CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I would add that laws are a statement of consequences for moral breaches.
Common moral standards are the basis for genuine religious community
I have previously considered your take on religion to be too broad and this seems consistent. Common moral standards may be fundamental to religious communities, but common moral standards are fundamental to virtually any community.
I would say ritual is the basis for religious community. Without ritual, whatever you have, even with common moral standards, is not a religious community. I may even narrow it further to spiritual ritual.
The focus on ritual is interesting. Shared "reverence rituals" (spiritual is way too vague for me) being what "makes a religion" is a logically tenable view as far as I can tell.
I'd like to critique YOUR response to this debate topic., :)
Almost all religions are made up of two things: law and belief. Most of the followers of theses religions believe that these laws make up an objective system of morality.
I knew when I was a little child that there had to be right and wrong that cannot change, and I spent fifteen years trying to find it, searched many philosophies in depth looking for what is called the truth. Knowing the truth will make you free.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
-----
Morals aren't a factual phenomena. They require a human perspective, taking into account emotion, feelings, motivations, outcomes, the concepts of justice, social cohesion, compromise, empathy. Nothing about any of that is really objective. Human morals don't exist without human society, human interaction, and human subjective interpretations and perspectives. They aren't a science or a framework to be applied to natural phenomena in a formulaic way, like mathematics or astronomy. Morals are far more complex, subtle, contextual and relative. There is no such thing as an "objectively" right answer to a moral question, which is why human individuals are so diverse when it comes to what is believed right and wrong.
Yea, there are almost universal common conclusions to particular moral questions: is it morally acceptable to murder an innocent. Most people would say no. But they don't arrive at that conclusion by mathematical formula applied to physical phenomena and material fact. They arrive at that conclusion with empathy, intuition, feeling, speculation, foresight, experience, social pressures etc etc.
subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions ----- morality is always this.
If you will allow an alteration to your definition of the word “fact”, I think we can move forward. Your definition states that a fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. I would argue that a fact need not be known or proved in order to be true. That the fact of the matter concerning the surface of Pluto is unknown and unproven, but the fact remains.
As for the rest of your statement, I would not argue that people do not experience morality subjectively. Everything experienced is experienced subjectively. This includes vision, though that does not stop us from concluding that some vision is better than other vision. While I will not argue that morality has subjective elements, I will contend that this does not mean they are simply a matter of personal or societal opinion, and that there are objective qualities to morality that are overlooked.
subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions ----- morality is always this
Your health is always this as well. What a doctor says is healthy or unhealthy for you is determined by him and you subjectively. The opinions you arrive at will be far different from what they would have been 100 years ago. And yet there is a correct answer as to what is actually good or bad for you.
Human morals don't exist without human society, human interaction, and human subjective interpretations and perspectives. They aren't a science or a framework to be applied to natural phenomena in a formulaic way, like mathematics or astronomy.
No social science exists without human society, interaction, and interpretation. Though social sciences are not hard physics, they are still a scientific field of study. Morality, and the quality thereof, is beginning to be considered as an appropriate field of scientific study, and for good reason, as I will illustrate.
There is no such thing as an "objectively" right answer to a moral question
You must consider how we came to have morality. It is an evolved quality that we have today because it is better than other potential forms of conduct management for reasoning creatures. Better than simple instinct. Morality provides guidelines for human conduct that are essential to survival, especially as a social species. Since we are particularly intelligent, we have more complex forms of morality (the complexity of which may make it impervious to exact study, but this does not remove facts from the matter). We are sufficiently evolved to survive well, to flourish, in no small part due to morality. Some morality, or moral codes of conduct, are better at bringing about flourishing than are others. This means that some moral codes are actually, objectively better at fulfilling the purpose for which morality evolved.
When you consider an objective standard for a biological faculty or trait, it is always based on the role it has or the purpose it serves. Though vision is subjective, the fact that eyes were evolved for sight, and some people see better than others, means we can say that this subjective phenomenon can be objectively measured. Similarly, medicine was created to improve health and is measured against this imprecise standard of “health” which has been simply guessed at for thousands of years, though there is a fact to the matter. Voodoo witch doctors are objectively bad doctors when compared to modern medicine practitioners.
Morality evolved because it improves individual well-being and collective flourishing. Some moral practices factually achieve this very well, some not as well. Just like your health, it doesn’t matter that everyone has a different subjective opinion about it, there is a correct (though imprecise) answer.
I appreciate what you're getting at. I have, for along time now, been of the position that morality without God is possible because of the empathy inborn in most people; our need for social interaction and for functioning societies mean that certain moral codes are extremely beneficial for those purposes, and others, not so beneficial, others are downright destructive. For all intents and purposes, it would seem you and I share a similar view on what morality ought to do, and ought to bring, and that, for me, is rather more important than whether we agree on whether this can be called "objective morality".
I would still say that it is subjective and relative, but that's not to say I think that all morals are equal. Clearly they are not. I simply don't accept the idea that morality can be didactic, factual, fixed, like a mathematical sum or a list of commands, in the way that religious people claim it can. Morality is, whether we like it or not, in a state of constant evolution, constant flux, changing over time depending on the circumstances in which it is formulated and upon the needs of those who arbitrate it.
