god and morality

[whatsit]

i'm sure this topic has cropped up before, but let's assume it hasn't.

recently, the following was posted in the ramblings forum:

8. Yeah. We eat trout, salmon, deer, pheasant, quail and elk. If you really want sushi and caviar it's available at the corner bait shop.

(Q) if we do manage to totally excise god from society, what does the above mean for humanity?

whether you want to admit it or not, each of us is capable of murder.

what would keep us from an outright slaughter?
you can't use we are somehow different or special from animals, without a god that's ALL we are, mere animals.

please, no assumptions, do not assume our morality will remain without a god unless it can be shown otherwise, as in some kind of controlled experiment.

[instantc]

Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

Our personal experiences are extremely relevant in this context. For what do we mean by morality if not our personal moral experience?

No, the jury is not still out on that. It appears that social animals utilize a form of moral code.

This depends entirely on what is meant by morality. In my opinion the most convincing theories of morality do not simply describe an outward behavior but motives and intentions. From animals we can only observe outward behavior, and thus in my view it is impossible to find out whether they are acting morally or not.

[Danmark]

Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

Our personal experiences are extremely relevant in this context. For what do we mean by morality if not our personal moral experience?

No, the jury is not still out on that. It appears that social animals utilize a form of moral code.

This depends entirely on what is meant by morality. In my opinion the most convincing theories of morality do not simply describe an outward behavior but motives and intentions. From animals we can only observe outward behavior, and thus in my view it is impossible to find out whether they are acting morally or not.

With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

The experiments described and recounted in the Frans de Waal video demonstrate that animals cooperate, have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. Can we conclude more than that by observing homo sapiens?

[instantc]

Your personal experiences are irrelevant.

Our personal experiences are extremely relevant in this context. For what do we mean by morality if not our personal moral experience?

No, the jury is not still out on that. It appears that social animals utilize a form of moral code.

This depends entirely on what is meant by morality. In my opinion the most convincing theories of morality do not simply describe an outward behavior but motives and intentions. From animals we can only observe outward behavior, and thus in my view it is impossible to find out whether they are acting morally or not.

The experiments described and recounted in the Frans de Waal video demonstrate that animals cooperate, have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. Can we conclude more than that by observing homo sapiens?

Yes we can. A homo sapiens can explain to you why he does what he does, which in my view is the morally decisive factor.

With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

I think that the contrary is true. For example, if a man saves a passed out stranger from the rail road tracks, it is too early to say whether that constitutes a moral act. What is decisive here is the motive. If he saves the man purely because he is afraid of legal repercussions, then his actions can hardly be described as moral. If he saves the man merely because he is hoping to be rewarded, again, his actions can hardly be described as moral. If he saves the man because that's the right thing to do or because he genuinely wants to help, then I think we are speaking of moral behavior.

The problem with animal morality is that we have no access to the motives.

[Danmark]

....
Yes we can. A homo sapiens can explain to you why he does what he does, which in my view is the morally decisive factor.

Your response makes no sense since you redacted what I wrote:
With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

What they explain is irrelevant because:
A. They may be lying
B. They likely do not even know why they did something.

Motives are often multiple and complex, yet you dismiss the morality of non humans because YOU cannot communicate with them. What a person claims or even lies about the 'why' for his action is irrelevant.

[instantc]

....
Yes we can. A homo sapiens can explain to you why he does what he does, which in my view is the morally decisive factor.

Your response makes no sense since you redacted what I wrote:
With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

What they explain is irrelevant because:
A. They may be lying
B. They likely do not even know why they did something.

Motives are often multiple and complex, yet you dismiss the morality of non humans because YOU cannot communicate with them. What a person claims or even lies about the 'why' for his action is irrelevant.

As illustrated by my example, what a person does is irrelevant until we know why he does it. Granted, we can never verify it for certainty, and that's why there are no such things as observable moral facts. All we have is our own moral experience and uncertain knowledge of the experiences of others through communication. With animals we don't have either one. A mere action as such tells us nothing about morality.

