Roots of Human Morality

[Tiribulus]

[quote]pat wrote:<< Hell, FUCK no. That’s not the way it works. Culpability is everything. You will yourself to hell. Nobody but you makes that decision. God didn’t create damned people, he gave us the freewill to damn ourselves, but he did not predestine us to rot in hell.
Predestination is probably the most disgusting, bastardized, idiotic, and grotesquely warped, and anti-scriptural heresy going right now.
Sure we’d like to be special, but we’re not. Everybody has to fight for it, there are no free rides.[/quote]Pat, as usual hasn’t the first flickering clue what he’s talkin about when it come to the gospel and shows forth the sanctifying power of the gospel according to Rome in his edifying speech.

He’d be pure entertainment if he weren’t so heartbreaking. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I choose to believe that Infants who die during an impossible to define period of infancy are saved by the graciously imputed merit of the blood of Jesus Christ to their souls. No, I can’t prove that and I might be wrong.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The dual nature problem is not a good vs. evil thing, it’s the physical and the metaphysical natures of all things really that is dual nature.

The fact that morality is a metaphysical component and is static at it’s core is just a fact. Morality is not necessary for survival of the species. It is this moral awareness that sets us apart from other living things.[/quote]

That’s a bold statement, pat. Empathy and compassion are the foundation morality is built upon.
[/quote]
No it’s not. You can be empathetic to unjust causes that are inherently immoral, you can be sympathetic to immorality as well. Morality is not based on something as ad hoc as feelings. Feelings are flippant and wholly unreliable gauges of anything. Morality is independent of feelings.
I addressed this a long time ago in this very thread. You can be an empathetic, and sympathetic immoral person.

You can hardly argue that empathy and compassion aren’t necessary for survival of the species?

I wasn’t arguing that, you took like 500 steps backward here. There is no evidence, not a shred that links empathy and/ or sympathy necessarily to morality. You’re just trying really hard to make it a man made construct. You can’t, because it’s not.

[quote]
As far as I can recall, you don’t think morality has empathy and compassion as its foundation, but correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Prove to me it does… But that would mean it’s intrinsically linked. Emotion is a very flimsy thing to base anything on. Emotions are reactive, emotions are results, not causal.
You’re going to have one hell of a time trying to make this link. It’s not supported anywhere.

[pat]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I think this discussion is going nowhere because of two different schools of ideas that are coming forward. There are those who believe that we have evolved from apes, and that our morality is a construct developed by people that go into and beyond evolution and into what we should, or ought to and why.

Then we have religious people who believe morality is a static set of rules handed down by some mighty creator.

These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, only to understand the various other ideas for what they are. [/quote]

No way to reconcile these issues? In what way do you mean reconcile? [/quote]

I mean as the ideas stand they cannot work together as they are. Just another way of saying as the ideas stand they are mutually exclusive.

This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]

The answer lies in the word ‘morality’ what does it mean? When you figure that out, you then must know we humans can merely tap into it like any other metaphysical entity. We have no capacity to create or destroy it.
Morality isn’t tangible, nor is it a biological component. We have a clue of it’s existence because it’s exemplified. We can see it’s action, we cannot sense it in any way. How can something, with no physical component, evolve physically? The correct answer is it can’t.

[pat]

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Dualism the way I know it is the belief that the mind/soul and body are two separate things, as opposed to monism the belief that the physical and sort of spiritual are one thing, some versions believe that everything (contents of the universe) is really one thing wrapped up together. [/quote]

The only difference is the size of your container… You can see the atom and the laws that govern it’s behavior as one unit or two separate things. Certainly the atom, for instance, requires it’s material and the physical laws that govern it as one unit for it cannot be an atom with out it’s material and laws. But then on the other had, the atoms particles and the laws that govern it are two different things. You cannot say that the atom is the law that governs it.
Second, it’s a one way trust. The law that governs that material of the atom can exist with out the material that makes up the atom. But the material that makes up the atom cannot exist with out it’s laws.

