Roots of Human Morality

[ephrem]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Exceptions to the rule makes the rule relative.[/quote]

No. Rules are relative when they are different for different people, individually or collective. Rules are absolute if they are the same for all.[/quote]

Suppose you say, “killing a human being is wrong”.

Suppose I agree but then enlist, go to war and kill an enemy.

I need to make a new, amended, rule to prevent conflict with the previous one, right?

So I make an exception.

I justify my actions based on that exception.

Suppose you say, “killing a human being is wrong” and you see it as absolute. Many people don’t see anything wrong with killing other people. Is the rule still absolute?[/quote]

Okay, well it looks like we’re being technical, so are we being technical? Then I wouldn’t say killing a human being is wrong. What you did by going to enlist, go to war and kill an enemy is not wrong even if the war is unjust. Thus, you wouldn’t need a new amended rule to prevent conflict. Because the first rule is not an actual rule. And, not an absolute.

Well, since that’s not a rule and therefore not an absolute we’ll have to use an actual rule. Like…thou shalt not murder.[/quote]

Always assume I’m being technical except when specified otherwise, lol.

What is to you an absolute moral rule, and what makes it absolute?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< God is omnipresent, how does he foreordain anything?[/quote]Please see the epistemology thread Chris.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

When faced with certain choices we make a decision based on certain predispositions, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make better choices.

If there is no free will, there is actually no choice.
We only think we make some “choice” because of our ignorance of the external and internal factors that determines and explains our actions.

And if there is no choice, there is no “better choices”, only better outcomes.

If morality does not exist as a separate, self-evident entity then nothing changes because, as kamui said and as you agreed with him, we act as if it exists anyway.[/quote]

there is still a difference between the two positions : one is inconsistent, and, as such, weaker.

We, as human beings, are able to break character. We can overrule our instincts and make a better choice.[/quote]

if you believe this, then you do believe in free wil.
This power to “break character”, “overrule our instinct” and “make a better choice” IS free will.

Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.

We can still make a choice from different options, and we can decide to make the better choice without free will.

No, you cannot, period. If you removed freewill, you take choice completely out of the equation. Then you are left with an illusion of choice.

But if you call that free will, then it’s free will with limitations.

Suppose you have three options to choose from: one is a bad choice, one is a better choice and one is the best.

Is it free will if you’re bound by frustration and choose [forced is a better word] to make a bad choice? Is it free will if you’re confused and can’t decide?

It’s not really complicated. Freewill simply means that what ever choice you made, you had the option to choose otherwise. If you do not have choice, you have freewill if you do not have choice, you do not have freewill. What you choose is, not relevant to that higher order. And there is no middle ground here. Either freewill exists or it does not. If can’t kinda sorta exist just a little bit…

[quote]
Is it free will if you can look at all three options and choose the one that’s best?

If that is free will, inspite of the fact I don’t believe in free agents, I’ve got some thinking to do.[/quote]
You’ve got some thinking to do. Let me know if you want resources…

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because morality depends largely on context.
[/quote]

Can you give me an example?[/quote]

Killing a human being is wrong.

Killing a human being is wrong, except in self-defense.

Killing a human being is wrong, except when you kill them with a government mandate.

Killing a human being is wrong, except when he’s found guilty for his crimes by his peers.

[/quote]

If there is no freewill, all of the above are actually morally inert. [/quote]

Only if you require an absolute source of morality to validate morality.

It doesn’t help your position that this absolute source is invisible and unknowable.[/quote]

I never said anything about ‘source’. For the record, your the one who keeps dragging God into it not me. I can discuss, and have been discussing morality perfectly fine with out talking about God. As a matter of fact, it is I the theist who has been trying to move the target off of God. We don’t have to talk about a thing’s source to talk about the thing itself. I can talk to somebody about a car all day long with out ever mentioning the factory it was built in, or it’s ultimate source God. You apparently cannot for some reason.
Second, as far as the source goes, though again, it’s a strawman, is knowable. The fact that you do not know it, doesn’t mean it’s not knowable.
You don’t know things you don’t try to know. That’s not my fault, it’s yours. I know God.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Suppose you have three options to choose from: one is a bad choice, one is a better choice and one is the best.