A person saving another person can be morally neutral, morally bad or morally good, depending on the motive. Thus, it is not just the behavior that counts when assessing morality.

[Danmark]

....
Yes we can. A homo sapiens can explain to you why he does what he does, which in my view is the morally decisive factor.

Your response makes no sense since you redacted what I wrote:
With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

What they explain is irrelevant because:
A. They may be lying
B. They likely do not even know why they did something.

Motives are often multiple and complex, yet you dismiss the morality of non humans because YOU cannot communicate with them. What a person claims or even lies about the 'why' for his action is irrelevant.

As illustrated by my example, what a person does is irrelevant until we know why he does it. Granted, we can never verify it for certainty, and that's why there are no such things as observable moral facts. All we have is our own moral experience and uncertain knowledge of the experiences of others. With animals we don't have either one. A mere action as such tells us nothing about morality. A person saving another person can be morally neutral, morally bad or morally good, depending on the motive.

I disagree with your premise that unless an animal, including man, expresses what his claimed motive is, he does not know why he did it. I also disagree with your claim that unless he can express his motive to himself consciously, it was morally neutral. Your proposition makes unfounded assumptions.

Many "heroes" who have run into burning buildings, or water to save people later claim they simply acted on instinct. Does this mean they did not act morally? I also disagree with your claim that because animals don't express their motives, they are neither moral, nor are they unaware of why they did something.

You are defining morality in a very narrow way. There is nothing to suggest than morality is more than long term self interest. I reaffirm that it is the action that counts, assuming the action is intentional as opposed to accidental.

[instantc]

....
Yes we can. A homo sapiens can explain to you why he does what he does, which in my view is the morally decisive factor.

Your response makes no sense since you redacted what I wrote:
With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

What they explain is irrelevant because:
A. They may be lying
B. They likely do not even know why they did something.

Motives are often multiple and complex, yet you dismiss the morality of non humans because YOU cannot communicate with them. What a person claims or even lies about the 'why' for his action is irrelevant.

As illustrated by my example, what a person does is irrelevant until we know why he does it. Granted, we can never verify it for certainty, and that's why there are no such things as observable moral facts. All we have is our own moral experience and uncertain knowledge of the experiences of others. With animals we don't have either one. A mere action as such tells us nothing about morality. A person saving another person can be morally neutral, morally bad or morally good, depending on the motive.

I disagree with your premise that unless an animal, including man, expresses what his claimed motive is, he does not know why he did it. I also disagree with your claim that unless he can express his motive to himself consciously, it was morally neutral. Your proposition makes unfounded assumptions.

Actually what I said was that without communication, we cannot know whether an act is morally neutral, morally reprehensible or morally good.

Many "heroes" who have run into burning buildings, or water to save people later claim they simply acted on instinct. Does this mean they did not act morally?

Well, if they made a conscious decision to enter the building, then surely they must have had a reason for it.

I also disagree with your claim that because animals don't express their motives, they are neither moral, nor are they unaware of why they did something.

I'm not saying that. They could be moral, we have no way of knowing that. I am not an animal, nor can I communicate with animals, and thus I do not know why they do what they do. I can only speculate.

I reaffirm that it is the action that counts, assuming the action is intentional as opposed to accidental.

So would you say that a person who saves another person purely out of fear of legal repercussions is acting morally? That is to say that if the state in question hadn't enacted an easy rescue clause, then he would have let the other person die.

[ytrewq]

there is no fault at all in getting our morals from a supreme benevolent being.
except it might yank your chain for some reason.

Actually, there are many problems, as I clearly explained in my previous posting #44. Did you read that posting? Did you understand it? Did you agree with the points that I made? If you did not agree, then can you fault my arguments?

This is an adult debate forum, Whatsit, not a Sunday school class full of wide-eyed innocent children. When someone clearly sets out reasons why (for example) there are problems 'in getting our morals from a supreme benevolent being', then you have an obligation to either provide a counter argument, or concede the points that were raised. You have provided no counter argument whatsoever, with the practical result of having conceded the points that I made.