That said, in my own humble opinion, it is not the pleasure of the god of the bible for which morality is practiced, and ought not to be for which it is utilized, but for the pursuance of equality, peace, tranquility, inclusivity, health, safety and security for humans and for the humane treatment of sentient creatures. Whatever that requires at a certain time or place may change, but if we motivate our morality through these aims I think we'll be alright.
I share a similar view on what morality ought to do, and ought to bring, and that, for me, is rather more important than whether we agree on whether this can be called "objective morality".
Even the destructive moral behaviors are based on some supposed benefit (usually in the afterlife). Whether or not there is actual benefit can be determined and is not strictly a matter of opinion. To say that morality is subjective, is to say that we can’t really say that anyone is wrong. There is a problem with that. Human action depends on perceptions of right and wrong. It is incorrect to suppose that all human action is as morally valid, beneficial, or right as all other human action. But this is the implication that comes with the claim that morality is entirely subjective.
I should note here that relative and subjective are not the same. How you build a house will be relative to your environmental conditions, but the functionality of that house is not subjective. An igloo may be as good as a pueblo, but not in all circumstances.
Morality is, whether we like it or not, in a state of constant evolution, constant flux, changing over time depending on the circumstances in which it is formulated and upon the needs of those who arbitrate it.
Our understanding of health is, whether we like it or not, in a state of constant evolution, constant flux, changing over time depending on the circumstances in which it is formulated and upon the needs of those who arbitrate it. Still, some things are actually unhealthy regardless of anyone’s opinion.
Amarel, saying all morality is subjective is simply to say that all morality is a matter of human emotion, need, desire, want, benefit, thought, action, experience. That's what subjective means.
It is to say that no existential purpose of morality is all encompassing, or universal, or even clear and objectively defined. For example: you and I believe that morality is best purposed to create stable, healthy, happy societies without violence, murder, and crime. That's an admirable position that most people share. But that DOES NOT make that position objective.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Morality being subjective, does not make all actions "valid" either. Valid to whom?? Murder is valid to some people. A majority of people, subjectively (as in, via their feeling, opinion, desire, want, need, emotion) believe murder is not valid as a moral action. That's a majority consensus, but it isn't an objective conclusion. There is a distinct difference.
Many things that some societies have or practice, they consider morally right, yet you and I might consider them entirely morally wrong. "Healthy" and "unhealthy" are qualitative interpretations of biological realities. We know that injecting yourself with potassium cyanide is "unhealthy", because we see its effects on human biology: it leads to death. Death is what medicine attempts to stall. But we can't qualify social morality in the same ways as we can biology. A cell reacts biochemically in a particular fashion to a particular compound. A society is far less predictable.
You tell me something that is objectively morally right or wrong, always, unchangingly throughout human history, and I will give you an example of when it was common practice.
Having sex with men? Pretty morally repugnant throughout the eyes of most human societies. Not so for me. Hitting your wife? Pretty repugnant for me: not so for the authoritarian male-dominated cultures on the planet. Exploiting your workers and using power to oppress? Pretty morally repulsive to me: not so for the typical capitalist. Soaking your baby in wine and then being prepared to throw it in a ditch if it didn't survive? Pretty morally repugnant to me. Necessary and right for the ancient Spartans.
The point is: what a society needs or wants dictates what is morally right or wrong in that society. You are attempting to say that the necessity for morality is proof that the specifics of the moral distinctions within it are objective. That's just changing the goalposts, and it's completely false.
saying all morality is subjective is simply to say that all morality is a matter of human emotion, need, desire, want, benefit, thought, action, experience. That's what subjective means
Need is not a matter of opinion. When people make the argument that morality is subjective, they mean it is a matter of opinion in the same way that art preference is subjective. Morality is more than that.
It is to say that no existential purpose of morality is all encompassing, or universal, or even clear and objectively defined
A thing need not be defined or even conceived of for it to be objectively true. Again I will reference medicine. Laser eye surgery would have been as beneficial in 1800 as it is today (incidentally this procedure objectively improves the quality of a persons subjective experience).
you and I believe that morality is best purposed to create stable, healthy, happy societies without violence, murder, and crime. That's an admirable position that most people share. But that DOES NOT make that position objective.
I never said that general agreement makes a thing objective. My argument is that morality evolved because it benefited humans, and that some people have subjective moral opinions that do not benefit humans, which means that their opinions do not serve the purpose for which morality evolved. In other words, they are actually morally wrong.
A majority of people, subjectively (as in, via their feeling, opinion, desire, want, need, emotion) believe murder is not valid as a moral action. That's a majority consensus, but it isn't an objective conclusion. There is a distinct difference
I must reinforce that my position is not that consensus makes objectivity. Neither am I arguing that my moral opinion is the correct one, but rather that a moral opinion is correct or not regardless of whether people think so or can even know so.
