What dictates taboo and what is good?

[Jester]

It came up another topic it might be good to discuss the reasons why we believe the ethics that we believe.
Questions:
Is there any logical grounding for ethics, that some behavior is inherently right or wrong regardless of human opinion?
What is the basic source of ethics? A deity? Evolutionary biology? Social constructs? Some combination of these? Something else?

[Angel]

This is an edited posting of my previous post. I made a lot of typos and errors in my last post and I couldn't edit it so I'll repost an edited version here.

To a lot of people perhaps, the world would be of less value and meaning without objective morals. It would turn out that we only judge people as moral or immoral based on a subjective or made up concepts perhaps to make ourselves feel better or dignified. I'm sure we're all guilty of this since we're all have made moral judgements and are using a subjective concept to run our lives. Something which lots of atheists accuse religionists of doing I might add. Or we can take the alternative view and say objective morals can potentially exists, we just don't know about them completely.

I would say that you should follow your logic rather than your desires. If logic leads you to conclude something that may be unsettling, you shouldn't adopt the scenario that makes you feel better based on a lack of evidence of it's existence. Objective moral values may exist, but there isn't anything that supports this view other than our own wishful thinking. So from a practical standpoint....to the degree that we can ever be certain of anything...we can say they do not exist.

The problem is there is no logically based scenario when it comes to morals. When it comes to morals, we adopt which morals to follow out of necessity and we also do at times adopt the ones that make us feel better. Both necessity and what makes us feel better do not objectively nor logically prove anything. So we are still left applying subjective concepts to run our lives. In other words, we don't absolutely, scientifically, nor logically know if whether or not our moral concepts are actually things that would be truly good or bad for us in reality. If they were true then the moral concepts we have so far would’ve been consistent or non-contradictory and/or backed with scientific evidence. No proof equals belief, and that goes to show that both atheists and religionists use subjective concepts to run their lives at times.

Years ago, in a chat room, I asked one atheist if it’s morally wrong to have sex with other women while married. He told me yes. I proceeded to ask him for his basis for that belief and he couldn't explain himself beyond just his opinion or how his wife would feel. Another one says it’s okay to have sex with another woman while married if his wife isn’t pleasing him. A Christian or the NT would tell you that you can't cheat on your wife or husband no matter what. Who's right here? The conflicting positions would alone would tell you that everyone here is going by their opinion and that they have no way of proving their assertions logically nor scientifically. And this example only speaks for the morals that are common knowledge or mainstream. This does not even speak for other morals that people can make up on their own like someone believing that that forgiveness is a moral good, etc.


Remember to ignore my last post which is post #50, just before this one. It had lots of errors in it and wasn't clear. Thanks.

[Cathar1950]

Years ago, in a chat room, I asked one atheist if it’s morally wrong to have sex with other women while married. He told me yes. I proceeded to ask him for his basis for that belief and he couldn't explain himself beyond just his opinion or how his wife would feel. Another one says it’s okay to have sex with another woman while married if his wife isn’t pleasing him. A Christian or the NT would tell you that you can't cheat on your wife or husband no matter what. Who's right here? The conflicting positions would alone would tell you that everyone here is going by their opinion and that they have no way of proving their assertions logically nor scientifically. And this example only speaks for the morals that are common knowledge or mainstream. This does not even speak for other morals that people can make up on their own like someone believing that that forgiveness is a moral good, etc.

I suspect that you could have ask Christians the same question you might get both answers. You only asked one atheist and are trying to make this is some atheist answer while the Christian supposedly has a different answer. I am betting there are a number of atheist here that would say no and not need some appeal to an imaginary Christian morality or what you imagine the NT tells you. Paul seems to advocate husbands acting like they were not married. Some Christians think they are even free from such rules.
I would think that morals or proper behavior have to do with the relationship and and cheating on your spouse most likely will be detrimental to the relationship. It doesn't need a scientific justification but it is logical and reason is
a nessary eleiment in moral behaviour.
I suspect your example is nothing more then a selective example of your trying to show some imagined superior morality of Christianity over atheism you have fail to show.

