The Argument From Morality

[FinalEnigma]

In a thread in the general sub forum, I gave out a general invitation for a head to head debate on common arguments for God. Intrepidman responded, but challenged me to something a bit different from what I had in mind, though nontheless an interesting excercise: I will be presenting and defending the moral argument for the existence of God, while Intrepidman will be refuting. the thread of origin is here ( http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0 )

The agreed upon rules are the following:
1)All holy books (the Bible, Koran, Upanishads, etc.), and all scientific evidence, is admissible, but not considered conclusive.
2)I will be posting the initial post and my position, Intrepidman will refute, and we will proceed from there.
3) the accepted definition of morality for the purposes of this debate is as follow: 3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4) researching refutations is allowed. One is not required to do all the work themselves
5) we are to debate to the best of our ability. it is upon our ethics, honor, and honesty to do so.
6) there is no time limit within reason for responses

My formulation of the moral argument for the existence of God is as follows:

1: for objective morality to exist, there has to be something objective upon which it is based.
2: human constructs are subjective.
3: if morality exists, it must be based upon something that is capable of generating moral laws.
4: Things which are inanimate cannot generate laws.
5: the only animate thing that could generate moral laws without being subjective is God.
Conclusion
1: God exists.

[TheMessage]

Before I begin, I should note that Intrepidman has gone missing and it has been decided that I will fill in for him.

I would like to begin my refutation by objecting to your first premise, or rather the assumption behind it. While it is, in my opinion, a true statement, it hinges entirely upon the idea that morality is objective and not subjective, which appears to have been taken for granted.

I contend that morality is not objective, and I believe history to be on my side in this regard. The spectrum of morality varies greatly from society to society, between issues as large as cannibalism to those as small as males opening doors for females. There is simply too much dissonance to conclude that morality is objective.

With a lack of objective morality, your argument is irrelevant for our purposes.

[FinalEnigma]

You're right, I did have an unstated premise there that I hadn't explained.

premise X) morality is objective.

Why is morality necessarily objective? I too will turn to historical record.

If you look closely at the history of laws that we have, they all have a few laws in common. even as far back as the hammurabi code, the oldest recorded law we have, killing people was not permitted.

218
If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.

here, you are punished for killing a man, and you are punished for incompetence. No society I have heard of supports the arbitrary killing of it's populace, or allows incompetent professionals who harm the populace as a matter of course.

Further, there is an underlying current among all societies and all sets of law - respect to those whom you should respect, fair treatment to those who are perceived to deserve it, and so on. Yes, some societies cannibalized their dead for example. this was done as a sign of respect. Other societies burned their dead. why? also as a sign of respect.

All societies follow an underlying current beneath their laws. Immoral people/criminals should be punished. Moral people rewarded. Arbitrary killing is never allowed as a matter of course. I cannot think of any society that encourages disrespecting your elders, or the dead.

With all these common factors across all societies, there must be something basic upon which they are formed. It must be something that does not vary from place to place, or society to society, and it must be something that humans cannot change, therefore, it must be objective.

[TheMessage]

Your counterargument centers around the 'fact' that killing is wrong, but this is the sole moral idea that seems heavily rooted in human society. However, even this seeming simple idea is warped and altered between civilizations. Killing is almost never totally wrong, given the almost universal capacity for war, and the line is often drawn at different degrees, with some theocracatic societies finding it perfectly acceptable to kill anyone who disagrees with your core beliefs and with most western societies drawing the line at warfare, self-defense and punishment.

In other words, while it is easy to say "Do not kill" is a universal code, even that is so varied amongst people that the different iterations of the idea often bear only a passing resemblance to one another. Beyond this most basic of moral ideas the system breaks down even further.

In any case, none of this implies a strictly objective ideal. Rather, it appears to be a primitive idea meant for self-preservation, namely to avoid killing those that you identify with and can provide you communal safety and future aid. While the idea has clearly been extrapolated beyond these early concepts, it is a matter of evolution and protection of the species (Or more usually, clan/society) not one of
objective right and wrong.

[FinalEnigma]

Your counterargument centers around the 'fact' that killing is wrong, but this is the sole moral idea that seems heavily rooted in human society.

I have to disagree here. I believe I mentioned respecting those who are determined to deserve, but that being extremely vague, I'll attempt to explain.

