I think what people are dancing around is everyone seems to be in agreement that there is a natural law.
And we all know what it is, sitting here: don’t be dick to other people (or creatures, for that matter); in fact, try to be nice.
And it breaks down to some basic things:
Don't murder or hurt people for no reason
Don't do creepy sex things like screwing your mom or kid. Or little kids in general.
Don't take people's stuff.
Don't be torture or otherwise mean to animals.
Now, as a Jewish guy, yes, I believe that such is written on our hearts by G-d. In fact, I just paraphrased (badly) the laws of Noah.
So the choice is somewhat objective, not a subjective truth.
And while I cannot prove the existence of G-d, nor of the veracity of Judaism, I can reject a religion as false because its goes against this basic morality that is written here, as could you. So, one can narrow down the choices.
Long story short, if the religion does not require you to not be a dick to other people, it’s a false religion.
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]
There’s a difference between a lack of evidence and ignoring evidence. [/quote]
There is.
I think our differences on the matter probably boil down to the standards we hold for something to be considered evidence.
That’s just my guess anyway.
[/quote]
What standard is that?[/quote]
Simply stated, the evidence must be falsifiable.
To be clear, I don’t claim any certainty that God doesn’t exist. The existence of god is, after all, an unfalsifiable conjecture.
Nearly everyone denies the existence of all sorts of gods. My list is, in the case of monotheists, simply longer by one god.
I tend to agree with you. Where we may part ways is that perceiving right from wrong necessarily and by definition requires divine intervention or supernatural forces. [/quote]
It did at one time. Had to.
Not needed now. It’s been in effect long enough. It’s written in stone so to speak.[/quote]
So what the terrorists did in France is cool then? If no objective morality, the standards they want to live by are violence and hence the attacks they carried out have no wrong in them since it seemed good to them.
That’s the rabbit hole jumping down. There’s nothing inherently wrong with terrorism, since that is the standard they choose to live by.
You cannot decry anything as bad or good, evil or good, it’s all just stuff neither bad nor good since those words then have no meaning.[/quote]
Morality means that there is an objectively, absolutely, true reason why X is good and Y is bad. That’s why morals must be objective to hold any meaning. You cannot say “murder is bad, except in these countless situations” and expect it to hold any real power as a moral. There is no such thing as subjective morality- It just means that you have an opinion. Why bother using fancy terms to say “I haven an opinion!”?
Rules, opinions, and all those things are essentially different from morality. There is no such thing as subjective morality, and whenever you make a claim towards something being a moral/immoral act, you must have an absolute truthful reason why.
As far as I am concerned, we cannot ever give an absolute truthful reason towards why something is good or bad? Murder is bad? Why? Because you killed someone! Well, what if that someone was trying to murder your family member? Obviously he’s breaking the moral code, what happens then?
Etc.
The point is- One can easily hold an opinion and act on it. I don’t understand why people think the absence of morality/claims to basic human rights/related means that we are neutral on everything and must remain neutral.
And, in this case, I think the terrorists are monsters and deserve to burn in a fire.
I don’t buy into that different cultures have different moral systems and mindsets line. When the Aztecs were torturing people to death in their temples I believe they knew what they were doing was immoral and evil. In fact, they were revelling in the evil and immorality.[/quote]
Isn’t this just establishing a central narrative and having everything fit into it? Someone did X. X is an evil act. Therefore that someone is evil because he committed an evil act.
I don’t buy into that different cultures have different moral systems and mindsets line. When the Aztecs were torturing people to death in their temples I believe they knew what they were doing was immoral and evil. In fact, they were revelling in the evil and immorality.[/quote]
Isn’t this just establishing a central narrative and having everything fit into it? Someone did X. X is an evil act. Therefore that someone is evil because he committed an evil act.
How is that in any way useful?[/quote]
Useful? It establishes an agreed upon set of norms and laws to guide law and government policy and just about everything where ethics plays a part. Without an objective, universal moral code we have chaos. So not just useful, but essential.
[quote]magick wrote:
As far as I am concerned, we cannot ever give an absolute truthful reason towards why something is good or bad? [/quote]
Again hat tip to Pat, but… I’d have to say the first step in determining if something is moral or not is answering the question: Is there a victim?
It solves the “murder” issues too. Is defending your life using deadly force against an aggressor murder? No. It is survival. I believe the phrase the founders used was “the only moral war is a defensive one”. Or some shit like that.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I think what people are dancing around is everyone seems to be in agreement that there is a natural law.
And we all know what it is, sitting here: don’t be dick to other people (or creatures, for that matter); in fact, try to be nice.
And it breaks down to some basic things:
Don't murder or hurt people for no reason
Don't do creepy sex things like screwing your mom or kid. Or little kids in general.
Don't take people's stuff.
Don't be torture or otherwise mean to animals.