In other words a concept can exist without a material component, but nothing material can exist with out the laws that guide it. It’s the metaphysical that gives the physical the chance to exist.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Still waiting patiently*[/quote]I apologize TT. I will do my best. As usual I’m very far behind with several people.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The dual nature problem is not a good vs. evil thing, it’s the physical and the metaphysical natures of all things really that is dual nature.

The fact that morality is a metaphysical component and is static at it’s core is just a fact. Morality is not necessary for survival of the species. It is this moral awareness that sets us apart from other living things.[/quote]

That’s a bold statement, pat. Empathy and compassion are the foundation morality is built upon.
[/quote]
No it’s not. You can be empathetic to unjust causes that are inherently immoral, you can be sympathetic to immorality as well. Morality is not based on something as ad hoc as feelings. Feelings are flippant and wholly unreliable gauges of anything. Morality is independent of feelings.
I addressed this a long time ago in this very thread. You can be an empathetic, and sympathetic immoral person.

You can hardly argue that empathy and compassion aren’t necessary for survival of the species?

I wasn’t arguing that, you took like 500 steps backward here. There is no evidence, not a shred that links empathy and/ or sympathy necessarily to morality. You’re just trying really hard to make it a man made construct. You can’t, because it’s not.

As far as I can recall, you don’t think morality has empathy and compassion as its foundation, but correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Prove to me it does… But that would mean it’s intrinsically linked. Emotion is a very flimsy thing to base anything on. Emotions are reactive, emotions are results, not causal.
You’re going to have one hell of a time trying to make this link. It’s not supported anywhere.

As long as you are unable to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that morality has an indepent [from humans] source, I’ve no other option than to assume morality is a human construct.

Morality is an idealised version of how we ought to behave, but this in itself is not proof of its independent existence.

[kamui]

Assuming morality is a human construct is not an option.

If morality has not an “independent source”, then it’s dependent from us.
If morality is dependent from us, then we are not dependent from morality.
If we construct it, we can de-construct it, re-construct it, etc. And ultimately, we can ignore it.
If we are not dependent from morality, then we are not bound to respect it.
And morality is, by definition something we are bound to respect.

So, if morality has not an “independent” source, then, there is no morality at all, by definition.

as long as you refuse to acknowledge the independent nature (and therefore, the independent “source”) of morality, your only option is
“morality doesn’t exist”.

Which means :
"there is no “i shall”, there is only “i shall… if i want”.

Hopefully, people who really hold this position and who live by this lack of rule are quite rare.
The vast majority of the people who say that “morality comes from a human source” doesn’t really believe what they say, and they almost never act upon what they say they believe.

[Severiano]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I think this discussion is going nowhere because of two different schools of ideas that are coming forward. There are those who believe that we have evolved from apes, and that our morality is a construct developed by people that go into and beyond evolution and into what we should, or ought to and why.

Then we have religious people who believe morality is a static set of rules handed down by some mighty creator.

These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, only to understand the various other ideas for what they are. [/quote]

No way to reconcile these issues? In what way do you mean reconcile? [/quote]

I mean as the ideas stand they cannot work together as they are. Just another way of saying as the ideas stand they are mutually exclusive.

This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]

The answer lies in the word ‘morality’ what does it mean? When you figure that out, you then must know we humans can merely tap into it like any other metaphysical entity. We have no capacity to create or destroy it.
Morality isn’t tangible, nor is it a biological component. We have a clue of it’s existence because it’s exemplified. We can see it’s action, we cannot sense it in any way. How can something, with no physical component, evolve physically? The correct answer is it can’t.
[/quote]

I agree for the most part, but the way I’m thinking about it is as follows. We are thinking things, our minds come up with ideas and we can act on them. There is necessarily a mental component that exists in say the metaphysical realm, but at the same time there needs to be someone who created that idea. This is why I believe morality evolves.