But we can't qualify social morality in the same ways as we can biology. A cell reacts biochemically in a particular fashion to a particular compound. A society is far less predictable
And yet, we can see that human behavior and interaction has a direct and predictable causal impact on general and particular well-being within a society.
A woman is objectively better of, by almost all measures, in England than in Saudi Arabia. You need to make a stronger argument against health as an appropriate analogy.
You tell me something that is objectively morally right or wrong, always, unchangingly throughout human history, and I will give you an example of when it was common practice
You could also tell me the effects of holding a given thing as acceptable behavior, and whether that outcome made for a better or worse off individual or society.
what a society needs or wants dictates what is morally right or wrong in that society. You are attempting to say that the necessity for morality is proof that the specifics of the moral distinctions within it are objective. That's just changing the goalposts, and it's completely false
Need is not so subjective, this is part of my point.
The reason for the fact that there is a necessity for morality is my proof for the objectivity thereof. This is not a move of goalposts in the slightest. Though you may want, or suppose, the goalpost for objective morality to be a different position than mine, but you can look back over the last two years and see that my argument on the topic has been consistent.
Sean you say ....tell me something that is objectively morally wrong , always unchangingly throughout human and I will give you an example of when it was common practice .....
What if I say you are an ugly idiot . How would you feel after having this said to your face ? I have just insulted you and I should not have because of the injury due to the feeling it has most certainly caused in you, and would cause in me had such an insult been aimed at me, regardless of its truth or falsity. A wrong has been committed, a moral law has been broken. Your hurt feelings make the offence fairly objective. By ‘objective’ here, I mean existing universally, meaning practically everyone would be insulted by such words . By those words I have created something that’s out there: it’s objective , do you agree ?
No, I disagree. Consensus does not create objectivity. The fact that I feel bad may be the result of an objective moral wrong, but it does not create one, nor does agreement or disagreement.
No, it is not "out there". But the facts are independent of opinion. Our sight is a subjective experience, and is dependent on our eyes. Sight is not out there. However, some sight is better than others. That is to say that some sight is more evectice at serving the purpose for which eyes evolved, namely vision. Though sight is not out there, neither is the quality thereof subject to opinion. There is a fact of the matter.
Ok say I ask "where does morality come from " we have three possible answers as in ... Does it come from us ? Does it come from a God or there are objective moral facts ?
That is ,are things right or wrong anyway , independently of whatever we or God or anyone else might have to say about it ?
are things right or wrong anyway , independently of whatever we or God or anyone else might have to say about it ?
Yes. Just as there are medical/health practices that are healthy or unhealthy. Like health, morality is likely a matter of degrees. Like health people have their own personal opinion about morality that is likely very different from views 500 years ago. Like health, there are right and wrong answers independent of opinion (health is also not independent of people).
So there is no such thing as right or wrong, except that you assert you are right in saying there is no such thing as right or wrong?
I enjoy picking apart the diabolical thought excursions of atheists, but you will probably go off in a dirty mouth tirade long before I can make you look more foolish that your assertion of knowing there is no such thing as right or wrong.
You're incorrect. If someone gets a math problem incorrect, the teacher may say "I'm sorry, that's wrong" without having any moral judgement in the critique. Wrong can be incorrect or it can be immoral. Context is the difference.
If I am incorrect I am wrong. Saying I'm incorrect instead of saying I am wrong does not change the fact that you are making a moral judgement.....and you know that you are trying to say incorrect is different than wrong because you don't want to admit right is right and wrong is wrong.
Now, now, don't be a hater. There is no call to degrade the conversation into name calling. The idea is about right and wrong. A math problem done incorrectly is wrong, the pronouncement of a person who knows the correct way to do the problem is a moral judgement on the incorrect method. I guess you got mad when I said you are playing semantics trying to distinguish morality from correctness. Maybe it will help if I further explain why "incorrect" is a moral judgement even in something which seems immaterial like a math problem.
Notice how I used the word "seems". The math problem costs time of the person who is working the problem. The incorrect solution cost time. How we use our time is indeed a moral issue. If we do a math problem presumtously and incorrectly, it is wrong for us to do it that way. This tendency to do things wrong shows the corruption of our nature. It is because we are corrupt that we deserve to burn in Hell. If we do every math problem perfectly throughout our lives, we still are corrupt at heart and have a natural tendency to commit immoral acts in thought; in our hearts, if not in practice.
Your pronouncement calling me a joke is a moral judgement, alluding to a transcendent objective moral code which for the moment you like as it suits your feelings in equating or bettering your character over me and thereby continuing to convince yourself that if my sins are forgiven and I am not going to burn in Hell, you must be exempt from Hell because you are convinced that you are not a worse sinner than me. That kind of thinking is a a self deception, we both deserve to burn in Hell no matter how much you might think you are better than me. We both deserve to die like dogs and so we are...sinners in need of God's mercy to be pardoned and saved from Hell.
Trying to remain focused on your debate here questioning the relation of religion, law, and morality: once again our whole argument shows the futility of religion and the inadequacy of trying to follow rules (as in math) or laws (all of which are moral pronouncements) in order to get out of our predicament of corruption which is killing us. Morality seeks to know and practice what is right or wrong and is objective in reality or is forever futile and hopeless for the religious practitioner if they believe God is there or not.