[/quote]
There are arguments we could have about natural law (there was a long one not too long ago), about biological explanations for morality, etc. But I will save those – they have little to do with what I’m trying to say here – and focus on the moral code you’ve laid out here.
Is it true that god could have created, or could now create, a radically different, even opposite morality?
Is it true that god could say, “Murder and hurt people for no reason; do creepy sex things like screw your mom and kid (and little kids in general); take people’s stuff; torture the hell out of every animal you happen to see”? And that then these things would be good?
Sure, and, speaking practically, I do. But I may well not be telling the Jihadist, for example, anything more than “your morality isn’t my morality.”
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Sure, and, speaking practically, I do. But I may well not be telling the Jihadist, for example, anything more than “your morality isn’t my morality.”
Edited.[/quote]
No. Their morality is objectively wrong, regardless of theological trappings. We all know this, in our hearts.
There is an objective good and evil. Reasonable people can disagree about the middle of the harbor, but the dry shoreline is clear.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Sure, and, speaking practically, I do. But I may well not be telling the Jihadist, for example, anything more than “your morality isn’t my morality.”
Edited.[/quote]
No. Their morality is objectively wrong, regardless of theological trappings. We all know this, in our hearts. [/quote]
We do – you and I and everybody else around here. But they – Atta, Irma Grese, etc. – knew something else in their hearts. Or so they said (and do we have evidence to the contrary in literally every case?). If the murder of whole races is evil for the sufficient reason that “I know in my heart it’s evil,” then what of one who knows in his heart that the murder of whole races is good?
But either way, that we are generally born with certain behavioral predispositions does not necessarily entail that an “objective” moral code exists. Ants, too, are born with certain behavioral predispositions, and yet no one (of whom I’m aware) argues that there exists some formic code of objective principles.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But either way, that we are generally born with certain behavioral predispositions does not necessarily entail that an “objective” moral code exists. Ants, too, are born with certain behavioral predispositions, and yet no one (of whom I’m aware) argues that there exists some formic code of objective principles.[/quote]
I thought you might find this interesting:
Although language is a learned skill, the evidence is mounting that the way we learn and process language is hardwired and that there are “language universals” in the hardwiring of our brains. I personally believe that the way we all look at, organize, and interpret the world is heavily influenced by both the gift and limits of language.
If the murder of whole races is evil for the sufficient reason that “I know in my heart it’s evil,” then what of one who knows in his heart that the murder of whole races is good?[/quote]
The murder of entire races is only acceptable when commanded by God. Again, however, one must first ascertain that it’s the right God doing the commanding, and in the proper historical and cultural context.
Hitler firmly believed that in annihilating the Jews, he would be “carrying out the work of the Lord”. We have no way of knowing, of course, whether the Lord actually communicated these instructions to Hitler, but my supposition is that He did not.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But either way, that we are generally born with certain behavioral predispositions does not necessarily entail that an “objective” moral code exists. Ants, too, are born with certain behavioral predispositions, and yet no one (of whom I’m aware) argues that there exists some formic code of objective principles.[/quote]
I thought you might find this interesting:
Although language is a learned skill, the evidence is mounting that the way we learn and process language is hardwired and that there are “language universals” in the hardwiring of our brains. I personally believe that the way we all look at, organize, and interpret the world is heavily influenced by both the gift and limits of language. [/quote]
Very interesting, thanks!
Indeed, I had Chomsky – among many others – on my mind when I was talking about inherited behaviors, which I would probably have done better to refer to as inherited structures.
If the murder of whole races is evil for the sufficient reason that “I know in my heart it’s evil,” then what of one who knows in his heart that the murder of whole races is good?[/quote]
The murder of entire races is only acceptable when commanded by God. Again, however, one must first ascertain that it’s the right God doing the commanding, and in the proper historical and cultural context.
Hitler firmly believed that in annihilating the Jews, he would be “carrying out the work of the Lord”. We have no way of knowing, of course, whether the Lord actually communicated these instructions to Hitler, but my supposition is that He did not.[/quote]
Indeed I share your supposition.
However, what matters is not whether or not it happened, but whether or not it was possible. Could god have judged the Holocaust “good”? Be the answer “yes” or be it “no,” there are serious problems for the theist and his “objective” morality.
We do – you and I and everybody else around here. But they – Atta, Irma Grese, [/quote]
Obviously Irma Grese’s bosses, you know, the ones who conceived The Final Solution, knew they were doing wrong, or else why would they try so hard to hide their crimes when they knew their 1000 year Reich was at an end?
If they thought they were doing good, why did Heoss say it sickened him to work at Auschwitz in his memoirs? Was he truthful or lying? Do you think he changed his mind, or thought it would help his case when it became apparent he had a date with the hangman? Or do you think he honestly knew he was doing wrong and was either afraid or too full of a feeling of power to object? Group-think may also play a part in this.