It also must be tied to evolution, because in our family tree, we didn’t start off as the apes we are. We slowly evolved, and these ideas seem to be rather new considering how long life has existed. Quite simply, they evolved, and they are still evolving. Not exactly the same way things evolve in biology, but there is an indubitable parallel.

The idea is real even though it has no physicality itself. It can evolve because we can always improve on ideas, existing ideas can be improved by other people as well. This isn’t biological evolution because the thing evolving in this case isn’t the physical thing itself (the person with the idea). In terms of morality, we can see that moral societal norms have shaped things like law historically. Moral norms, say from the bible have been reshaped by people like Kant (came up with the Categorical imperative), and have therefore evolved, taking one set of ideas, or moral rules and taken them a step further.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Assuming morality is a human construct is not an option.

If morality has not an “independent source”, then it’s dependent from us.
If morality is dependent from us, then we are not dependent from morality.
If we construct it, we can de-construct it, re-construct it, etc. And ultimately, we can ignore it.
If we are not dependent from morality, then we are not bound to respect it.
And morality is, by definition something we are bound to respect.

So, if morality has not an “independent” source, then, there is no morality at all, by definition.

as long as you refuse to acknowledge the independent nature (and therefore, the independent “source”) of morality, your only option is
“morality doesn’t exist”.

Which means :
"there is no “i shall”, there is only “i shall… if i want”.

Hopefully, people who really hold this position and who live by this lack of rule are quite rare.
The vast majority of the people who say that “morality comes from a human source” doesn’t really believe what they say, and they almost never act upon what they say they believe.

[/quote]

We can behave morally when we want to behave morally.

The absence of an absolute moral authority is in itself no reason to behave immorally; you behave morally because you have placed value on moral behaviour yourself.

The insistance that one needs an absolute authority is unnecessary.

[Severiano]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Dualism the way I know it is the belief that the mind/soul and body are two separate things, as opposed to monism the belief that the physical and sort of spiritual are one thing, some versions believe that everything (contents of the universe) is really one thing wrapped up together. [/quote]

The only difference is the size of your container… You can see the atom and the laws that govern it’s behavior as one unit or two separate things. Certainly the atom, for instance, requires it’s material and the physical laws that govern it as one unit for it cannot be an atom with out it’s material and laws. But then on the other had, the atoms particles and the laws that govern it are two different things. You cannot say that the atom is the law that governs it.
Second, it’s a one way trust. The law that governs that material of the atom can exist with out the material that makes up the atom. But the material that makes up the atom cannot exist with out it’s laws.

In other words a concept can exist without a material component, but nothing material can exist with out the laws that guide it. It’s the metaphysical that gives the physical the chance to exist.[/quote]

Agree with laws, as well as ideas in general. The metaphysical realm is one where infinite ideas exist, therefore there is no such thing as a novel idea, because in order for it to be novel it must be new, but in order for it to be new it must not exist, but it necessarily already does in the metaphysical realm where infinite ideas, laws and all immaterial things exist. I think the metaphysical realm works more as an abstract tool to make sense of reality, but it also seems to work as an actual infinite container holding everything non physical and related to, I guess we could say potential ideas.

I’m not disputing that things need to be a certain way about the universe in order for us to even exist, among them are laws governing the universe. When it comes to metaphysics we need to take everything into account, the senses we use to interpret the world, which brings into the question things like colors vs. things like the Empire state building. Where is the original referent of red, do we all refer to the same red in our minds when we think of the color red? No way, we will have a different shade or idea of red in our minds, but in some way we are all referring to the same metaphysical thing when we draw on it in the abstract physical realm. Somehow we are able to refer to the same thing metaphysically without referring to the EXACT same thing metaphysically. This is puzzling and quite different from the laws of the universe, which are far more specific.