Calling me a joke is making a moral judgement alluding to a transcendent objective moral code which would be reality, your usage of the judgement is religious in that you think you are upholding your right to exist outside of Hell by degrading my character.....and corporately, you will seek to impose laws to support your religion while restricting my freedom to live according to my faith. You are trying to elevate your own personal moral code as the law of God by which you determine incorrectness or correctness to solutions of problems be they math or material......and that is a religious practice.
When I was a young and careless buck, there was a punk who talked about me like this. He called me stupid. I got tired of the punk insulting me in front of everybody and I waited for him in a path I knew he would be taking. When he approached, I stepped out of hiding and to his shocked face I said "Call me stupid now". I gave him a direct order, he disobeyed, refused to say one word straight to my face the way he did publicly in front of others so I gave him a black eye to show to all those who admired his big mouth as he paraded his disdain for me when he felt safe using fighting words in situations where he knew I would not fight. That was back in the day when fights did not result in lawsuits or stays in the hospital but they simply attempted to settle a score and ended when one person gave up.
Nowadays I take it in stride when people who have trouble controlling and expressing their emotions use fighting words in their frustration of not being able to communicate civilly. I enjoy throwing the truth back at them knowing it sounds to them like fighting words due to the fact that the truth goes against them when they are going against the truth. It may get me crucified one day....so I do my best to point to the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ who died for our sins so we can be pardoned and saved from Hell if we believe on Him and receive Him by faith in reality as He is; God the Savior.
I don't use fighting words on the internet. I do occasionally get insulting if I have contempt for the quality of the argument being presented. In this case I called you a joke because the quality of your argument was such that it made me laugh, as it occasionally does. The nature of your internet persona is funny. Almost as if you are literally a joke.
The moral judgement was against the incorrect working of math. The fact that the math problem is immaterial does not change the fact that it was done wrong and if it was done wrong it was not done right, that is a moral judgement. If you do math wrong, it's wrong and it can't be right. That is the truth.
Playing semantics does not change the fact that right is right and wrong is wrong.
His statement implies that he has his own code of morals, with only one rule..."recognize no rule". That is the most extremely selfish form of morality imaginable. Some people try to be "good people" in it, some become completely apathetic psychopaths. It's establishing one's self as their own highest god.
Well, some people believe there is objective morality and that is where they seek many of their morals and ways of living. It is up to you if you do not wish to agree with these people but it is very important that we do find some source of morality. It doesn't have to be a religious source. It could even just be something simple such as human empathy.
I agree, believing in theories of how man evolved from a single cell, and not even knowing how that first living cell magically appeared, is like believing in superstition.
The fact that from all the huge universe with billions of solar systems billions of years older than ours, and not showing any life as we see on Earth..... HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE NO OTHER LIVING CELLS DID NOT MAGICALLY HAPPEN IN OTHER SOLAR SYSTEMS. TO BELIEVE SUCH A FAIRY TALE IS BEYOND LUDCIROUS.
These solar systems billions of years older than are would be billions of years more advanced! Where is the signs of life?
God makes much more sense and would explain why there is only one Planet with life.
The terms "religion" and "law" are too broad. Morality implies objective law in reality and religion changes neither objective moral law or reality. We all deserve to burn in Hell as lawbreakers, religion can't change that fact.....thought I would throw that in for the haters to get fired up......pun unintended
Law and religion both come from the same source, communities agreeing on what is right and what is wrong. In old times people that collectively agreed on something, put in in a book and created mythos explaining why these morals are. In modern law, people come together and perform a collective vote to decide what is right and wrong. In short, morality is subjective to each individual person and to create laws many people come together and agree on the common factors.
The point of morality what makes you feel good, mostly based on empathy for other people's feelings.
And the answer to the second question is subjective. You might think another person beliefs are just a justified while someone else might be repulsed those ideas. A society typically makes the final design.
And the answer to the second question is subjective
Should I take this to mean that each form is as valid as the next?
The point of morality what makes you feel good
Not a lot of hedonists these days. What if I feel good by murdering strangers? Is my morality as valid as yours?
A society typically makes the final design
So a moral code is correct if enough people agree? If the whole world decides to do the "Handmaids Tale" thing, is that just as valid as general liberty?
Okay so the morality we have acquired today are based on what our parents taught us correct? so that morality usually comes from our religions regardless of which one it is, and in the USA at least notice that most laws are based on religion as well, in my opinion the separation of church and state are non existent. =)
in the USA at least notice that most laws are based on religion
All civilizations have laws against murder and theft. How do you know that religion didn't incorporate those laws, rather than our laws being based on religion? For example, were there not laws against theft prior to the 10 Commandments?
Morality is a code of conduct, whether implicit or explicit. Law is the formal, explicit codification of morality with a statement of consequences for a given breach. Religion is primitive philosophy. Morality precedes the rest as it has been with us the longest.