[Angel]

I suspect that you could have ask Christians the same question you might get both answers. You only asked one atheist and are trying to make this is some atheist answer while the Christian supposedly has a different answer. I am betting there are a number of atheist here that would say no and not need some appeal to an imaginary Christian morality or what you imagine the NT tells you. Paul seems to advocate husbands acting like they were not married. Some Christians think they are even free from such rules.
I would think that morals or proper behavior have to do with the relationship and and cheating on your spouse most likely will be detrimental to the relationship. It doesn't need a scientific justification but it is logical and reason is
a nessary eleiment in moral behaviour.
I suspect your example is nothing more then a selective example of your trying to show some imagined superior morality of Christianity over atheism you have fail to show.

I actually spoke to two atheists and one Christian on this particular issue. Also, I agree with you that cheating could damage the relationship but I would not call that logical nor objective unless you can prove that adultery is objectively wrong rather than that just being your sociocultural conditioning. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't mind if their spouses cheat or sleep around like swingers for instance. So using how the wife would feel or react is subjective as far as establishing an actual or true moral wrong. Her reactions could easily be her sociocultural conditioning and as such it can be said maybe she's overreacting or on a flip-side it can be that those who allow swinging are sexual deviants? Who's right here? Can you prove it beyond just telling me how you or your wife would "feel" and "your" reactions to it? I can think of plenty other examples as well that would probably make my case more easier. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't be suprised if by every generation, a new moral standard is made just as all the other ones were potentially.

[Cathar1950]

If they are swingers then I don’t know if we can really call it adultery.
I know of Christians that swap and cheat and atheist that don’t cheat or swap.
I think there is a certain logic and even objectivity, at least as best we can, to adultery being detrimental to a relationship, swinging excluded, as it isn’t cheating or betraying a trust if both are consenting and willing participants. It would be hard to say such a thing is objectively wrong while adultery that isn’t agreed upon is obviously detrimental to the relationship;.

[Angel]

By definition, "adultery" can happen even with the consent of both partners.

Adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery



All it involves is sleeping with someone other than who you're married to. If both spouses approve of it, then what we have are both partners in a marriage approving of adultery.

[Cathar1950]

By definition, "adultery" can happen even with the consent of both partners.

Adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery



All it involves is sleeping with someone other than who you're married to. If both spouses approve of it, then what we have are both partners in a marriage approving of adultery.

Maybe by definition but that is hardly true of swingers is it? Do they call it adultery or swinging? We are talking morality here not definitions that are convenient.
We are also looking at adultery as an example. If a couple agree then there seem to be no moral bases for adultery being wrong while cheating is a breaking of trust.
Breaking trust might destroy or hurt a relationship and the person while consent would leave out the moral grounds. Moral grounds are related to two or more people. I am not sure how you can be immoral by yourself.
So I might agree with your definition but then adultery that is consensual is not the same as cheating and doesn't Carry the same moral weight.
Morality is not objective any ore then riding a bike is objective, it is learned and practiced.
The desire of need to find some imaginary objective reality while also claiming only God can provide an objective morality looks like some kind of unconscious ruse to crate a non-existent problem that only God can fix.
Even if God had an objective morality, which by definition would be an infallible morality, it would lose its infallibility as it reached us as we are fallible.
It seems that for something to be wrong there has to be something wrong with it.

[Wellington]

Our inability to measure something perfectly does not establish it's non-existence.

We aren't talking about that. We are talking about our inability to measure something at all. That also doesn't establish it's non existence by the very nature that you can't disprove a negative. However, from a practical standpoint can we safely say that it doesn't exist? If evidence to the contrary is ever discovered we can and will consider it...but this thing we can't prove exists, that we cannot measure...and isn't tangible, is it eally of any use to us? Any more use than a leprechaun?

I am getting the impression you may be willing to admit that ethics as an objective standard, if it exists, may not exist in our universe at all.

Let me contradict this, then. While I'm always aware of the fact that I could be wrong, I do not believe this.

I am suprised. Because not to say that would be to say that it must exist in our universe. I said if it exists (which doesn't mean it does) then it may not exist in our universe (which means it could exist outside of it but it doesn't have to). So you are saying that it must exist in our universe?

This notion of "ought" and "ought not's" seems t be a very flexible way to measure good and bad.

I did not propose it as a means of measurement, but only as a clarification of definition.

