2023 : Basis for morality thread

[Wootah]

viewtopic.php?p=1110735#p1110735

As was said earlier and before now "I really hope you stay a Christian..." where a poster or debator has sworn that without Jesus in their life they would run amok on an orgy of rapine and plunder.

Yes, I've used that one myself in the past when a theist implies that atheists have no morals or reasons to 'behave'. People who need a god to act morally should definitely remain theists. I have no desire to deconvert anyone. Deconversion should be something that is arrived at naturally. Like when you discover "Santa's" gifts under your parent's bed before Christmas.

Welcome to a new year of debating. What is the basis for morality?

Options raised in this thread:

1) opinion - fails on people having different opinions

2) genes - fails - If an insect gets taken over by a parasite and then that insect is more helpful we would not say it was being more moral. If a gene is making someone good we would not say they are moral. If a robot could be programmed to be good it would not be making choices and not be moral.

3) cooperation - fails on the logic of a group not being right just because there are more of them.

4) God - So, for me, if morality exists it has to have an objective basis. If it is objective and because it applies to only free-willed creatures then it has to be an opinion of a free-will creature who can impose their will objectively such that we can know their opinion on what is moral. That's where I am heading with morality coming from God.

[Shem Yoshi]

What if Newton, observing an apple fall from a tree, simply said "God did it?" Newton, even tho' a believer, asked "Why?" This inquiring attitude enabled Newton to bring us calculus, an understanding of optics, and the development of a universal law of gravitation and his laws of motion.

I would like to point out that Newton was a Christians. [sic]

What was there about "Newton, even tho' a believer" that you did not understand?
What was there about "This inquiring attitude enabled Newton to bring us calculus, an understanding of optics, and the development of a universal law of gravitation and his laws of motion" that you did not understand?

I made the very point you that you now repeat to me, that a Christian like Newton did not just settle for "God did it." Instead he inquired as to why and formulated laws to explain it. The fact that he attributed the creation of these laws to God misses the point COMPLETELY.

Well the truth is, is that I find Newtons story fascinating. I studied in depth Newtonian physics in college, which took me to Europe to study in Italy. There I gazed at the Leaning Tower of Pisa where Galileo dropped objects off of and recorded the acceleration of gravity. I pondered the impacts Galileo had on science, and i pondered Newton.

It was a bit more then Newton asking why. It seemed to be a perfect storm to lead him to his theories. It was just a few years earlier that Galileo discovered the planets went around the sun, and the moon went around the earth, and the acceleration of gravity. Galileo laid the foundation of Newton's thoughts. What it must have been like to be Newton and to ponder why the planets moved around the sun, and why the moon moved around the earth... Can you imagine having knowledge of this celestial motion, and not knowing why it does that. It must have been a great wonderful mystery to Newton, the motion of objects. And then on the faithful day under the apple tree, he saw an apple hit the ground (or his head some stories tell us)... Surely he thought "why does the apple move toward the earth? why does not the apple move up or to the side?", all the while the motion of planets in the back of his head. It had to be greatly inspiring... And then he knew in his epiphany. "There must be a drawing power in matter"~Isaac Newton... In an instant he induced a brilliant concept of gravity, and spent a few years working out the mathematics of calculus to establish the ideas of motion.

I have always thought about it. A brilliant moment in history, though everything built up to that moment, carried in spirit to speak the truth.

If morality is a product of nature, why do we see things that are "wrong" in nature?

What is "wrong" in nature? Since you claim God made nature, why would God make it "wrong?"

The explanation for why evil exists is explained in Christianity. I would suggest studying it if you are curios to the answer, if indeed this isnt just a case of muddying the water.

As for humans and animals getting their morality from evolution, go back and read Post #3 where I explained it.* I suggest you read the citations and listen to the videos. If you disagree, you can quote what you disagree about and make an actual argument.

_______________________
*Morals in animals, including of course Homo sapiens, has a genetic basis. Animals that cooperated with each other and even across species, increased their chance of survival. The basic rules of morality (including most of the "Ten Commandments" are nothing more than examples of behavior that enhances cooperation.

We can see this in the evolution of wolves into dogs. The wolves that were friendly to humans increased their chances for survival. This 'friendly' gene has now been isolated in dogs.

There are many examples for cooperation among animals. Humans are the champions of cooperation: from hunter gatherer societies to nation states, cooperation is the decisive organizing principle of human society. No other life form on earth is engaged in the same complex games of cooperation and defection. The question how natural selection can lead to cooperative behavior has fascinated evolutionary biologists for several decades.
A cooperator is someone who pays a cost, c, for another individual to receive a benefit, b.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745/

There are many similar examples. Many have been published in the popular press, from National Geographic to 60 Minutes.

Studies have shown that dogs are more sociable than wolves raised in similar circumstances, generally paying more attention to humans and following our directions and commands more effectively. (See "Can Dogs Feel Our Emotions? Yawn Study Suggests Yes.")

Von Holdt’s background in evolutionary genetics made her wonder about the potential genetic basis for these differences.

Their July 19 study in Science Advances provides an intriguing clue: Hypersocial dogs like Marla carry variants of two genes called GTF2I and GTF2IRD1. Deletion of those genes in people causes Williams syndrome, which is characterized by elfin facial features, cognitive difficulties, and a tendency to love everyone


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... -evolution

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ucO4JKtLcs

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... cJxRqTs5nk

I was thinking about it as a swam in the pool today. Can morality be a product of nature? I guess i will continue to think about what you have posted.