As humanity developed, myths and legends used to fill in the holes of our knowledge were also used to articulate moral intuitions. These myths and legends were the foundation of religions and served as a codification of morals held (law). Thus, religion and law were once indistinguishable. To speak of the law was to speak of moral edicts according to a god or gods. When a ruler changed a law, he heard the voice of god (or got the approval of his holy class).
As education and literacy became more common, and esoteric knowledge became more broadly known, small groups and individuals developed their own ideas about religion. Philosophers began to understand the value of morality as independent from religion (though not usually from God). Similarly, the ruling class recognized that it’s laws had to be secular if they were to encompass people with differing religious views. Slowly, laws and legal systems were separated from religion, though not from fundamental morality. Which is approximately where we stand today.
To summarize, humanity has always had morality. We incorporated morality into our primitive philosophies of religion which served as law. We removed religion, but not morality, from law.
Morality is a code of conduct, whether implicit or explicit
granted
Law is the formal, explicit codification of morality with a statement of consequences for a given breach.
granted
Religion is primitive philosophy
if that's true, then conversely this would mean philosophy is "modern religion".
Morality precedes the rest as it has been with us the longest.
You think we conceptualized "morally right vs morally wrong" before "wise vs unwise"? I dont think it's particularly wise to seperate the two, though I will grant that legislation came afterward.
As humanity developed, myths and legends used to fill in the holes of our knowledge were also used to articulate moral intuitions. These myths and legends were the foundation of religions and served as a codification of morals held (law). Thus, religion and law were once indistinguishable. To speak of the law was to speak of moral edicts according to a god or gods. When a ruler changed a law, he heard the voice of god (or got the approval of his holy class).
Here you seem to recognize religion as a (albeit somewhat misguided) moral endeavor shaped by a class of highly regarded storytellers (not as ritual based like you assert elsewhere). Have you given any thought to how without a robust god concept, morality can be reduced (for many) to a matter of acting in a way that pleases the most powerful person(s) at any given time?
As education and literacy became more common, and esoteric knowledge became more broadly known, small groups and individuals developed their own ideas about religion. Philosophers began to understand the value of morality as independent from religion (though not usually from God).
Supposing that morality exists independently from the social systems through which morals are cultivated (religions) is not a form of new philospophical enlightenment but pseudo-intellectual delusion. Being so metaphorically challenged that one cannot make the connection between "theology" and "ruling logic" isnt any kind of advancement either
resistance to viewing religion and even god concepts as things that evolve along with us, actually retards their development.
Similarly, the ruling class recognized that it’s laws had to be secular if they were to encompass people with differing religious views. Slowly, laws and legal systems were separated from religion, though not from fundamental morality. Which is approximately where we stand today.
Do you think that state sanctioned moral indoctrination would futher seperate laws and legal systems from religion, dissolve the distinction between them, or have no effect ?
To summarize, humanity has always had morality. We incorporated morality into our primitive philosophies of religion which served as law. We removed religion, but not morality, from law.
We have always grouped up according to shared moral principles (articulate or not) this is the nature of religion and no laws have or ever will be enacted without essentially the same kind of unity. If religion has been removed, it was a mere semantic maneuver.
if that's true (that religion is primitive philosophy), then conversely this would mean philosophy is "modern religion"
Indeed much of early philosophy was simply sophisticated interpretations of religion. Ultimately, things can change enough that they are thoroughly different from their origins. Science used to be philosophy, for example.
You think we conceptualized "morally right vs morally wrong" before "wise vs unwise"?
Note that in my definition of morality I included implicit or explicit. The predecessors to humanity had implicit morality. It was not a conceptualized explicit notion of right and wrong, but rather an emotional sense of moral indignation when a wrong has occurred. Even chimps have a sense of fairness. For this reason, I say that morality preceded the rest.
Here you seem to recognize religion as a (albeit somewhat misguided) moral endeavor shaped by a class of highly regarded storytellers (not as ritual based like you assert elsewhere)
Social phenomenon are typically more complex than a single element. I believe that myths and legends serve as the stage upon which religions are created, but that they do not qualify as more than a cultural oral tradition unless they are accompanied by ritual. Even then, as before, I am inclined to include a spiritual element to the ritual before it becomes religious in nature, as opposed to other less constraining cultural behaviors.
Have you given any thought to how without a robust god concept, morality can be reduced (for many) to a matter of acting in a way that pleases the most powerful person(s) at any given time?
I don’t believe that all elements of morality can be reduced to pleasing the most powerful, with or without god. While some aspects of morality can reduce to this, such as respect for authority, not all aspects qualify. Moral foundations theory includes five elements; Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.
Supposing that morality exists independently from the social systems through which morals are cultivated (religions) is not a form of new philospophical enlightenment but pseudo-intellectual delusion
You’ll have to support this statement a little more. As it stands I have proposed that morality came first. Religion was used to explain and develop moral intuitions that previously existed. It would seem that approaching those moral intuitions in a new way, rather than with religion, is similar to approaching the origin of humanity in a new way, rather than religion.
