instituted by men. These rights stem from the fact that a man (or womans) body is their property and that they should be free to sustain thier life through their own thoughts and actions without their property rights being violated. In turn, they do not violate others property rights. The governments role is as an arbitrator of contracts and defender of rights (freedom to action).

If you steal from others, you are initiating force upon them and harming their lives. [/quote]

  1. Does not rule out stealing.

“Logic is the tool of the rational mind.” That was my point. Who made the tool? Did man make the laws of logic?

  1. does not rule out stealing.

I may not harm people by stealing from them, but I may harm people through purely legal means as well. Me undercutting my competition price-wise is harming my competition.

“Do not harm” doesn’t offer much by which we can live our lives. In order to help myself, I often need to harm my competition.

95

[quote]Registered4Grow wrote:
PRCalDude,

I rarely post, but…interesting thread! Here are some criticisms (although by no means are they complete criticisms):

  1. Socrates’ puzzle: if God is rational, and we have morality for certain reasons…then it’s the reasons that make things moral…not God. In that case, wouldn’t anyone (Christian or otherwise) have access to the reasons? I think Sidgwick raised something like the following: what if God commanded us to be amoral? What should we do then? Puzzles like that seem troubling for your view (to me, at least).
    [/quote]

That wasn’t my argument. My argument is that God is good, goodness flows from his character, he wills good and therefore mandates good, and we ought to follow the mandates that flow from his character. We obviously don’t, but that doesn’t mean we ought not.

I’m not saying believe mine, I’m saying the scientific naturalist cannot rationally account for his without expressing everything in terms of preferences. I think my position is the only one that can be defended by way of showing all the others to be irrational.

Christians believe in both revealed moral laws and natural law (creation and conscience). Together, both are sufficient. Natural law, in fact, is sufficient by itself. Man is made by God, therefore he has inherent knowledge of right and wrong. Since the Fall, man chooses wrong over right.

I see no reason from a scientific naturalist perspective.

I believe that my position is the only one left after the others fail.

Thanks. “We can take these deadites, we can take them, with science!”

[quote]
PSS Apologies for only skimming through the rest of the thread/repeating ideas. I have to go to work soon![/quote]

Don’t apologize, you “got it” right off the bat.
Thanks.

96

1 and 2 do indicate a refrain from stealing. this is due to the fact that all men have those rights not just one. The example of using legality is not a problem with the value set itself but with the legal system in general. There can be laws made that infringe upon the basic inalienable rights of man. This is called slavery, they may be laws though none the less.

Where did logic come from? Logic and reason from a scientific naturaulistic perspective would be adhering to reality and the facts of existance. This is done through the process of cognition. Man can choose to be reasonable (undertaking cognitive process) or he can choose not to be reasonable (disregarding cognitive evidence). Show me logic that is not grounded in reality. One would then try to get into the conceptual, and theoretical. However this notion is invalid because the conceptual is merely integrated facts of reality.

The difference in opinion could be what is reasonable to many. To a suicide bomber, forfeiting ones life is reasonable. This is not to say that values are relative. Considering that ones life is the ultimate value, the previous example would be untenable as being reasonable.

I appreciate all the thought from everyone in this discussion, whether one disagrees or not, the sponge does not grow without absorbing the water. If I have misinterpreted anyones ideas feel free to digress

97

[quote]666Rich wrote:
1 and 2 do indicate a refrain from stealing. this is due to the fact that all men have those rights not just one. The example of using legality is not a problem with the value set itself but with the legal system in general. There can be laws made that infringe upon the basic inalienable rights of man. This is called slavery, they may be laws though none the less.

[/quote]

What you are essentially saying is that men ought to respect the rights of others. I get that. Why ought they? The fact that my life is valuable to me does not mean that someone else’s life is valuable to me. It may be, it may not be depending on my preferences. My personal property is valuable to me. It doesn’t necessarily follow that someone else’s personal property is NOT valuable to me. I may still value taking theirs because my life is valuable to me and their stuff helps me protect/support my life.

This is the problem with objectivism: it takes my own personal will to survive and attempts to make it into a moral imperative for how I should respect others’ wills to survive. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Selfishness does not beget altruism.

[quote]
Where did logic come from? Logic and reason from a scientific naturaulistic perspective would be adhering to reality and the facts of existance. This is done through the process of cognition.[/quote]

My point is that cognition itself is only possible because the laws of logic exist to allow rationality. Where did the laws themselves come from?