None the less, it is still a fact that nature has evil. Take any parasite, found in nature, of nature, it is doing nothing more then surviving by doing what it does. By killing off its host it survives. Surely everyone agrees nature has evil in it. And surely everyone agree all things in nature have evil in them, there is no perfection of righteousness in nature. Even the best of humanity does things that are "wrong".

How is it, that something that is full of "evil's" can be the foundation of righteousness? Is that even possible?

[brunumb]

How can morality be founded in something that is not moral?

This has a feeling of a dog chasing its tail to me. By what criteria did you establish the 'something that is not moral' from which morality would be founded? An example would be most helpful.

[Shem Yoshi]

Surely the foundation of righteousness, justice, morality, have been laid in perfection. We can go back to the philosophy of the Greeks, there ideas were established in ideas of perfection. Go read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle... They worships "unknown gods" (Acts 17) and ideas of perfection... You are better off in that thought, then throwing around ideas of 'dogs that bond'... Are we to say that the affection of dogs are the foundations of perfection?

[JoeyKnothead]

The base of Christianity explains why "wrong" or "evil" is present in the world, it also establishes a perfect source for morality... Now whether you agree with it or not doesnt negate the fact that the explanation is there.

Other than citing the book making the claims, I challenge you to offer us some means to confirm you know a God's thoughts on morality.

We ought to expect the world as it is if Christianity is true, between a conflict of freewill and God, good and evil, sin and righteousness. It is professed that all these things are true to how God has aloud them to be (like revaluations).

How convenient.

You can't even show a god exists, much less that he allows anything.

None the less, there is a source for morality, we can account for it in Christianity, whether you believe it or not the explanation is there.

That, like morality, is your opinion.

But this explanation seems to be totally lacking in secularism.

That's because secularism relies on reason and logic, and not some dude declaring "God said".

Whether you believe morality to be of the individual, the government, society, or nature, all these things have evils present within them, or things that are wrong, things that are not moral. So how could morality be founded in something that isnt moral in itself.

Funny, that's the same thing I ask Christians.

At best you would have to say morality is just an idea, and the idea is of perfection, or morals, but even then you are still left to human reasoning which in itself is faulty.

Now you're getting it.

How can morality be founded in something that is not moral?

How can you declare you know the moral opinion of a god you can't e en show exists?

As I said, morality is all about opinion.

[JoeyKnothead]

Surely the foundation of righteousness, justice, morality, have been laid in perfection.

Perfection, like morality is bound to subjective opinion.

We can go back to the philosophy of the Greeks, there ideas were established in ideas of perfection. Go read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle... They worships "unknown gods" (Acts 17) and ideas of perfection... You are better off in that thought, then throwing around ideas of 'dogs that bond'... Are we to say that the affection of dogs are the foundations of perfection?

The foundations of "perfection" are subjective opinions. You'll never show otherwise.

[Shem Yoshi]

How can you declare you know the moral opinion of a god you can't e en show exists?

As I said, morality is all about opinion.

I am not hear claiming my opinion of morality, or my understand of God.. The claim would be God is the foundation of morality, not me.... And I understand you take a subjective approach to these things, we have had this conversation... Yet you make objective claims, just like everyone else...

can truth and morality be contradicting in itself?

can murder, and claiming not to murder, both be true?


i dont think so dude.

[JoeyKnothead]

How can you declare you know the moral opinion of a god you can't even show exists?

As I said, morality is all about opinion.

I am not hear claiming my opinion of morality, or my understand of God.. The claim would be God is the foundation of morality, not me....

My apologies, the system attributed the referenced post to you.

And I understand you take a subjective approach to these things, we have had this conversation... Yet you make objective claims, just like everyone else...

can truth and morality be contradicting in itself?

It's true I'd pay good money to see a monkey have sexual relations with a football.

Some consider my act of paying for the view would be immoral.

can murder, and claiming not to murder, both be true?

Murder is a legal definition, indicating some folks ain't proud about it.

Hurt someone I love and I'll make that bunch furious.

i dont think so dude.

The not thinking might have something to do with your errors in this matter, dude.

[Bust Nak]

If morality is a product of nature, why do we see things that are "wrong" in nature?
If morality is a product of the government, why do we see things that are "wrong" in government?
If morality is a product of the individual, why is there things that are "wrong" in the individual?

We see things that are wrong because morality, the standard we judge such things by, says so. There is no conflict at all.

And surely everyone agree all things in nature have evil in them...

I do not agree with that. What's evil do you see in a raindrop? Most things are neither good nor evil.

How is it, that something that is full of "evil's" can be the foundation of righteousness? ... So how could morality be founded in something that isnt moral in itself

The same way something that is full of disgusting tasting things is the foundation of food taste. It's biological, which is just one aspect of nature. There are easy answers to all you questions, if one discards the notion that there is anything transcendent with morality. It's just another feature of our body, no more significant than food taste.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #38]

That's a good summation. it's odd how we see references to perfection or the sublime qualiuties of morality when an apologist wants to ascribe it to a god but also we hear how poor an inadequate it is every timeit is said to be man - made.

The problem is the fallacy of the ideal (which may or may no be an actual informal fallacy) where it is so easy to imagine that something that we have isn't Just how we'd like it, so there must be a perfect version of it somewhere else. No, we are not the summit of creation, it is not all made for our good, it is what it is and we have to make the best of it rather than pay money and allegiance to a party that tells us that perfection actually exists, somewhere.

[Eloi]

(...)
What is the basis for morality?

It depends on who you want to please: God, yourself, the governments of the world, the rest of human society with its changing fashions and styles?

Are you saying that morality is nothing more than just pleasing someone?

Is that what I am saying, or is it you who are saying that?