From society to society, there is variance in behavioral morality. That is, some behaviors are considered moral in some societies, while considered immoral in others. First I will address behaviors which do not vary, then I will address another aspect that remains constant.

1) In no society I know of, is arbitrary killing considered moral. I mentioned this one already.
2) In no society I know of, is it considered moral to mistreat your elders. even on modern society, the moral thing to do is to take care of your parents when they are old and infirm. What survival purpose does this accomplish? What is gained by spending great deals of time, effort, and resources to perpetuate the lives of people who are of no use to society? you would most likely blanch at the idea of killing or neglecting unto death all those who cannot provide some service to society, yet there is no reason not to. They serve no purpose, and it does not help society to support them and use up so much time and resource.
3) abusing children. There is no society in the world where abusing children is considered good and valuable. I don't think I need to go more in depth on this behavior.

The other subject I wish to mention that I think bears some relevance is that of virtues. While many behaviors can and do vary form society to society, virtues generally do not. Cowardice is nowhere considered the moral superior to bravery, the same with patience and impatience, generosity and greed, kindness and malice. There is no society in the world that praises laziness over hard work and duty. Surely this points to a universal standard across all mankind.

However, even this seeming simple idea is warped and altered between civilizations. Killing is almost never totally wrong, given the almost universal capacity for war, and the line is often drawn at different degrees, with some theocracatic societies finding it perfectly acceptable to kill anyone who disagrees with your core beliefs and with most western societies drawing the line at warfare, self-defense and punishment.

Recall I was more specific than simply killing. I referred specifically to arbitrary killing, or killing with no purpose. No society encourages serial killers or random murder in the streets.

[TheMessage]

Points 1 and 3 are easy to explain, so I'll do those first.

For point 1, as man evolved, individuals were likely to run into each other (More than likely, I'd wager than there was never an ancient human who didn't interact with another ancient human) within the same territory. Now, if there are relatively few people in one area (Especially compared to the thousands today) you would be highly likely to meet each other frequently. So, if another individual in your area sought aid for something, you would help them knowing that you would frequently cross paths. The end result is that hopefully they would in turn aid you at a later date.

Eventually, this became a more tribal structure, as people realized that there was strength in numbers. You would help the other members of your tribe since you were all cooperating to survive, and occasionally your tribe would assist others in a fashion similar to that of the two individuals above.

If you're in a close-knit tribal society in which every member's contribution may be necessary for any to survive, randomly killing another individual is detrimental to the whole of the collective. Therefore, arbitrary killing became ingrained as a terrible act. Even though it no longer poses as great an impact, the instinct remains and we still seek to remove those who kill others (And are thus percieved as detrimental) from society, usually by either killing or imprisoning them.

For point 3, life begets life. The only purpose of our existence as organisms is to make another generation of organisms. We instinctually protect the young because that's essentially are purpose. One will note that this is usually a stronger urge in females, the gender that was traditionally in charge of the young while the males went off to do whatever ancient males did... hunt, gather, build shelters. It's survival of the species rather than survival of the individual, but it's just as strong.

Point 2 is tricky. Returning to the explanation of point 1, let's fastforward. We have way more people in any given location than when all of this started. The chances of you actually meeting up with a stranger in your environment/territory/city after you help them, so that they can reciprocate, is very unlikely. However, the instinct has been ingrained to the point that many people cannot resist the urge to help those they find in trouble (Though many can, which is evidence that our current social structure is slowly breeding out this particular instinct as unnecessary). This misfiring can likewise be applied to the elderly and the disabled. They cannot help you in turn, but some part of you instinctually wants to help them while forgetting why it learned to that in the first place.

A second possibility, and one that when taken with the above is likely what has happened, is that since lifespans started out extremely short (By modern standards, probably 25% of what they are now), and in those years you are usually learning and experiencing more and more, that those who aged to a certain point were seen as more wise and helpful in terms of guidance. They became tribal leaders and advisors, people to be respected because they had lived a few years longer and knew more about how to survive. This became ingrained even as the lifespan increased, so that people would instinctively respect those older than them because they assumed those individuals knew more and could help them survive via application of that knowledge.

Now that we are in the 'age of information' or whatever one wishes to call it, 8 year old children know more than 35 year old adults did however many thousands of years ago. People are just more intelligent. Even though this is the case, the instinct is there to respect those who are older because they know more... even though they often no longer do.

