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.

[Wootah]

(...)
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?

It's worth exploring the idea. This is a debate/discussion on the basis of morality. Why not explore it?

[theophile]

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.

That is not the basis for morality but more of a definition, no? A basis would be something more like, because God says so. Or because that's what the science says.

[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.


[/size]

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

Here is a quote:
"All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the 'Lord God.'"
Isaac Newton

"God did it" keeps man in the dark ages.

It would seem that this conclusion is false from the argument you made. You can certainly believe in God and do good science.

[Shem Yoshi]

I would like to ask the conflicting question.

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?


It would seem that this conflict would prove that morality cant be established in any of these things

[theophile]

(...)
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?

I think that is closer to the truth. 'Who we want to please' could be considered our god.
Hence:
- whatever is our 'god' is potentially the basis for our morality.
- there are no atheists.

I think it's more, 'what end do you serve.' A vision and end for it all -- one that we can all share -- is the basis for morality. God comes into it because it's a vision and end that God also serves and stands for. But otherwise agree with the line of thought here.

[TRANSPONDER]

(...)
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?

It's worth exploring the idea. This is a debate/discussion on the basis of morality. Why not explore it?

Pleasing someone (whether an individual or a government) has a point but is too shallow. Why do we want to please them? Because in one case we want or need something from them and in the other so we don't get punished.

To cut to the last page, these are survival - mechanisms. They are how we work in a society and family group, and there are rules, deals and conventions so we get the best life we can, and though it isn't perfect (1), reciprocity, social rules and law codes make a complex society work. That is why it has evolved first by natural selection and then by thinking about it.

(1) unless one opts out of it either as Catholic monastic, Taoist recluse or California hippy. But the thing about Retreats is that, too often, it only works when there is a handy prosperous and generous society for it to sponge off. Reclusive communities are often parasitic. There may be individual exception who can manage alone, and if so, fine, but by and large we are better off in a complex society.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.


[/size]

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

Here is a quote:
"All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the 'Lord God.'"
Isaac Newton

"God did it" keeps man in the dark ages.

It would seem that this conclusion is false from the argument you made. You can certainly believe in God and do good science.

One certainly can do so, though there is always the danger that the belief can influence the science. However, this is not as it was before Darwin, frankly, where scientists as you say believed in God, the Bible and Christianity because it was the only explanation at the time. Now, it isn't.

I would like to ask the conflicting question.

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?


It would seem that this conflict would prove that morality cant be established in any of these things

I think you have the argument back to front. Why if God did it, do we see things wrong with it? If it was evolved (by trial, error and adaptation; makeshift solutions to particular problems) why, we would expect to find imperfections. This applies to the universe, biology and indeed society and morality - it is a case for nature rather than for 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.

That is not the basis for morality but more of a definition, no? A basis would be something more like, because God says so. Or because that's what the science says.

I prefer to reference facts to the best I can.

If my comments are afoul, I propose the question suffers it even more.

[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.


[/size]

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

Here is a quote:
"All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the 'Lord God.'"
Isaac Newton

"God did it" keeps man in the dark ages.

It would seem that this conclusion is false from the argument you made. You can certainly believe in God and do good science.

One certainly can do so, though there is always the danger that the belief can influence the science. However, this is not as it was before Darwin, frankly, where scientists as you say believed in God, the Bible and Christianity because it was the only explanation at the time. Now, it isn't.

I would like to ask the conflicting question.

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?


It would seem that this conflict would prove that morality cant be established in any of these things

I think you have the argument back to front. Why if God did it, do we see things wrong with it? If it was evolved (by trial, error and adaptation; makeshift solutions to particular problems) why, we would expect to find imperfections. This applies to the universe, biology and indeed society and morality - it is a case for nature rather than for God.

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. 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).

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.

But this explanation seems to be totally lacking in secularism. 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. 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.

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

[Diogenes]

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.

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?"

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