When I think of red, I think of the battle color red on the Marine Corps flag. Others think of red as some other specific color, yet when we think abstractly we still refer to the same thing in the metaphysical, and this is all based on our senses and how we interpret red with our eyeballs and brain. When you look at the Marine Corps flag, the way you interpret color may be different than mine… Just saying I think of metaphysics as more a tool to think of things rather than an actual realm, and it’s because things like colors are so incredibly elusive.

In that sense, the metaphysical realm is extremely complex and elusive.

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Assuming morality is a human construct is not an option.

If morality has not an “independent source”, then it’s dependent from us.
If morality is dependent from us, then we are not dependent from morality.
If we construct it, we can de-construct it, re-construct it, etc. And ultimately, we can ignore it.
If we are not dependent from morality, then we are not bound to respect it.
And morality is, by definition something we are bound to respect.

So, if morality has not an “independent” source, then, there is no morality at all, by definition.

as long as you refuse to acknowledge the independent nature (and therefore, the independent “source”) of morality, your only option is
“morality doesn’t exist”.

Which means :
"there is no “i shall”, there is only “i shall… if i want”.

Hopefully, people who really hold this position and who live by this lack of rule are quite rare.
The vast majority of the people who say that “morality comes from a human source” doesn’t really believe what they say, and they almost never act upon what they say they believe.

[/quote]

We can behave morally when we want to behave morally.[/quote]

No, we can not.
If we don’t “believe in morality”, if we don’t think we are bound to respect it, we can’t act morally at all.
We can not even do the smallest and the simplest of moral act.

Granted, we can still do some good.
We can still do the same thing a moral peson would do, but, without moral reasons, we can not do it morally.

We just do it for various amoral reasons.

Morality is absolute and inconditionnal or it does not exist.

There is no other way around : aboluteness and inconditionnality are embedded in the definition of morality.

If something is naturally evolved, culturally determined, historically relative, and human-constructed, it’s not morality, it’s behaviors and customs. And it’s not the same thing.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

We can behave morally when we want to behave morally.[/quote]

No, we can not.
If we don’t “believe in morality”, if we don’t think we are bound to respect it, we can’t act morally at all.
We can not even do the smallest and the simplest of moral act.

Granted, we can still do some good.
We can still do the same thing a moral peson would do, but, without moral reasons, we can not do it morally.

We just do it for various amoral reasons.

Morality is absolute and inconditionnal or it does not exist.

There is no other way around : aboluteness and inconditionnality are embedded in the definition of morality.

If something is naturally evolved, culturally determined, historically relative, and human-constructed, it’s not morality, it’s behaviors and customs. And it’s not the same thing.

[/quote]

I don’t believe that morality has an absolute source, but I do see the value in moral behaviour.

As such I can value moral behaviour and act accordingly.

If my behaviour can be considered moral behaviour what does it matter whether I believe in an absolute source or not?

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The dual nature problem is not a good vs. evil thing, it’s the physical and the metaphysical natures of all things really that is dual nature.

The fact that morality is a metaphysical component and is static at it’s core is just a fact. Morality is not necessary for survival of the species. It is this moral awareness that sets us apart from other living things.[/quote]

That’s a bold statement, pat. Empathy and compassion are the foundation morality is built upon.
[/quote]
No it’s not. You can be empathetic to unjust causes that are inherently immoral, you can be sympathetic to immorality as well. Morality is not based on something as ad hoc as feelings. Feelings are flippant and wholly unreliable gauges of anything. Morality is independent of feelings.
I addressed this a long time ago in this very thread. You can be an empathetic, and sympathetic immoral person.

You can hardly argue that empathy and compassion aren’t necessary for survival of the species?

I wasn’t arguing that, you took like 500 steps backward here. There is no evidence, not a shred that links empathy and/ or sympathy necessarily to morality. You’re just trying really hard to make it a man made construct. You can’t, because it’s not.

As far as I can recall, you don’t think morality has empathy and compassion as its foundation, but correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Prove to me it does… But that would mean it’s intrinsically linked. Emotion is a very flimsy thing to base anything on. Emotions are reactive, emotions are results, not causal.
You’re going to have one hell of a time trying to make this link. It’s not supported anywhere.

