Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[The Tanager]

I know what you claimed. I also claimed it was dodgy and I am sure it is. God is the point here - to discredit the validity of human morality as not Objective, in hopes to smuggle in God as a giver of Objective morals. be honest now, hand on Bible for yourself, if not for anyone else. That's it, is it not?

No, it’s not. That hasn’t been my intent in any way whatsoever in this discussion. The non-theists are the ones that keep trying to take that conversation there. And it's fine if they want to talk about that. It's not fine that they keep trying to bring my claims into it as though I'm really trying to have that conversation. I'm not.

And dickering about ontology vs epistemology is a pointless niggle just to try to push back against what i said. That is it, and no more than that, isn't it?

No, it’s not. It’s necessary to actually understand the issue being discussed. You can address the actual issue or you can brush it aside with unsupported claims about motives and all that. I’m focused on the actual content and welcome any contributions doing the same.

[bluegreenearth]

I wasn’t saying it was neutral in that respect. Yes, they don’t have the option to change their nature. If they are created with (a) freedom of the will, they can’t change that. If they are created with (b) no freedom of the will, they can’t change that. But their objective nature can be either ‘a’ or ‘b’. That was my point. It is neutral about whether (a) or (b) is true.

Your argument above is understood as follows:

• If beings are created to have the property of freewill where having the property of freewill = (a), then their objective nature must be (a).

• If beings are created to not have the property of freewill where not having the property of freewill = (b), then their objective nature must be (b).

• Therefore, the objectivity of their nature is neutral on whether (a) or (b) is the case.

The argument above doesn't address the scenario described in my previous post where the beings are created with the freedom to change the objective nature that was subjectively chosen for them by their creator to a different nature they subjectively choose for themselves. That scenario mirrors the conditions prescribed by what the argument defines as an "objective purpose" and "objective morality." With an "objective purpose," a creator subjectively chooses a purpose and applies it to the created beings in the act of creating them, but they have the freedom to reject this "objective" purpose and choose a different subjective purpose for themselves. Given your definition of "objective," in both of these scenarios, objectivity is neutral on whether the created beings have the freedom or lack the freedom to change a property that was applied it to them by their creator during the act of creation. As a consequence of this neutrality, the argument for an objective purpose and an objective morality is rendered impotent by its inability to transcend the same criticisms it levees against a subjective purpose and subjective morality. Differences are just differences with no real value distinction between them. It doesn't mean anything to state that an objective morality exists for humanity because there is no logical justification for anyone to act in accordance with it given their freedom to act in accordance any moral system they choose for themselves. This is why the concept of an "objective nature" is only meaningful when it entails the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them. Otherwise, it would be incoherent to state that they were created with the objective nature to change their objective nature. Accordingly, the argument is entirely semantic with no pragmatic applications.

[The Tanager]

The argument above doesn't address the scenario described in my previous post where the beings are created with the freedom to change the objective nature that was subjectively chosen for them by their creator to a different nature they subjectively choose for themselves. That scenario mirrors the conditions prescribed by what the argument defines as an "objective purpose" and "objective morality."

Okay...if the created beings were able to change their objective nature and/or purpose, then the objective morality would change.

With an "objective purpose," a creator subjectively chooses a purpose and applies it to the created beings in the act of creating them, but they have the freedom to reject this "objective" purpose and choose a different subjective purpose for themselves.

I agree.

Given your definition of "objective," in both of these scenarios, objectivity is neutral on whether the created beings have the freedom or lack the freedom to change a property that was applied it to them by their creator during the act of creation.

I agree.

As a consequence of this neutrality, the argument for an objective purpose and an objective morality is rendered impotent by its inability to transcend the same criticisms it levees against a subjective purpose and subjective morality. Differences are just differences with no real value distinction between them. It doesn't mean anything to state that an objective morality exists for humanity because there is no logical justification for anyone to act in accordance with it given their freedom to act in accordance any moral system they choose for themselves. This is why the concept of an "objective nature" is only meaningful when it entails the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them. Otherwise, it would be incoherent to state that they were created with the objective nature to change their objective nature. Accordingly, the argument is entirely semantic with no pragmatic applications.

The concept of objective nature has nothing to do with entailing the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them because acting in accordance with objective morality is not a part of the definition of objective. 'Objective' doesn't mean unable to do otherwise. You are still conflating the concepts of objective and freedom of the will. I already made this point and instead of refuting that, you've just assumed it is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Tanager appears to be basing a logical argument on a fallacy - what God says is morality makes it objective. It is just as much opinion as human or other gods' opinions on morality.