Similar lines of reasoning can be followed for each of the things that societies usually deem 'wrong'. Theft and rape (Or other forms of harm) both hurt the society. I urge you to present one moral that cannot be linked to 'protection of the society'.

[TheMessage]

Oops, I forget to address the point about virtues, though it really falls under the same idea of evolutionary 'morality'. To be generous and kind links back to the idea of reciprocation. Laziness is detrimental to the production of a society. Bravery encourages the strong few to protect the weak many in the spirit of standing up to the enemy.

Patience is an interesting one. I can see impatience leading to frustration, which is bad for making sound decision which will further the society. Also, if you take your time and do it right the first time, nobody dies overnight in the freezing rain because their shelter collapsed. However, patience isn't really endorsed as being that powerful a virtue compared to the others, especially when you look at modern society. It's clearly being phased out.

[FinalEnigma]

Points 1 and 3 are easy to explain, so I'll do those first.

For point 1, as man evolved, individuals were likely to run into each other (More than likely, I'd wager than there was never an ancient human who didn't interact with another ancient human) within the same territory. Now, if there are relatively few people in one area (Especially compared to the thousands today) you would be highly likely to meet each other frequently. So, if another individual in your area sought aid for something, you would help them knowing that you would frequently cross paths. The end result is that hopefully they would in turn aid you at a later date.

First, depending on how far back into man's history you wish to go, the scenrio you are talking about would seem rather unlikely. I am not certain of this, but I believe that by the time man had reached the level of sentience and presence of mind for reciprocal favors, he had long since formed into familial units as is seen in other primates.

Further, if you take a look at game theory, the kind of behavior you suggest would be unlikely to be successful. the kind of behavior you suggest is akin to the that seen in a particular experiment.
the game is as follows: two people meet up, and you may choose either to take advantage of the other, or to help them. if you take advantage, and they try to help you, you get 4 points, and they get 1 point. if you both try to take advantage, you both get two points. if you both try to help, you both get 3 points. Through numerous competitions over many years, one strategy has always won - at first help, then reciprocate their behavior. They would match up as many strategies as they could, and that one always won. it is similar to the behavior you suggest. However, it must reach a critical mass before it can succeed. There must be a certain percentage of people it meets who behave the same way, or it will lose - and, evolutionarily, die out. Therefore, this kind of behavior would not have evolved naturally, because the critical number would never have been reached. this strategy could not work in a world where it had not already succeeded.

Eventually, this became a more tribal structure, as people realized that there was strength in numbers. You would help the other members of your tribe since you were all cooperating to survive, and occasionally your tribe would assist others in a fashion similar to that of the two individuals above.

I think we need to check our facts because I am nearly certain that man has, for a very long time at the least, lived in familial or tribal units, and therefore your situation of lone humans encountering other lone humans being the norm would be unlikely.

If you're in a close-knit tribal society in which every member's contribution may be necessary for any to survive, randomly killing another individual is detrimental to the whole of the collective. Therefore, arbitrary killing became ingrained as a terrible act. Even though it no longer poses as great an impact, the instinct remains and we still seek to remove those who kill others (And are thus percieved as detrimental) from society, usually by either killing or imprisoning them.

I think I have to grant this one.

For point 3, life begets life. The only purpose of our existence as organisms is to make another generation of organisms. We instinctually protect the young because that's essentially are purpose. One will note that this is usually a stronger urge in females, the gender that was traditionally in charge of the young while the males went off to do whatever ancient males did... hunt, gather, build shelters. It's survival of the species rather than survival of the individual, but it's just as strong.

and this one.



Your evolutionary explanation does cover many bases, however, there is one that seems difficult to fit into the framework - self sacrifice for another. This would absolutely not be selected for by evolution, but rather selected against very strongly. Deliberately removing yourself from the gene pool is the last thing evolution would select for. how would this behavior have evolved? Why does it exist now, as the height of moral behavior, if not for some non-evolutionary moral drive?

[TheMessage]

Points 1 and 3 are easy to explain, so I'll do those first.

For point 1, as man evolved, individuals were likely to run into each other (More than likely, I'd wager than there was never an ancient human who didn't interact with another ancient human) within the same territory. Now, if there are relatively few people in one area (Especially compared to the thousands today) you would be highly likely to meet each other frequently. So, if another individual in your area sought aid for something, you would help them knowing that you would frequently cross paths. The end result is that hopefully they would in turn aid you at a later date.