Then what value is it? What is good? Good is an "ought." What is bad? Bad is an "ought not." Why not just say good and bad rather than ought and ought not? If you don't measure good and bad by what someone "ought" and "ought not" to do...then how are you measuring it?

you are absolutely right. I agree that just because it is arbitrary doesn't mean it is no longer objective. I think you and angel are going with option number one. If so, the question will become whether you think an arbitrary moral standard is any more valuable than a subjective one.

Indeed, option one is the closest to my beliefs.
The difference being that the first is an objective standard, and the second is simple opinion. It would be the difference between trying to understand the nature of gravity and discussing which color looks better against yellow. Any ethical outcry presumes the former.

I don't like the comparison between gravity and ethics because one is a measurable objective and the other is simply being presumed to exist without any means to measure it. An objective ethical standard is the invisible teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars. presumed to exist...no way to prove it is there.

Or otherwise it is part of his nature, just as enjoying debate is something that is part of my nature that I do not consider to be greater than me.

That is option number three. Good= God and god = good. What is good? Good is good. What is God? God is God. It tells us nothing. your anology might hve some erit if it werent for the fact that you are not the objective standard of enjoyment from debate. Whereas God is supposed to be the objective standard in your scenario.

Ultimately, that is simply an intellectual exercise. Assuming that God abides by an ethic, it doesn't matter which is greater. The fact is that God's existence makes an objective ethic logically possible. Greatness is beside the point.

Oh I am afrad there are a great many that would disagree with this. Something being greater than God? Entire religions would have to accept the fact that all this time they weren't worshiping the wrong thing. The idea that God is not the greatest thing out there, that he is ruled by some other forves...that means he loses his divinity and I think there are mutlitudes of people that would think that mattrs quite a bit. It may not matter to you, maybe you are comfortable acknowledging that God might not be divine, but you can't say it doesn't matter which is greater....clearly, for a lot of poeple it does.

I will agree with the claim that they might exist insofar as I believe that anything is possible. I would, however, add that there is absolutely no reason to suspect that this is the case. No reasonable means by which this might be true has been suggested.

I completely agree. I am not sure what we are debtaing then. are you just playing devil's advocate?

In such a case, it would be far more economical simply to begin a new family after the old is destroyed. The choice to die instead is not based simply on the desire to perpetuate his/her genes.

I don't think that is the only reason, but I definitely don't think itis more economical to start over again. Large amounts of time, energy and resources are put into children. simply throwing it all away for personal safety under the premise you might be able to replicate it agan is not the most economical solution. add to the fact tat no two children are ever the same and you have a situation in which it definitely can't happen again.

They need only be of great importance to the individual in order for that individual to make sacrifices for them. However, that is to say that said individual believes them to be of intrinsic value. One cannot say "this thing is deeply important to me, but I do not believe that it has value". This is a paradoxical statement.

but one can say, "this thing is deeply important to me despite the fact that it may not be important to you and despite the fact that it's value is not an objective truth." That is not a paradoxical statement. No objective value is needed in order for someone to find value in it. This is not paradoxical. What value does money have? Only the value that we attach to it. Whether or not there is an objective value to a dollar bill is incosequential to people making the decision to using it as currency and assesing it's value for themselves.

We can say that this individual found such sacrifices to be economical based on his/her perspective. What we cannot say, however, is that they are economical unless we agree that such things are of greater value than the life of that individual.

I think all that matters is whether the individual decided it was more economical for him. We cannot make that decision for him. Whatever he decides, that is what it is to him.

How about: Assuming the existence of the Christian God, then people were created for a specific purpose ...?

assuming there was a christian God....and assuming people were created for a specific pupose...

^there are two premises there not just one.

Ethics do fall in line with the purpose based on the paradigm given above.

No they do not. That is a third premise. We don't know what the purpose is. Therefore, we have to make the assumption that ethics is part of the purpose when it may not be at all.

That is to say that what is good or bad is connected to what the purpose of a human being is. If, hypothetically, the entire purpose of a human being is only as a useful worker, ethical treatment of that person would be different than if the purpose was to be an object of love. In the first situation, humans could ethically be treated similarly to machinery. In the second, ethics would be much more demanding.

Either way requires an assumption. I think we would agree that one premise just looks more attractive than the other.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, I merely meant to point out that the assumptions above, if true, would make this fact objectively meaningful.