Do you think that state sanctioned moral indoctrination would futher seperate laws and legal systems from religion, dissolve the distinction between them, or have no effect ?
What do you suppose is the current, secular system wherein you will be put in a cage if you breach certain moral standards? Moral sanctions against stealing are both religious and secular.
We have always grouped up according to shared moral principles (articulate or not) this is the nature of religion and no laws have or ever will be enacted without essentially the same kind of unity. If religion has been removed, it was a mere semantic maneuver.
Only if you don’t allow for a spiritual element when defining religion.
Indeed much of early philosophy was simply sophisticated interpretations of religion. Ultimately, things can change enough that they are thoroughly different from their origins. Science used to be philosophy, for example.
the deeper and further back you look the more you realize we are talking about branches of the same tree with all of these things (Morality, Religion, Law). To say that science was once philosophy (ie is no longer) is more misleading than to say science springs from philosophy. Science is a rigorous methodical form of knowledge auditing, and is in and of itself morally neutral. As a method it can be used to test truth claims of any sort including moral truth claims but science (Application of the scientific method) isnt about the kind of truth claims it tests.
Science isnt about skeptically subjecting the axioms upon which it is based to epistemological scrutiny, philosophy is. Philosophy is about examining any and every position we hold to skeptical scrutiny, science isnt like that, morality isnt like that, religion isnt like that.
science, religion, morality and law are about holding a cluster of positions and working from them. They are the result of multiple deep convictions.
It seems we are already in agreement about how law relates to morality, but the nature of religion and how it relates to these is still a matter of contention. Now Science and philosophy are in the mix and I must say discussing how all these relate is deeply interesting to me.
Note that in my definition of morality I included implicit or explicit. The predecessors to humanity had implicit morality. It was not a conceptualized explicit notion of right and wrong, but rather an emotional sense of moral indignation when a wrong has occurred. Even chimps have a sense of fairness. For this reason, I say that morality preceded the rest.
Where rudimentary morality exists, along with it is a rudimentary form of religion. Wondering which came first is like wondering: "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
I take no issue with your view that morality still exists even if only implicitly. I agree with you. Religions whatever their faults in my view are moral enterprises from which our legal traditions have sprung. Do you really disagree?
Social phenomenon are typically more complex than a single element. I believe that myths and legends serve as the stage upon which religions are created, but that they do not qualify as more than a cultural oral tradition unless they are accompanied by ritual. Even then, as before, I am inclined to include a spiritual element to the ritual before it becomes religious in nature, as opposed to other less constraining cultural behaviors
But what is the motivation for creating these myths, and conducting these rituals? You are going to have to explain spirituality (have fun with that) before I can understand how you view it as essential to religion.
I don’t believe that all elements of morality can be reduced to pleasing the most powerful, with or without god. While some aspects of morality can reduce to this, such as respect for authority, not all aspects qualify. Moral foundations theory includes five elements; Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity
Suppose we thought (like Sam Harris argues in his book: "The Moral Landscape" for instance) that "the consensus of the scientific community" should serve as the ultimate arbiter or authority concerning what should be considered moral vs immoral. Can you see any problem with this?
You’ll have to support this statement a little more. As it stands I have proposed that morality came first. Religion was used to explain and develop moral intuitions that previously existed. It would seem that approaching those moral intuitions in a new way, rather than with religion, is similar to approaching the origin of humanity in a new way, rather than religion.
Morality was not formed in an asocial manner. Morality is based on socially instilled fear of negative future consequences.
As soon as our language was developed enough to issue warnings to new generations about how certain types of behavior would lead to undesirable consequences our programs of moral instruction began. These programs were administered crudely at first by the most powerful authority figures in the group. As our use of language devolped, reasoning developed along with it and questions like "why shouldn't I just take what I want?" surely arose. The first answers to questions like this were probably centered around fear of retaliation and you can bet that the stronger and more powerful a person or group became, the less convincing those reasons became. The more thoughtful class could see that a future where morals are brutality based would be bleak indeed. They feared this kind of future and contrived a means of instilling fear (for moral reasons) without resorting to brutality. It was state of the art for their time, and the results were very impressive. It would be interesting to see, what improvements we could make should the most thoughtful class of today diligently undertake such a task. Before that can happen though I think some myths about the nature of religion need to be dispelled. Some very smart people still think doing away with religion is a wiser aim than improving it.
What do you suppose is the current, secular system wherein you will be put in a cage if you breach certain moral standards? Moral sanctions against stealing are both religious and secular.
Do you get annoyed when you ask someone what they think and instead of telling you, they just ask what you think? I think secularism is based on a very popular misunderstanding of what religion is.
Only if you don’t allow for a spiritual element when defining religion.
I have yet to read a definition or explantation of spirituality that I find logically sound, so I can't build my understanding of other words on it.
the nature of religion and how it relates to these is still a matter of contention.
I don’t believe we agree on the definition of religion. This would have to be rectified before can discuss or agree on more complex matters concerning religion.