As long as you are unable to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that morality has an indepent [from humans] source, I’ve no other option than to assume morality is a human construct.

Morality is an idealised version of how we ought to behave, but this in itself is not proof of its independent existence.[/quote]

First, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim that morality is rooted in compassion and sympathy.

Now it’s very easy to prove that morality exists beyond the constructs of humanity. Your dealing with ‘good’ and ‘evil’ which by default are metaphysical constructs. No human have ever invented a metaphysical construct, ever, never, ever. Humans discover the metaphysical, we don’t have the capacity to create in that realm. Any concoction we think we make is just a reworking of a bunch of things that already exists. Nobody really has an original thought we may be able to look at things or order things in an unusual way, but we cannot create or destroy metaphysics. All that shit already exists. Our senses can perceive the results of their actions, but not the constructs themselves.
If you deny the existence of metaphysics in the face of all the evidence of it’s existence, well I can’t help you. I can give you coffee, but I cannot make you awake.

We do have a 6th sense. It’s called logic and reason. It allows us to see beyond what we know. It’s how Einstein knew there were black holes way before we could sense them in any way. Logic told him they had to exist… When logic tells you something, it’s usually right. Actually, it’s never wrong.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Assuming morality is a human construct is not an option.

If morality has not an “independent source”, then it’s dependent from us.
If morality is dependent from us, then we are not dependent from morality.
If we construct it, we can de-construct it, re-construct it, etc. And ultimately, we can ignore it.
If we are not dependent from morality, then we are not bound to respect it.
And morality is, by definition something we are bound to respect.

So, if morality has not an “independent” source, then, there is no morality at all, by definition.

as long as you refuse to acknowledge the independent nature (and therefore, the independent “source”) of morality, your only option is
“morality doesn’t exist”.

Which means :
"there is no “i shall”, there is only “i shall… if i want”.

Hopefully, people who really hold this position and who live by this lack of rule are quite rare.
The vast majority of the people who say that “morality comes from a human source” doesn’t really believe what they say, and they almost never act upon what they say they believe.

[/quote]

Damn it Kamui! You’d make such a good theist. Wanna switch sides?

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Assuming morality is a human construct is not an option.

If morality has not an “independent source”, then it’s dependent from us.
If morality is dependent from us, then we are not dependent from morality.
If we construct it, we can de-construct it, re-construct it, etc. And ultimately, we can ignore it.
If we are not dependent from morality, then we are not bound to respect it.
And morality is, by definition something we are bound to respect.

So, if morality has not an “independent” source, then, there is no morality at all, by definition.

as long as you refuse to acknowledge the independent nature (and therefore, the independent “source”) of morality, your only option is
“morality doesn’t exist”.

Which means :
"there is no “i shall”, there is only “i shall… if i want”.

Hopefully, people who really hold this position and who live by this lack of rule are quite rare.
The vast majority of the people who say that “morality comes from a human source” doesn’t really believe what they say, and they almost never act upon what they say they believe.

[/quote]

We can behave morally when we want to behave morally.

The absence of an absolute moral authority is in itself no reason to behave immorally; you behave morally because you have placed value on moral behaviour yourself.

The insistance that one needs an absolute authority is unnecessary.
[/quote]

Morality existing doesn’t mean we have to adhere to it. Now the proof is in the pudding. I found a story on CNN that is absolutely perfect for this conversation.
The problem with moral relativity is that at least in concept you have to be able to justify the most abominable things by consensus. Because without the metaphysical absolutes of morality, the word is literally void of any meaning.
Read this:

Slave master becomes an abolitionist | CNN

Now, given this situation, was slavery still wrong in his case?

[pat]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I think this discussion is going nowhere because of two different schools of ideas that are coming forward. There are those who believe that we have evolved from apes, and that our morality is a construct developed by people that go into and beyond evolution and into what we should, or ought to and why.