Is it free will if you’re bound by frustration and choose [forced is a better word] to make a bad choice? Is it free will if you’re confused and can’t decide?

Is it free will if you can look at all three options and choose the one that’s best?

Objectively, in a deterministic perspective, you don’t have “three options”.
Your actualchoice is the result of a long chain of material causes and material effects. And since no element of this chain is free in any way, your choice was already “decided” from the beginning of time, so it’s not really a choice.
The two other potential choices" were never an option. They never existed objectively.

you only make a choice subjectively. And this subjective choice may or may not be free, depending on the circumstances.
In the three cases you listed, you are the final cause of your act, so your will is indeed free.

Most problems come from the fact people often confuse free will (which is a self-evident daily experience) and free action (which is an absurdity).
Free will doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. It only means you can want whatever you want.
[/quote]

What Kam said… You’re to good to be true, your not that serial killer in France are you? That’d be my luck…

[Tiribulus]

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< We are free to want what we want, but why we want what we want may prove to be not so free.[/quote]If understood correctly Ephrem this is by far the most biblical postulation I’ve ever seen you make.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

When faced with certain choices we make a decision based on certain predispositions, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make better choices.

If there is no free will, there is actually no choice.
We only think we make some “choice” because of our ignorance of the external and internal factors that determines and explains our actions.

And if there is no choice, there is no “better choices”, only better outcomes.

If morality does not exist as a separate, self-evident entity then nothing changes because, as kamui said and as you agreed with him, we act as if it exists anyway.[/quote]

there is still a difference between the two positions : one is inconsistent, and, as such, weaker.

We, as human beings, are able to break character. We can overrule our instincts and make a better choice.[/quote]

if you believe this, then you do believe in free wil.
This power to “break character”, “overrule our instinct” and “make a better choice” IS free will.

Tiribulus does not believe in free will, but, consistently, he absolutely doesn’t believe that we can “break character” or overrule anything without God’s predetermined grace.
He believes that spiritually dead autonomous men are powerless and literally bound to sin.

We can still make a choice from different options, and we can decide to make the better choice without free will.

No, you cannot, period. If you removed freewill, you take choice completely out of the equation. Then you are left with an illusion of choice.

But if you call that free will, then it’s free will with limitations.

Suppose you have three options to choose from: one is a bad choice, one is a better choice and one is the best.

Is it free will if you’re bound by frustration and choose [forced is a better word] to make a bad choice? Is it free will if you’re confused and can’t decide?

It’s not really complicated. Freewill simply means that what ever choice you made, you had the option to choose otherwise. If you do not have choice, you have freewill if you do not have choice, you do not have freewill. What you choose is, not relevant to that higher order. And there is no middle ground here. Either freewill exists or it does not. If can’t kinda sorta exist just a little bit…

[quote]
Is it free will if you can look at all three options and choose the one that’s best?

If that is free will, inspite of the fact I don’t believe in free agents, I’ve got some thinking to do.[/quote]
You’ve got some thinking to do. Let me know if you want resources…[/quote]

It’s not enough to just say, “I can choose therefore I have freewill therefore morality exists as a separate entity”.

Just to be able to choose is not the issue, in my opinion.

Yes, I can make a choice, but the choices we make are based on criteria that aren’t free.

Criteria we sometimes aren’t even aware of.