If there are no gods, then subjective human morality is all we have , and it is pointless to reject it as invalid as it is just human opinion and we need an Objective morality, if there there isn't one because there are no gods.

It is the old and eternal flaw in all theist reasoning. It has to assume a god (name your own) exists for any theist argument to work, other than the ones that validate the god - claim. The morality debate is pointless because it drags a god - given morality into it as a required alternative to human morality. Whether it is required as objective is academic if there is no good reason to think it is there at all.

[bluegreenearth]

As a consequence of this neutrality, the argument for an objective purpose and an objective morality is rendered impotent by its inability to transcend the same criticisms it levees against a subjective purpose and subjective morality. Differences are just differences with no real value distinction between them. It doesn't mean anything to state that an objective morality exists for humanity because there is no logical justification for anyone to act in accordance with it given their freedom to act in accordance any moral system they choose for themselves. This is why the concept of an "objective nature" is only meaningful when it entails the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them. Otherwise, it would be incoherent to state that they were created with the objective nature to change their objective nature. Accordingly, the argument is entirely semantic with no pragmatic applications.

The concept of objective nature has nothing to do with entailing the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them because acting in accordance with objective morality is not a part of the definition of objective. 'Objective' doesn't mean unable to do otherwise. You are still conflating the concepts of objective and freedom of the will. I already made this point and instead of refuting that, you've just assumed it is true.

I know the argument's definition of "objective" doesn't mean "unable to do otherwise" and have demonstrated how this causes it to fail at resolving the subjectivity problem. Given the criteria for objectivity proposed by your argument, an objective purpose and an objective morality are no less arbitrary than a subjective purpose and a subjective morality. Differences are just differences with no real value distinction between them.

[TRANSPONDER]

As a consequence of this neutrality, the argument for an objective purpose and an objective morality is rendered impotent by its inability to transcend the same criticisms it levees against a subjective purpose and subjective morality. Differences are just differences with no real value distinction between them. It doesn't mean anything to state that an objective morality exists for humanity because there is no logical justification for anyone to act in accordance with it given their freedom to act in accordance any moral system they choose for themselves. This is why the concept of an "objective nature" is only meaningful when it entails the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them. Otherwise, it would be incoherent to state that they were created with the objective nature to change their objective nature. Accordingly, the argument is entirely semantic with no pragmatic applications.

The concept of objective nature has nothing to do with entailing the criteria that the created beings cannot freely change the nature the creator applied to them because acting in accordance with objective morality is not a part of the definition of objective. 'Objective' doesn't mean unable to do otherwise. You are still conflating the concepts of objective and freedom of the will. I already made this point and instead of refuting that, you've just assumed it is true.

I know the argument's definition of "objective" doesn't mean unable to do otherwise and have demonstrated how this causes it to fail at resolving the subjectivity problem. Given the criteria for objectivity proposed by your argument, an objective purpose and an objective morality are no less arbitrary than a subjective purpose and a subjective morality. Differences are just differences with no real value distinction between them.

Yes. As is often the case, I can't tell whether the invalidity or irrelevance of the argument is due to an invalid basis - requiring an Objective morality for it to be valid, and despite previous near insulting denial, the Tanager clearly had God in mind as the basis of this objectivity, which it isn't; or is the ploy of foxing the atheist with jargon and confusion to 'catch a fish in muddied waters'.

The free will debate (if that is actually what it is) is also rather irrelevant. i reckon that (like most of reality ) it is illusory, but reliably repeatable, and the working of the human choice - making mechanism, that is what it is and whether it does flip a coin or is deterministic, is academic and does what it does. Nothing of that is relevant to the morality debate, let alone the God - debate (which, if it not about a god, has no place on this forum).

Whether it is faithbased confusion deriving from Godfaith, or deliberate confusion to somehow validate Godfaith by elimination Argument from morality was dead, and gone from the 80's and yet the Believers still think it is a good one to checkmate atheists.

And they wonder why atheists don't treat them with enough respect.

[Bible_Student]

A child starts with no understanding of morality, but as they grow, they quickly grasp that certain actions cause physical and emotional pain, both for themselves and/or others. Although they might initially adopt incorrect ideas about "moral" behavior, over time, they continue to learn and mature... or sometimes they don't. However, as long as their conscience is active, reasoning remains a tool they rely on to deepen their understanding of what "morality" truly means.

