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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

A personal or group opinion regarding right and wrong behaviors and thoughts.

None will ever show otherwise.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]
I don't know why this issue keeps coming up when the answer has been published many times and is not a matter of speculation. I have only seen this issue raised by theists who still cling to the notion that morality only comes from their god.

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

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #3]

So when two wolves co-operate to eat a lamb?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #3]

So when two wolves co-operate to eat a lamb?

Yes that would be one example. According to you, your god made carnivores.

But getting back to morality, which is generally among a single species, YOUR god made morality tribal; thus it was "moral" for an Israelite to enslave people from other tribes, but not fellow Israelites. The tribal 'god' you worship didn't even propose the morality that a dog has. Dogs are not only friendly to different breeds, but to different species.


The ultimate morality of god of Abraham is not morality at all, but subservience to power. This was never more clearly demonstrated than when his god told Abraham to kill his son Isaac, just to show subservience: loyalty over love.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #5]

So when 5 humans decide to rob the house of 1 human?

You devolved from science to strawmanning Christianity pretty fast there.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #5]

So when 5 humans decide to rob the house of 1 human?

You devolved from science to strawmanning Christianity pretty fast there.

This post makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you could set forth the logical [?] steps that form a basis for your odd conclusion. Two unrelated 'one-liners' do not constitute an argument. Also, you've completely failed to address my argument which was backed with cited facts.

Despite natural evolved morality, humans violate that morality, particularly against those whom they do not see as part of their clan or tribe. I'm sure you know the Bible well enough that I should not have to cite you chapter and verse about the many times your god ordered 'his chosen people' to commit atrocities against other tribes. I also should not have to cite you to the story of Abraham and Isaac. So much for your specious claim about "strawmanning." [sic]

You'll actually have to make a compelling argument if you expect me to continue.

[Shem Yoshi]

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?

I think something overlooked constantly by secular debtors is the basis of morality. It is like a straw-man to point out that atheists are moral without religion. I dont think any Christian is making the case the non-believers can not be moral, the debate is rather made that the basis of morality is illusory on secularism. A believer might ask a moral question "why should we (blank)" or "why should we not (blank)".... and the secular debater might say "i dont need the Bible to know morality"... None the less the issue still stands, how is it that morality is understood by you, that humans have a understanding of morality... How is that?

No one is debating you cant understand morality without believing in Jesus Christ, even thought there are ideas present in Christianity that will never make make sense in secular thought, like loving your enemy and dying for people who are actively sinning against you.. However I think everyone understands that ideas of right and wrong can be understood by everyone, whether you believe in Jesus or not, but that isnt the debate...

The debate is where can morality be established in? What can establish morality? Where does it come from... That is the debate.. A question that is often overlooked in secular debaters.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]
I don't know why this issue keeps coming up when the answer has been published many times and is not a matter of speculation. I have only seen this issue raised by theists who still cling to the notion that morality only comes from their god.

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

There is no morality in animals. The actions of animals are wild by definition, other then the ones humans cultivate, they cover the broad range of all actions seen in nature. There is no guiding force to establish values of right and wrong, we see everything from murder, cannibalism, incest, familicide, to affection, bonding, packs, etc... There is nothing saying anything is right or wrong in the wild. I suppose you could put a premise on it, like that which lead to survival, but even then animal have been known to commit suicide themselves, or kill their families...

If nature is the source of morality, we would still have to conclude nature is wrong...

I would also like to point out that if survival is the basis of establishing morality... You ought to kill anything that is not for your survival

If it was true, that you wanted to increase your chances of survival, so you packed up with others like wolves... That this is the basis of morality... You ought to kill your enemies... Fact... If something is trying to kill you you ought to kill it.

But love you enemies is seen as a virtue in our moral fabric. And even Jesus showed God's love by laying down his life for people while they were sinning against him... You would obviously conclude that is wrong to do, on the basis of morality... If survival is the basis of morality these virtues of sacrifice would be wrong based on the definition of right and wrong. You ought to kill anything against your survival, this would include any weak links in your culture, or any enemy that is against your survival....

[JoeyKnothead]

The debate is where can morality be established in?

Morality ain't so much "established in". It's merely an opinion on right and wrong thoughts or behaviors, and is forever bound to the subjective.

What can establish morality?

Thinking an act or behavior is good or bad.

Where does it come from... That is the debate.. A question that is often overlooked in secular debaters.

If you'll notice, this secular debater was the first to reply, so saying the question is overlooked is kinda goofy.

Morality comes from a subjective opinion that considers whether an act or thought is good or bad. Even among theists this fact applies, as they present their god's subjective opinion on such matters.