Then we have religious people who believe morality is a static set of rules handed down by some mighty creator.

These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, only to understand the various other ideas for what they are. [/quote]

No way to reconcile these issues? In what way do you mean reconcile? [/quote]

I mean as the ideas stand they cannot work together as they are. Just another way of saying as the ideas stand they are mutually exclusive.

This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]

The answer lies in the word ‘morality’ what does it mean? When you figure that out, you then must know we humans can merely tap into it like any other metaphysical entity. We have no capacity to create or destroy it.
Morality isn’t tangible, nor is it a biological component. We have a clue of it’s existence because it’s exemplified. We can see it’s action, we cannot sense it in any way. How can something, with no physical component, evolve physically? The correct answer is it can’t.
[/quote]

I agree for the most part, but the way I’m thinking about it is as follows. We are thinking things, our minds come up with ideas and we can act on them. There is necessarily a mental component that exists in say the metaphysical realm, but at the same time there needs to be someone who created that idea. This is why I believe morality evolves.

It also must be tied to evolution, because in our family tree, we didn’t start off as the apes we are. We slowly evolved, and these ideas seem to be rather new considering how long life has existed. Quite simply, they evolved, and they are still evolving. Not exactly the same way things evolve in biology, but there is an indubitable parallel.

The idea is real even though it has no physicality itself. It can evolve because we can always improve on ideas, existing ideas can be improved by other people as well. This isn’t biological evolution because the thing evolving in this case isn’t the physical thing itself (the person with the idea). In terms of morality, we can see that moral societal norms have shaped things like law historically. Moral norms, say from the bible have been reshaped by people like Kant (came up with the Categorical imperative), and have therefore evolved, taking one set of ideas, or moral rules and taken them a step further. [/quote]

I think your close to understanding this. For you example, yes the ‘object’ of the thought is a metaphysical construct. So if you are thinking of a car, the image and properties of the car in your ‘head’ is a metaphysical construct. Now, the electro-chemical reaction your brain used to have the thought is physical.
I want to stop here. Examine that car in your head for minute. Is there anything about that car that is original, never before known stuff? Or is it a collection of things you already know a car to have?
Same thing with metaphysical constructs of all kinds. The objects of those constructs already exist, we by education, experience, wisdom, and logic are able to tap into them. And yes, from that perspective evolution has helped our brains attain this capacity. But as smart as we are, we are incapable of creating or destroying any metaphysical construct. And while your thoughts may die with you, the objects that make them up have always existed and will always exist.

The study of epistemology is the study of what we can know. And what we have found we can know, is just stuff that’s already there. Every time you have a new thought, it’s just a reworking of old thoughts. The arrangement may have been formally unfamiliar to us, but we really didn’t invent anything, we just discovered something new. It’s called seeing with the mind’s eye. It’s a fascinating view really.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Assuming morality is a human construct is not an option.

If morality has not an “independent source”, then it’s dependent from us.
If morality is dependent from us, then we are not dependent from morality.
If we construct it, we can de-construct it, re-construct it, etc. And ultimately, we can ignore it.
If we are not dependent from morality, then we are not bound to respect it.
And morality is, by definition something we are bound to respect.

So, if morality has not an “independent” source, then, there is no morality at all, by definition.

as long as you refuse to acknowledge the independent nature (and therefore, the independent “source”) of morality, your only option is
“morality doesn’t exist”.

Which means :
"there is no “i shall”, there is only “i shall… if i want”.

Hopefully, people who really hold this position and who live by this lack of rule are quite rare.
The vast majority of the people who say that “morality comes from a human source” doesn’t really believe what they say, and they almost never act upon what they say they believe.

[/quote]

We can behave morally when we want to behave morally.[/quote]

No, we can not.
If we don’t “believe in morality”, if we don’t think we are bound to respect it, we can’t act morally at all.
We can not even do the smallest and the simplest of moral act.