First, depending on how far back into man's history you wish to go, the scenrio you are talking about would seem rather unlikely. I am not certain of this, but I believe that by the time man had reached the level of sentience and presence of mind for reciprocal favors, he had long since formed into familial units as is seen in other primates.

Further, if you take a look at game theory, the kind of behavior you suggest would be unlikely to be successful. the kind of behavior you suggest is akin to the that seen in a particular experiment.
the game is as follows: two people meet up, and you may choose either to take advantage of the other, or to help them. if you take advantage, and they try to help you, you get 4 points, and they get 1 point. if you both try to take advantage, you both get two points. if you both try to help, you both get 3 points. Through numerous competitions over many years, one strategy has always won - at first help, then reciprocate their behavior. They would match up as many strategies as they could, and that one always won. it is similar to the behavior you suggest. However, it must reach a critical mass before it can succeed. There must be a certain percentage of people it meets who behave the same way, or it will lose - and, evolutionarily, die out. Therefore, this kind of behavior would not have evolved naturally, because the critical number would never have been reached. this strategy could not work in a world where it had not already succeeded.

Eventually, this became a more tribal structure, as people realized that there was strength in numbers. You would help the other members of your tribe since you were all cooperating to survive, and occasionally your tribe would assist others in a fashion similar to that of the two individuals above.

I think we need to check our facts because I am nearly certain that man has, for a very long time at the least, lived in familial or tribal units, and therefore your situation of lone humans encountering other lone humans being the norm would be unlikely.

As to your first point, I fail to see how the critical number would never be reached. I see it as highly plausible that this would start out as one of many strategies for interaction that would gradually gain in 'popularity' due to success. Also, you should keep in mind that this is merely a possible explanation, not an answer, and I would never present it as hard fact. However, this is quite possible and indicative that assuming objective morality isn't necessarilly the obvious path to truth.

As for the facts surrounding ancient man, you're right. I think I mispoke somewhere in my first statement and never truly intended to imply that the majority of early humans were 'loners' or any such thing, though I can easily see many males attempting such an existence. However, before large tribal structures developed I am almost certain that significantly smaller 'familial units' were around... probably something like 2-4 individuals. Since the females and children probably stayed around whatever served as 'home' (Perhaps a cave or similar enclosure to protect from the elements) and did whatever they did, such as gather berries of other plant-based foods, gather fire wood, make tools, the male (or males if an older son is present) would go hunting. In this instance the individuals would be alone, though they would not have lived alone.

In any case, the idea isn't diminished by small tribes and families, as the 'misfiring' happens at a much later date once civilizations form on a grand scale. This provides more than enough time for the instincts to be ingrained.

If you're in a close-knit tribal society in which every member's contribution may be necessary for any to survive, randomly killing another individual is detrimental to the whole of the collective. Therefore, arbitrary killing became ingrained as a terrible act. Even though it no longer poses as great an impact, the instinct remains and we still seek to remove those who kill others (And are thus percieved as detrimental) from society, usually by either killing or imprisoning them.

I think I have to grant this one.

For point 3, life begets life. The only purpose of our existence as organisms is to make another generation of organisms. We instinctually protect the young because that's essentially are purpose. One will note that this is usually a stronger urge in females, the gender that was traditionally in charge of the young while the males went off to do whatever ancient males did... hunt, gather, build shelters. It's survival of the species rather than survival of the individual, but it's just as strong.

and this one.

Good, I guess we're making progress.

Your evolutionary explanation does cover many bases, however, there is one that seems difficult to fit into the framework - self sacrifice for another. This would absolutely not be selected for by evolution, but rather selected against very strongly. Deliberately removing yourself from the gene pool is the last thing evolution would select for. how would this behavior have evolved? Why does it exist now, as the height of moral behavior, if not for some non-evolutionary moral drive?

The context of the self-sacrifice is very important. The most common form of true self-sacrifice is that of a mother for a child, or less likely a father for a child. Given that the entire purpose of the organism is to create and protect the next generation, giving oneself for such a cause is entirely in line with instinct. Self-Sacrifice for the country comes significantly later and I'd wager can safely be classified as a mixture of misfired instinct and social indoctrination (It's virtuous for you to go die in a war so that I don't have to, etc...). Self-Sacrifice for other causes is definitely counterintuitive to the process, but you'll note that it is also highly uncommon; so uncommon that I believe natural selection has done a good job keeping that trait out of the majority, which actually leads further credence to my explanation.