Why do you need thopse premises to make that fact objectively meaningful? We can observe and measure the fact that different behaviors can make people happier. WE don't need any of those premises at all to make that statement. The entire point of making all those premises was to work backwards and try to make a case for them when it really doesn't make any of those premises more or less valid.

That does not make it so, however.

Well that isn't really saying a whole lot now is it. I explained why they are not problematic and your response is "just because you don't think they are problems doesn't mean they aren't problems?"

The same practical functionality that you mention in a secular sense is related to my concept of ethics. The existence of God simply means that they are more than a matter of good ways for people to get what we subjectively want.

There are more than a matter of good ways for people to get what they subjectively want without him.

How so?[/quote]

By determining what is ethical for themselves and determining how and why other's ethical standards are different from their own. I would think this is much more beneficial than simply insisting their way is the right way and everyone else is wrong because you are abiding by the objective moal standard and they are not.

[Wellington]

There are some things that are relative but logic isn't for example especially if what you're describing as being relative contains contradictions. Such is the case with our views of morality. You can't call lets say someone having a moral gene that tells them stealing is good and then have someone else with a gene telling them stealing is bad.

I won't make the case that such genes exist. There is no evidence to support it. Eugenics is simply bad science. My defense for moral genes was simply an excercise in futility.

If the purpose of morals is to keep order and to have accountability among other things, having two contradictory moral standards will cause chaos.

Which is exactly what we observe every single day. Social interactions are very chaotic. Everyone has their own idea of what is right and wrong. The only thing keeping order is our implied social contract. Don't think for a second that under dfferent circumstances in an entirely different environment, the morality of people wouldn't change and potentially become more or less chaotic than it already is.

That also can't be said to be good even on a common sense level besides the objective level. We're able to change our morals as well which is something else I would think a moral gene would inhibit us to do if it's function was to program us to act a certain way.

Again, I don't want to make a case for an objective moral gene. I haven't seen any evidence to support it.

I don't totally agree with you here. I believe God could still be used as a reference to acquire knowledge of those morals since He possess complete and perfect knowledge of everything via His omniscience and infallibility. It would be like using a computer to find out something except that God would be an actual living being with common sense and understanding. Our cognitive abilities are no where near that nor will they probably ever be.

Either way, Good is still greater than God and our ultimate loyalty should be to Good and not to god.

[Angel]

By definition, "adultery" can happen even with the consent of both partners.

Adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery



All it involves is sleeping with someone other than who you're married to. If both spouses approve of it, then what we have are both partners in a marriage approving of adultery.

Maybe by definition but that is hardly true of swingers is it? Do they call it adultery or swinging?

Swinging is consensual adultery (if the swingers are married). I guess it's easier to say "swinger" or it's just another word for adultery or some form of it at least.

We are talking morality here not definitions that are convenient.
We are also looking at adultery as an example. If a couple agree then there seem to be no moral bases for adultery being wrong while cheating is a breaking of trust.
Breaking trust might destroy or hurt a relationship and the person while consent would leave out the moral grounds. Moral grounds are related to two or more people. I am not sure how you can be immoral by yourself.

We are talking about objective or true morals here and not just any type of morals. Objective morals are moral standards that are truly standards of good and bad that we're suppose to follow. Also, morality doesn't necessarily have to be based on our agreement or our consent, not if they're objective they don't. Objective morals would exists independent of our opinions or consent just as any other objective fact about something would. I also disagree with your criteria for moral grounds only being existent when there's two or more people involved. Or perhaps you were speaking about non-objective morals. Either way, there are moral or immoral acts that can be acted out with just one person involved in the act. For example, if someone steals something by themself or if someone lies on an application, etc.

So I might agree with your definition but then adultery that is consensual is not the same as cheating and doesn't Carry the same moral weight.
Morality is not objective any ore then riding a bike is objective, it is learned and practiced.

"Some" morals can be developed this way, but that's not to say with any logical or objective proof that there aren't other types of morals that can come about another way, like via a deity or some other means.

The desire of need to find some imaginary objective reality while also claiming only God can provide an objective morality looks like some kind of unconscious ruse to crate a non-existent problem that only God can fix.