Science isnt about skeptically subjecting the axioms upon which it is based to epistemological scrutiny
Of course not, epistemology is an area of philosophy distinct, though not disconnected from, the philosophy of science, which itself is often accepted without scrutiny by scientists.
Where rudimentary morality exists, along with it is a rudimentary form of religion
I don’t believe this is accurate. But then we likely don’t agree on the definition of religions. Some animals express rudimentary morality, but there is no reason to believe this is accompanied by religion.
Religions whatever their faults in my view are moral enterprises from which our legal traditions have sprung. Do you really disagree?
I don’t. Religion is a moral enterprise among other things. While religion is a moral enterprise, not all instances of moral expression are religious. Chimps don’t like to be cheated out of their fair share, but they don’t condemn to hell cheaters. They bite them.
But what is the motivation for creating these myths, and conducting these rituals? You are going to have to explain spirituality
Human specialty is pattern seeking. We see patterns and group things accordingly. We even see patterns where no true pattern exists. We see causation where there is only correlation or even mere coincidence. We are also information sponges. We need to know how things work. We are highly active pattern seekers and highly active information seekers. When something is missing from the pattern of the universe, when there is a missing cause, we make up stories to fill in the gap. We used to make up pretty fantastic stories that became myths. Now we attempt to come up with the most reasonable story and we call it a theory.
Spirit, in the religious sense, is the unseen, un-sensed force that fills in the gaps if that which is unknown or unknowable and can either be appealed to or interacted with. All religions have rituals concerning matters of spirit. Not all institutions of ritual are concerned with matters of spirit, thus not all institutions of ritual are religious.
Suppose we thought (like Sam Harris argues in his book: "The Moral Landscape" for instance) that "the consensus of the scientific community" should serve as the ultimate arbiter or authority concerning what should be considered moral vs immoral. Can you see any problem with this?
There are potential serious problems with this as humans are fallible. It was supposed science that gave us eugenics and ultimately the holocaust. However, we can attempt to arrive at proper moral concepts via reason, or via faith. History indicates that reason is a better (though imperfect) option.
There are ways to reduce the problems associated with scientific moral prescriptions. For example, science could focus on that which is wrong, that we may avoid it, rather than which is right, that we are compelled to do it. This would maximize freedom while reducing the harms of the immoral. Science should not undervalue the efficacy of tradition. If a traditional moral value is not detrimental, it should not be addressed. In this way, morality will continue to evolve naturally and potentially beneficial moral behaviors, previously unconsidered, can still arise.
Morality is based on socially instilled fear of negative future consequences.
Morality is instilled based on more than this. The “Moral Foundations” Theory, put forward by Jonathan Haidt and detailed in his book “The Rightious Mind”, provides an evolutionary foundation for moral intuitions that includes socially instilled values, but relies on a wider range of environmental pressures as well. If all moral intuitions come down to Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity; then social consequences are not sufficient to explain them all.
Some very smart people still think doing away with religion is a wiser aim than improving it.
Even if we were to do away with religion, we would not do away with the human qualities that provide such fervor currently held for religion, nor the qualities that lead to the most detrimental of religious behaviors.
Do you think that state sanctioned moral indoctrination would futher seperate laws and legal systems from religion, dissolve the distinction between them, or have no effect ?
I think that the institution of criminal justice wherein crime is punished, is state sanctioned moral indoctrination. I think it is based on mostly shared moral values that do not rely on one’s religion and is thus secular. It has served to draw more of a distinction between law and religion.
The idea of secularism, separating government from religion, is the idea that our institutions need not rely on an appeal to spiritual or mystical authority. A secular government, basing it’s laws on generally shared values, can regulate the interactions between people of all faiths (or no faith) without reference to any particular one. If your definition of religion requires you to consider secular institutions indistinguishable from religious institutions, then secularism is the religion that includes all religions (or absence thereof) and imposes no specific spiritual ritualism.
I don’t believe we agree on the definition of religion. This would have to be rectified before can discuss or agree on more complex matters concerning religion
This sort of barrier plagues much discussion concerning this topic yet folks continue talking past each other. I appreciate your recognition of the barrier.
Some animals express rudimentary morality, but there is no reason to believe this is accompanied by religion.
Unless of course you view religion as being more primarily about moral alliances than "spiritual" alliances. As a side note I would grant that moral alliances preceded spiritual rituals. Also you might consider that perhaps spirituality and supposing the existence of superhuman immortal moral authorities was an innovation meant to be a bulwark against too much moral authority being vested in dominant regimes which seem to reliably become tyrannical.
I don’t. Religion is a moral enterprise among other things. While religion is a moral enterprise, not all instances of moral expression are religious. Chimps don’t like to be cheated out of their fair share, but they don’t condemn to hell cheaters. They bite them.
Surely the more primative the moral training system, the more it relies on brute force. But whether such systems make use of brute force, or spooky storytelling doesnt change their essential function.
Human specialty is pattern seeking. We see patterns and group things accordingly. We even see patterns where no true pattern exists. We see causation where there is only correlation or even mere coincidence. We are also information sponges. We need to know how things work. We are highly active pattern seekers and highly active information seekers. When something is missing from the pattern of the universe, when there is a missing cause, we make up stories to fill in the gap. We used to make up pretty fantastic stories that became myths. Now we attempt to come up with the most reasonable story and we call it a theory.