In debating you, I feel like I am flogging a defenceless man, or stealing candy from a child, neither of which give me any pleasure at all, but what can I do?

[Danmark]

....
Yes we can. A homo sapiens can explain to you why he does what he does, which in my view is the morally decisive factor.

Your response makes no sense since you redacted what I wrote:
With humans we can also only observe outward behavior. What they SAY about their motives and intentions is likely irrelevant; it is their behavior that counts.

What they explain is irrelevant because:
A. They may be lying
B. They likely do not even know why they did something.

Motives are often multiple and complex, yet you dismiss the morality of non humans because YOU cannot communicate with them. What a person claims or even lies about the 'why' for his action is irrelevant.

As illustrated by my example, what a person does is irrelevant until we know why he does it. Granted, we can never verify it for certainty, and that's why there are no such things as observable moral facts. All we have is our own moral experience and uncertain knowledge of the experiences of others. With animals we don't have either one. A mere action as such tells us nothing about morality. A person saving another person can be morally neutral, morally bad or morally good, depending on the motive.

I disagree with your premise that unless an animal, including man, expresses what his claimed motive is, he does not know why he did it. I also disagree with your claim that unless he can express his motive to himself consciously, it was morally neutral. Your proposition makes unfounded assumptions.

Actually what I said was that without communication, we cannot know whether an act is morally neutral, morally reprehensible or morally good.

Many "heroes" who have run into burning buildings, or water to save people later claim they simply acted on instinct. Does this mean they did not act morally?

Well, if they made a conscious decision to enter the building, then surely they must have had a reason for it.

I also disagree with your claim that because animals don't express their motives, they are neither moral, nor are they unaware of why they did something.

I'm not saying that. They could be moral, we have no way of knowing that. I am not an animal, nor can I communicate with animals, and thus I do not know why they do what they do. I can only speculate.

I reaffirm that it is the action that counts, assuming the action is intentional as opposed to accidental.

So would you say that a person who saves another person purely out of fear of legal repercussions is acting morally? That is to say that if the state in question hadn't enacted an easy rescue clause, then he would have let the other person die.

I agree, you are speculating when you project ulterior motives on to good behavior, and I think you are speculating inaccurately when you project a single motive. So far you have not demonstrated a difference between the motives of man and other animals, you have just assumed one is not moral because of a presumed lack of ability of certain animals to express themselves. I get the feeling you are suggesting altruism, and altruism with no other motive, is the only evidence of morality.

[ytrewq]

excuse me while i go and crap in my neighbors yard and copulate on their front porch.

animal have morals, what a laugh.

No one is arguing that humans have the mental capacity to think more deeply about morals than animals. That said, there is much evidence that the higher orders of animals do indeed have basic morals, and certainly experience emotions not unlike those of humans. I also made the point previously that, despite the potential ability of humans to formulate and live by 'better' morals than animals, this is not generally observed in practice. For every 'animalistic' poor moral behaviour that you have accused animals of, I have had no problem showing examples of poor human moral behavior that is as bad or worse, but you conveniently ignore this. For the most part what you demonstrate is simply prejudice.

Human babies and pet dogs are both toilet trained, BTW. Without such training, both will crap everywhere, and with such training both don't. In many countries and cities, people spit indiscriminately in the streets, which is not at all dissimilar to crapping in your yard, likewise with littering. I cycle to work through a bushland area, and on the side of the track in one place is a mess of toilet paper, where some human has crapped, and left the crap and the paper on display for all to see. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Take off the blinkers, my friend.

Animals and humans both enjoy sex, that is true, but it takes religion to make people feel that sex is somehow 'immoral', as you appear to believe. And in some cases, peoples religiously inspired view that sex is somehow 'dirty' or 'immoral' or 'sinful' destroys their enjoyment of sex for life. Now THAT is sad, and in cases when religion is responsible, then that particular influence from religion is genuinely immoral.