Well I'd say objective morals are psychologically beneficial to life in that they add real or true value and purpose to life if they existed. Just think about the psychological effects that nihilism would have on a culture or mankind. Without objective morals we'd have nihilism and I suppose the only thing that would keep us from experiencing the full effects of that would be being under the illusion that our subjective notion of morality were true and that they should be respected as such. I wonder how long that would last though or how long you could keep convincing people of what good is and that they should be or do good or that there's a "real" point or purpose for it when we can't even define it since one man's opinion is as good as another.

My point here was to also show that for those atheists who think little of Christians who use subjective concepts or beliefs to run their lives, they should consider we all do at some point.

Even if God had an objective morality, which by definition would be an infallible morality, it would lose its infallibility as it reached us as we are fallible.
It seems that for something to be wrong there has to be something wrong with it.

Only when it came to practicing those morals, we'd be imperfect. As far as knowing them though, that would constitute as true knowledge of the true moral standard that mankind is suppose to follow.

[Wellington]

This is an edited posting of my previous post. I made a lot of typos and errors in my last post and I couldn't edit it so I'll repost an edited version here.

I'll respond to this on then.

I would say that you should follow your logic rather than your desires. If logic leads you to conclude something that may be unsettling, you shouldn't adopt the scenario that makes you feel better based on a lack of evidence of it's existence. Objective moral values may exist, but there isn't anything that supports this view other than our own wishful thinking. So from a practical standpoint....to the degree that we can ever be certain of anything...we can say they do not exist.

The problem is there is no logically based scenario when it comes to morals.When it comes to morals, we adopt which morals to follow out of necessity and we also do at times adopt the ones that make us feel better. Both necessity and what makes us feel better do not objectively nor logically prove anything. So we are still left applying subjective concepts to run our lives.

If moras are subjective, you can apply your own logically based scenario. Have you heard of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative? That is one way logic can be used to determine right from wrong (I am not saying that should be your standard).

In other words, we don't absolutely, scientifically, nor logically know if whether or not our moral concepts are actually things that would be truly good or bad for us in reality.

Well they wouldn't be "truly" good or bad becaue that would assume an objective ethical standard exists. They would be good or bad for the individual that has them.

If they were true then the moral concepts we have so far would’ve been consistent or non-contradictory and/or backed with scientific evidence.

But they aren't, so "true" moral concepts do not exist other than in the mind of the observer.

No proof equals belief, and that goes to show that both atheists and religionists use subjective concepts to run their lives at times.

I agree. From a practical standpoint, we all do...all the time...because objective ethical standards can't be shown to exist.

Years ago, in a chat room, I asked one atheist if it’s morally wrong to have sex with other women while married. He told me yes. I proceeded to ask him for his basis for that belief and he couldn't explain himself beyond just his opinion or how his wife would feel. Another one says it’s okay to have sex with another woman while married if his wife isn’t pleasing him. A Christian or the NT would tell you that you can't cheat on your wife or husband no matter what. Who's right here?

Whichever one you decide is right. Is it better not to cheat on your wife because someone tells you not to (christian sandard)?....is it better to cheat on your wife because you operate under the doctorine of hedonism (second atheist standard)?....or is it better not to cheat on your wife because you are more concerned about her own emotional state than you are with your own self pleasure? (first atheist).

My guess is that you would say it is not Ok to cheat on your wife. But do you think someone telling you it is not Ok is a better reason not to cheat than any other reason that you can come up with on your own by weighing the benefits against the consequences?

The conflicting positions would alone would tell you that everyone here is going by their opinion and that they have no way of proving their assertions logically nor scientifically.

I agree with part of this but they can prove that their assertions are to their benefit or detriment logically and scientifically. If cheating on your wife results in an STD, a broken marriage and the loss of half his property, severe emotional damage to his spouse, sole custody of the children going to the wife and mandatory salary reductions for child support...well clearly the decision has caused more harm than good. The first atheist felt that the emotional damage it would inflict alone as reason enough not to do it.

And this example only speaks for the morals that are common knowledge or mainstream. This does not even speak for other morals that people can make up on their own like someone believing that that forgiveness is a moral good, etc.

I think the "do unto others.." is very common and would cover this one along with the one above. There are definitely multiple ways to arrive at an ethical standard...but the ethical standards themselves aren't objective...from a practical standpoint. This means we actually have to think about why something is wrong and something is right rather than just going with what we are told.

Remember to ignore my last post which is post #50, just before this one. It had lots of errors in it and wasn't clear. Thanks.

No problem. Got it.