Where does your moral code come from?
The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......
Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.
In the world of an Atheist who defines right and wrong?
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: objective moral truths
Post #11McCulloch wrote: However, I believe that there are objective moral truths, just as there are objective mathematical and scientific truths.
I'm not sure that we have discovered what they all are. But we know some of the principles. Rape and torture are, for example, morally wrong acts.Overcomer wrote: What are they?
They came from the same place that the laws of physics or chemistry come from. They just are. We do not know; we cannot know if there is any supernatural intelligence that put them into place.Overcomer wrote: Where did they come from? Who established them?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #12
when two people have conflicting moral codes which one is objectively true? They are subjective, neither is objectively better.Overcomer wrote:Thatguy wrote:
When you encounter other people with a different moral code, how do you determine which one is better? Or are they all equal? Who decides?My moral code appears to be subjective, not objective or universally true. That it is subjective does not stop me from having it.
What one does in that case is the same as when there are inconsistencies in one's own moral values. Look for shared basic principles and see if the differing views can either be reconciled or one or the other seems to better fit the shared values. For instance, we might both agree that reducing suffering is a fundamental goal but each have conflicting values as to how to achieve that. If we can reason together and realize that we can justify one view more than the other then great. If we disagree in the end then we disagree.
That does not mean that we have to let anyone act upon their own personal moral values. Just because we cannot say neither view is objectively true or false does not mean that that makes each person's moral code objectively true for that person such that we must allow them to act upon it. Where there's widespread common acceptance of a moral view, we should (in my subjective moral opinion) consider legislating it. There's near universal acceptance that rape is wrong. Someone can have a differing moral opinion but we can still, as a society or as an individual, restrain that person from acting in accordance with his moral viewpoints.
Where there is widespread disagreement on a moral opinion, I would say we should give much more freedom for people to reach their own conclusions and act thereon. Is this an objective moral requirement? No.
It feels more satisfying to insist that one's moral views are the objectively correct ones. But claiming certainty in order to feel better isn't a very good way to going about analyzing stuff.
I don't deny that there may be an objective moral code out there somewhere, just as there may be a god. But until I'm shown a method of empirically identifying it, I'm not going to act as if I know it.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #13
Mine is always better! I choose, because mine is better!Overcomer wrote:Thatguy wrote:
When you encounter other people with a different moral code, how do you determine which one is better? Or are they all equal? Who decides?My moral code appears to be subjective, not objective or universally true. That it is subjective does not stop me from having it.
Actually, it groups of people. it all boils down to negotiation and accommodation. The conflicts happen when you have a group that is not willing to compromise, and also insisting on imposing.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Re: In the world of an Atheist who defines right and wrong?
Post #14Organisms started cooperating so moral codes automatically developed. My moral code is based on these and modified by upbringing and the society I live in and its moral values.Jake_ wrote:Where does your moral code come from?
The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......
Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.
Re: In the world of an Atheist who defines right and wrong?
Post #15This is actually a great question.Jake_ wrote:Where does your moral code come from?
The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......
Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.
As a proponent of Divine Command Theory, here is my take on this age-old issue of morality....
Whenever we are asked to do something in a social setting, it is due to the demands made on us by other people. When we are young we obey our elders. Not merely because of fear and compulsion, ( though that may be to some extent the case), but also because we feel shame should we disobey them. We have such respect for them at this point, that what they say amounts to law for us. As we get older this respect wears down. We realize, by jolts or progressively, that those older than us do not have the same vaunted sense of authority we previously invested them with. And so, whereas previously we felt great guilt at disobeying, now we do so without so much as a care. Some of us even grow contempt.
When it comes to the Highest authority, now there is where we still have no reservations, or should have no reservations, about obedience. Some of us sadly have gone so far off the track, that it seems unlikely that such a Highest authority exists. Or should he exist, than he is absolutely no better than the teachers, parents, and mentors we previously mistook as infallible. The difference here is, God is not fallible but all-knowing and all-powerful and all virtuous. So on that basis his pronouncements still attain to law, and are not mere commandments to scare us.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:57 am
Re: In the world of an Atheist who defines right and wrong?
Post #16Let me ask you a question...Jake_ wrote:Where does your moral code come from?
The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......
Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.
Let's say God comes down and tells you that you don't need to worry about morality anymore. No matter what you do - lie, cheat, steal, murder - you are guaranteed to never get caught, never be punished, and God will bring you to Heaven when you die. Absolutely guaranteed. For you, morality has ceased to exist.
Would you become a murder? Rapist?
If not, why not?
Re: objective moral truths
Post #17I used to believe this, but I've largely abandoned this position because there is no evidence for it. I desperately want it to be true, but there's no evidence supporting it.McCulloch wrote: However, I believe that there are objective moral truths, just as there are objective mathematical and scientific truths.
"They just are" is not an explanation, just a baseless assertion. Believe me, I know where you're coming from, I used to hold your position. I believed in objective moral values and duties as brute facts, but I was basically forced to abandon the position because there was literally no evidence supporting it at all, only intuition. I still believe in "objective" moral duties enforced by humanity as a whole, but I recognize that moral values are largely subjective and contingent.They came from the same place that the laws of physics or chemistry come from. They just are. We do not know; we cannot know if there is any supernatural intelligence that put them into place.
One of the biggest advantages of theism is having an objective basis for moral values and duties.
Re: objective moral truths
Post #18I have to say that it's fascinating watching your views on the subject develop in real time before our eyes here. Watching an intelligent mind at work trying to reconcile beliefs, desires, and facts is instructive to me even as it is occasionally agonizing to you.Haven wrote: I still believe in "objective" moral duties enforced by humanity as a whole, but I recognize that moral values are largely subjective and contingent.
To what extent do you think that moral values are not subjective and contingent?
Post #19
If you take a quick look at moral values from an ethnological point of view, the only behavior almost universally forbidden is incest (they are rare exceptions when it is accepted, example pharos married their sisters).
So morals are a socially transmitted set of values in general and each person applies them in particular.
So morals are a socially transmitted set of values in general and each person applies them in particular.
Re: objective moral truths
Post #20Thanks .Thatguy wrote: I have to say that it's fascinating watching your views on the subject develop in real time before our eyes here. Watching an intelligent mind at work trying to reconcile beliefs, desires, and facts is instructive to me even as it is occasionally agonizing to you.
I used "generally" because I try to avoid making sweeping positive statements. I think all moral values are subjective and contingent.To what extent do you think that moral values are not subjective and contingent?