There are layers of perception below the ability of making a choice you aren’t adressing here, and it would be too easy to just ignore them.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

I never said anything about ‘source’. For the record, your the one who keeps dragging God into it not me. I can discuss, and have been discussing morality perfectly fine with out talking about God. As a matter of fact, it is I the theist who has been trying to move the target off of God. We don’t have to talk about a thing’s source to talk about the thing itself. I can talk to somebody about a car all day long with out ever mentioning the factory it was built in, or it’s ultimate source God. You apparently cannot for some reason.
Second, as far as the source goes, though again, it’s a strawman, is knowable. The fact that you do not know it, doesn’t mean it’s not knowable.
You don’t know things you don’t try to know. That’s not my fault, it’s yours. I know God.[/quote]

Ofcourse you’d prefer to avoid the issue of source, because you have no source.

You’re working backwards from a conclusion; God, so you can point out evidence in favor of that conclusion.

And you don’t know god, pat. You think you know something that exists outside of time and space. I’d call that delusional.

I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.

[ephrem]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

ephrem wrote:<<< We are free to want what we want, but why we want what we want may prove to be not so free.[/quote]If understood correctly Ephrem this is by far the most biblical postulation I’ve ever seen you make.

It’s not biblical, it’s common sense, observation and experience.

We act in concordance with our genetic and social conditioning.

If you are free to choose but every choice you make is motivated by that conditioning, how free are you really?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]ephrem wrote: The whole bible is common sense, observation and experience.

We act in concordance with our creation in the image of God.

If you are free to choose but every choice you make is motivated by a sinful nature inherited from Adam which has broken that image, how free are you really?[/quote]You’re welcome =]

[ephrem]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote: The whole bible is common sense, observation and experience.

We act in concordance with our creation in the image of God.

If you are free to choose but every choice you make is motivated by a sinful nature inherited from Adam which has broken that image, how free are you really?[/quote]You’re welcome =]
[/quote]

Yet in my version I don’t have to resort to an imaginary skyfairy to make it work.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote: The whole bible is common sense, observation and experience.

We act in concordance with our creation in the image of God.

If you are free to choose but every choice you make is motivated by a sinful nature inherited from Adam which has broken that image, how free are you really?[/quote]You’re welcome =]
[/quote]Yet in my version I don’t have to resort to an imaginary skyfairy to make it work.[/quote]You don’t have to resort to anything Ephrem. It is your nature to see your creator absolutely everywhere in absolutely everything and deny Him to His face. You can’t help it. This is called “spiritual death”. You CAN be raised from that grave ya know. yes, I know this is getting repetitive. For a couple years now, but I will never give up on you. I continue to pray for you regularly by name as I say.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I never said anything about ‘source’. For the record, your the one who keeps dragging God into it not me. I can discuss, and have been discussing morality perfectly fine with out talking about God. As a matter of fact, it is I the theist who has been trying to move the target off of God. We don’t have to talk about a thing’s source to talk about the thing itself. I can talk to somebody about a car all day long with out ever mentioning the factory it was built in, or it’s ultimate source God. You apparently cannot for some reason.
Second, as far as the source goes, though again, it’s a strawman, is knowable. The fact that you do not know it, doesn’t mean it’s not knowable.
You don’t know things you don’t try to know. That’s not my fault, it’s yours. I know God.[/quote]

Ofcourse you’d prefer to avoid the issue of source, because you have no source.

You’re working backwards from a conclusion; God, so you can point out evidence in favor of that conclusion.

And you don’t know god, pat. You think you know something that exists outside of time and space. I’d call that delusional.
[/quote]
You can call it what you want. But I am not the one having trouble grasping topics here. I understand them well. I do have the advantage of formal study, but that doesn’t mean it should be elusive to you.

I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.

I didn’t see the question. I know what I believe is true because logic demands that it is true. It’s no house of cards, it’s simple logic and it’s nothing more than that. There’s no house of cards here, metaphysics has been understood for about 2500 years. It’e pretty well understood now.
Don’t project your issues with mind/ body on me. It’s your problem not mine.
Your the one who cannot understand how it’s positively impossible for morality to exist with out freewill or any material to grasp after it.
It’s your delusion that all that exists is physical when that clearly not the case.
The fact that God is the first cause is not necessary to knowing or understanding morality.