[quote]
Show me logic that is not grounded in reality. One would then try to get into the conceptual, and theoretical. However this notion is invalid because the conceptual is merely integrated facts of reality.[/quote]

Well, yeah. The question is, “Why is that reality (the laws of logic) there in the first place to even allow cognition?”

98

You seem to understand a good deal of this, but I am not sure you have an in depth understanding of objectivism particularly.

Morality ends where the gun begins. Thus it is no moral act even if it benefits one by taking anothers property. Force and mind are opposites, the mind is what creates value, thus force and value are opposite. Extrapolating this means that one man takes from another man, creating an arms race, leading to the destruction of man, game theory if you will. This destroys society, everyone loses.

Here is a passage from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

" an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying a mans capcity to recognize the good, ie his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a mans judgement, demanindg that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering oes mind is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his yes. Values cannot exist outside the full context of a mans life needs goals and knowledge".

Cognition presupposes the laws of logic. One is cognitive before one learns logic, it takes cognition to allow logic. Cognition is the act of taking perception and integrating it into conclusion. You see a table, you recognize it is an object, based on its relation to other objects you percieve and what you have learned fits the definition of a table, you decide it is a table. You see another table, yo8u then recognize the characterstics that allow it to be similar and different to other tables, and conclude there are many types of tables. This is showing the transition of cognition to logic.

99

[quote]666Rich wrote:
You seem to understand a good deal of this, but I am not sure you have an in depth understanding of objectivism particularly.

Morality ends where the gun begins. Thus it is no moral act even if it benefits one by taking anothers property. Force and mind are opposites, the mind is what creates value, thus force and value are opposite. Extrapolating this means that one man takes from another man, creating an arms race, leading to the destruction of man, game theory if you will. This destroys society, everyone loses.

Here is a passage from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

" an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying a mans capcity to recognize the good, ie his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a mans judgement, demanindg that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering oes mind is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his yes. Values cannot exist outside the full context of a mans life needs goals and knowledge".
[/quote]
I need to think/learn more about this.

Yes. We can’t have cognition without the laws of logic.

Right…

This seems to be a contradiction. You can think before you learn about the laws of logic, but you have to use them to think whether or not you know about them.

[quote]
Cognition is the act of taking perception and integrating it into conclusion. You see a table, you recognize it is an object, based on its relation to other objects you percieve and what you have learned fits the definition of a table, you decide it is a table. You see another table, yo8u then recognize the characterstics that allow it to be similar and different to other tables, and conclude there are many types of tables. This is showing the transition of cognition to logic.[/quote]

Right. But you are at the same time using the logic to form those conclusions. The laws of logic are a part of reality that you use to form conclusions. This table is different than that table (law of excluded middle) because this table has x characteristics that that table doesn’t have.

100

[quote]666Rich wrote:
the burden of proof lies on those making the claim of existance. So where is your proof that god exists? Only existance exists, to say otherwise is to nullify perception. If you nullify perception then you essentially forfeit your right to be taken rationally, ie your argument is contradictory.

This has been covered in a great deal by subjectivists (religion, Kant, keirkegaard) vs objectivist (rand) and neitzchean thought. To say that god is the alpha and he just “exists” is as viable a claim as me saying the boogeyman exists.

The counter argument is "“well I just know he exists”. The presupposes that ones logic is based on feeling and emotion, which in turn means the world is entirely subjective, thus the term subjectivism. This would refute the notion of absolutes and axioms, which we know is not the case because existance exists.

That is the first axiom of a sound philosophy rooted in Aristolianism. Furthermore, one cannot choose to say “Well, ill believe in god because im just used to it from growing up, but ill be rational the rest of the time”. This evasion is tantamount to cognitive suicide. Aristotle referred to man violating one premise of his values is violating them all, and that example is a crime of cognition.

Ill ignore reality sometimes, and adhere to it only when it benefits me! That is a mantra that is against life.

[/quote]

I never said he exists because whatever your lame examples. Boogeyman has never been proclaimed as an omnipotent deity. God exists through the evidence, the patterns of life and nature, the complex yet similar biological make up of animals. Our intellectual knowledge compared to the rest of the animal population. The events that happened throughout history, that are brought back to God’s hand.

Philosophically speaking, there has to be a non-caused cause.