Adam and Eve were akin to children, but they had a directive to follow and were cautioned about the repercussions of disobedience. They weren't merely flawed humans; their minds were perfect and fully operational. They needed only to let their Father guide them towards maturity. As mentioned earlier, by choosing to disobey, they opted to forge their own path, yet God never lost sight of His purpose for humanity's future and did not entirely abandon them.

Even today, the Creator continues to offer guidance to humanity, helping them thrive in the present and become integral to the future of humankind. Since He is our Creator, He defines what is "moral."

[bluegreenearth]

A child starts with no understanding of morality, but as they grow, they quickly grasp that certain actions cause physical and emotional pain, both for themselves and/or others. Although they might initially adopt incorrect ideas about "moral" behavior, over time, they continue to learn and mature... or sometimes they don't. However, as long as their conscience is active, reasoning remains a tool they rely on to deepen their understanding of what "morality" truly means.

Adam and Eve were akin to children, but they had a directive to follow and were cautioned about the repercussions of disobedience. They weren't merely flawed humans; their minds were perfect and fully operational. They needed only to let their Father guide them towards maturity. As mentioned earlier, by choosing to disobey, they opted to forge their own path, yet God never lost sight of His purpose for humanity's future and did not entirely abandon them.

Even today, the Creator continues to offer guidance to humanity, helping them thrive in the present and become integral to the future of humankind. Since He is our Creator, He defines what is "moral."

So what? Is there an argument in there you wish to defend, or are you just preaching your subjective perspective?

[Bible_Student]

I forgot to quote this post:

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #134]

"morality" is inherent to human consciousness

What do you mean by "morality"?

What evidence do you have to support that this is "inherent to human consciousness"?

To me, "morality" means understanding the difference between right and wrong and having the inclination to opt for the right and avoid the wrong.

This trait is intrinsic to humans, as making choices based on individual assessments of right and wrong requires a brain capable of advanced cognitive functions.

Then there is contradiction in your answer to the question.
Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

By answering "yes" you are saying that we can have morality without knowledge of good and evil.

If someone has no knowledge of good or evil, they likely wouldn't frame their behavior in moral terms at all. They might still behave in ways that those who do would recognize as moral (or immoral), but they wouldn't think of their behavior as such. They would act based on natural impulses, social cues, or emotions without reflecting on whether their behavior is morally right or wrong. The idea of morality requires a conscious awareness of those categories, which they would lack.

So this comment of mine was an answer to it:

A child starts with no understanding of morality, but as they grow, they quickly grasp that certain actions cause physical and emotional pain, both for themselves and/or others. Although they might initially adopt incorrect ideas about "moral" behavior, over time, they continue to learn and mature... or sometimes they don't. However, as long as their conscience is active, reasoning remains a tool they rely on to deepen their understanding of what "morality" truly means.

Adam and Eve were akin to children, but they had a directive to follow and were cautioned about the repercussions of disobedience. They weren't merely flawed humans; their minds were perfect and fully operational. They needed only to let their Father guide them towards maturity. As mentioned earlier, by choosing to disobey, they opted to forge their own path, yet God never lost sight of His purpose for humanity's future and did not entirely abandon them.

Even today, the Creator continues to offer guidance to humanity, helping them thrive in the present and become integral to the future of humankind. Since He is our Creator, He defines what is "moral."

[Tcg]

A child starts with no understanding of morality, but as they grow, they quickly grasp that certain actions cause physical and emotional pain, both for themselves and/or others. Although they might initially adopt incorrect ideas about "moral" behavior, over time, they continue to learn and mature... or sometimes they don't. However, as long as their conscience is active, reasoning remains a tool they rely on to deepen their understanding of what "morality" truly means.

Adam and Eve were akin to children, but they had a directive to follow and were cautioned about the repercussions of disobedience. They weren't merely flawed humans; their minds were perfect and fully operational. They needed only to let their Father guide them towards maturity. As mentioned earlier, by choosing to disobey, they opted to forge their own path, yet God never lost sight of His purpose for humanity's future and did not entirely abandon them.

Even today, the Creator continues to offer guidance to humanity, helping them thrive in the present and become integral to the future of humankind. Since He is our Creator, He defines what is "moral."

That's a whole bunch of claims with zero evidence to support any of them. Why should one accept these bald assertions?


Tcg