I give you an example, calculus or Boolean math is just as metaphysical as God is. You cannot know Calculus if you do try. And hell it may even seem unknowable because it’s hard, but it is knowable if you try. Same with God. You cannot possible tell me that Calculus is a man made physical construct, please don’t be that dense. Because I will happily show you, again, how you are wrong, again.
Again, it’s your problem with your very narrow view of existence.

[kamui]

[quote]
I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.[/quote]

Actually, my own house of card is built on this very question.
Just like Tiribulus castle-in-the-sky of cards.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.[/quote]

Actually, my own house of card is built on this very question.
Just like Tiribulus castle-in-the-sky of cards.

You have faith that what you believe is true? With all the knowledge you have it makes the most sense? What is your answer to this question?

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

I give you an example, calculus or Boolean math is just as metaphysical as God is. You cannot know Calculus if you do try. And hell it may even seem unknowable because it’s hard, but it is knowable if you try. Same with God. You cannot possible tell me that Calculus is a man made physical construct, please don’t be that dense. Because I will happily show you, again, how you are wrong, again.
Again, it’s your problem with your very narrow view of existence. [/quote]

My objections to your cosmological argument were pretty similar to this guys’ objections: Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

When I imagine a pile of shit, that pile of shit is just as metaphysical as God is. That doesn’t mean the imagined pile of shit is real, nor does it mean God is real.

I can use calculus to solve a problem. As such calculus is the application of how we understand and perceive reality in a meaningful way.

…

Okay, I can see now how you could extend the same principle to morality. I can’t find a way to talk myself out of this one, and usually that’s a sign, lol.

I might even have to change my mind, but before I do I’ll have to let this simmer for a bit.

…to be continued.

[therajraj]

I never understood why a logical argument in itself is so compelling to conclusively say there is a god.

Most related knowledge in science points in the direction of there being no god.

[ephrem]

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I never understood why a logical argument in itself is so compelling to conclusively say there is a god.

Most related knowledge in science points in the direction of there being no god.
[/quote]

How can you prove, or disprove, that something exists outside of time and space?

You can’t.

So either you take a leap of faith and try to support your faith in whatever way, even by use of logic, or you don’t.

But if we can derive a certain kind of order from our observations of reality and call that mathemetics, then there’s no reason why you can’t call another kind of order based on observations of reality and call that morality.

The only difference between the two, in my view, is that morality lacks a backdrop.

Pat will call that backdrop the uncaused cause; T will call it what he always calls it; Kamui will call it infinite wisdom or intellect, and I’m back at my default position:

I don’t know [what that backdrop might be, or if there is one at all].

This has been a good day.

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.[/quote]

Actually, my own house of card is built on this very question.
Just like Tiribulus castle-in-the-sky of cards.

You have faith that what you believe is true? With all the knowledge you have it makes the most sense? What is your answer to this question?
[/quote]

I know that there is something.
I know that it changes.
I know that i’m affected/changed by it.

Everything else derives from this initial knowledge.

Including metaphysics, epistemology and morality.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’m honestly baffled why intelligent men, like you and kamui, ignore a simple question like, “how do you know what you believe is true?”, and instead build an intellectual house of cards designed to circumvent the answer to that question.[/quote]

Actually, my own house of card is built on this very question.
Just like Tiribulus castle-in-the-sky of cards.

You have faith that what you believe is true? With all the knowledge you have it makes the most sense? What is your answer to this question?
[/quote]

I know that there is something.
I know that it changes.
I know that i’m affected/changed by it.

Everything else derives from this initial knowledge.

Including metaphysics, epistemology and morality.

[/quote]

That which you’ve derived from the initial knowledge: what is your pay-off for believing its validity? Why do you believe what you believe is true?