Granted, we can still do some good.
We can still do the same thing a moral peson would do, but, without moral reasons, we can not do it morally.

We just do it for various amoral reasons.

Morality is absolute and inconditionnal or it does not exist.

There is no other way around : aboluteness and inconditionnality are embedded in the definition of morality.

If something is naturally evolved, culturally determined, historically relative, and human-constructed, it’s not morality, it’s behaviors and customs. And it’s not the same thing.

[/quote]

I got me a man crush…

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

First, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim that morality is rooted in compassion and sympathy.[/quote]

I can’t prove to you when or how a concept was invented, especially since that probably happened thousands of years ago, but in the absence of an outside source the only way morality could be imagined was through empathy and compassion, as an extension of the golden rule.

The physical manifestation of the golden rule are mirror neurons.

[quote] Now it’s very easy to prove that morality exists beyond the constructs of humanity. Your dealing with ‘good’ and ‘evil’ which by default are metaphysical constructs. No human have ever invented a metaphysical construct, ever, never, ever. Humans discover the metaphysical, we don’t have the capacity to create in that realm. Any concoction we think we make is just a reworking of a bunch of things that already exists. Nobody really has an original thought we may be able to look at things or order things in an unusual way, but we cannot create or destroy metaphysics. All that shit already exists. Our senses can perceive the results of their actions, but not the constructs themselves.
If you deny the existence of metaphysics in the face of all the evidence of it’s existence, well I can’t help you. I can give you coffee, but I cannot make you awake.

We do have a 6th sense. It’s called logic and reason. It allows us to see beyond what we know. It’s how Einstein knew there were black holes way before we could sense them in any way. Logic told him they had to exist… When logic tells you something, it’s usually right. Actually, it’s never wrong.[/quote]

Good and evil are inventions; merely a different way to assign value to wanted vs unwanted behaviour.

You’re also conflating words like metaphysics and logic with assumption and belief.

For instance, radiowaves existed before the radio was invented; they have a source in nature, e.i. astronomical objects. Now, to apply the same reasoning to concepts like morality is far from logical.

What is the source of morality? Just because it exists does not mean it must have an external source, and at any rate, I know the source of morality: homo sapiens.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

Now, given this situation, was slavery still wrong in his case? [/quote]

Pat, I have no problem condemning slavery as immoral, simply because the concept does not gel with my worldviews.

The ease with which you jump to extremes: “if it’s not this then it must be that”, I don’t play that game.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Now, given this situation, was slavery still wrong in his case? [/quote]

Pat, I have no problem condemning slavery as immoral, simply because the concept does not gel with my worldviews.

The ease with which you jump to extremes: “if it’s not this then it must be that”, I don’t play that game.

[/quote]

You don’t understand that it gels perfectly with your world view. If you grew up in Mauritania, you would have grown up around slavery. Does it make it right? There is nothing extreme about that.
But extremes are helpful in illustrating exactly why moral relativity is a farce, because it breaks down at the extremes. This would not be a problem if the extremes didn’t exist, the problem is they do exist. You’re world view is that as long as your ok with it, then it’s fine to do what ever. So if I thought slavery was ok, then I would not be immoral in owning another person, isn’t that right?
If I thought that rape was ok, that somehow forcing myself on another person is ok, then it is morally ok because I think so. ← This is what you are advocating.

I sense that you have such an aversion to the existence of God that you will go to the extreme of taking absurd nonsensical stances just in case you leave a crack in the door… The problem is that what you are advocating is indefensible and lacks evidence, logic, or credibility. This isn’t about God, this is about the existence of morality. You don’t have to believe in God to acknowledge morality indeed exists, on it’s own.

Slavery isn’t wrong, because you think so, it’s not wrong because many people think so, it’s wrong because it does grievous harm to another person and no amount of consensus will make that fact not true. This is a static fact, it’s not malleable by consensus, period.