This seems in line with Hitchen's view of religion as "our first and therefore worst" attempt at the sciences. Do you agree with that summarization?
Spirit, in the religious sense, is the unseen, un-sensed force that fills in the gaps if that which is unknown or unknowable and can either be appealed to or interacted with. All religions have rituals concerning matters of spirit. Not all institutions of ritual are concerned with matters of spirit, thus not all institutions of ritual are religious.
So in your view, to "be religious" is to conduct rituals in hopes of thereby influencing the "mysterious powers that be" (aka spiritual forces) to act in ones favor?
There are potential serious problems with this as humans are fallible. It was supposed science that gave us eugenics and ultimately the holocaust.
I am.happy to read this acknowledgement
However, we can attempt to arrive at proper moral concepts via reason, or via faith. History indicates that reason is a better (though imperfect) option.
It seems to me that "possibly misplaced faith" is not something we can avoid and that viewing knowledge as "justified true belief" rather than "our strongest though possibly faulty certainties" is the most dangerous kind of faith.
There are ways to reduce the problems associated with scientific moral prescriptions. For example, science could focus on that which is wrong, that we may avoid it, rather than which is right, that we are compelled to do it. This would maximize freedom while reducing the harms of the immoral. Science should not undervalue the efficacy of tradition. If a traditional moral value is not detrimental, it should not be addressed. In this way, morality will continue to evolve naturally and potentially beneficial moral behaviors, previously unconsidered, can still arise
I think we should be careful to speak of science strictly as a method. Science doesnt "make prescriptions" or "have a focus". Individuals and groups with agendas do.
Morality is instilled based on more than this. The “Moral Foundations” Theory, put forward by Jonathan Haidt and detailed in his book “The Rightious Mind”, provides an evolutionary foundation for moral intuitions that includes socially instilled values, but relies on a wider range of environmental pressures as well. If all moral intuitions come down to Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity; then social consequences are not sufficient to explain them all.
Perhaps not sufficiently specific, but I think it works for an overarching categorical. Do you think the book shares valuable insights? Perhaps I will read it..
Even if we were to do away with religion, we would not do away with the human qualities that provide such fervor currently held for religion, nor the qualities that lead to the most detrimental of religious behaviors.
You "do away" with religion and you get Religion 2.X
I think that the institution of criminal justice wherein crime is punished, is state sanctioned moral indoctrination.
In a sense I agree, except I think in America, with freedom of religion enshrined in our constitution , inculcation of basic moral reasoning is not undertaken programatically by the state. It is instead left up to individual families to choose or formulate their own such programs, or disregard them altogether if they wish. Supposing our government decreed through legislation that all new citizens and children were by law required to undergo a supposedly non-religious "philosophical and moral foundations" program which not only simply trained them in how to comply with the law, but also to be versed in officially approved narratives concerning epistemologically why the laws ought to be obeyed. So long as religious considerations (as you understand them) were carefully left out of the language used, would such legislation disturb your secular sensibilities in any way?
I think it is based on mostly shared moral values that do not rely on one’s religion and is thus secular. It has served to draw more of a distinction between law and religion.
The idea of secularism, separating government from religion, is the idea that our institutions need not rely on an appeal to spiritual or mystical authority. A secular government, basing it’s laws on generally shared values, can regulate the interactions between people of all faiths (or no faith) without reference to any particular one. If your definition of religion requires you to consider secular institutions indistinguishable from religious institutions, then secularism is the religion that includes all religions (or absence thereof) and imposes no specific spiritual ritualism.
Thank you for your direct answer and your other carefully thought out responses. Even taking the time to respect my point of view though we differ..
In response to my post that some animals express rudimentary morality which does not imply religion, you said Unless of course you view religion as being more primarily about moral alliances than "spiritual" alliances.
Should I take this to mean that you believe animals who express rudimentary morality are also engaged in religion?
Also you might consider that perhaps spirituality and supposing the existence of superhuman immortal moral authorities was an innovation meant to be a bulwark against too much moral authority being vested in dominant regimes which seem to reliably become tyrannical.
After considering this, I think it is unlikely. Not only have we had tyrants more often than not in human history, but the representatives of God have often been the tyrants.
Surely the more primative the moral training system, the more it relies on brute force. But whether such systems make use of brute force, or spooky storytelling doesnt change their essential function.
Human morality makes more use of shame and guilt than of force or scary stories.
This seems in line with Hitchen's view of religion as "our first and therefore worst" attempt at the sciences. Do you agree with that summarization?
I’ve never read Hitchen’s perspective on this. If it is in line with my perspective, I am likely to take a somewhat softer position concerning religion.
So in your view, to "be religious" is to conduct rituals in hopes of thereby influencing the "mysterious powers that be" (aka spiritual forces) to act in ones favor?
Sometimes. I also think people are religious because they feel they are interacting with the divine. Not for favor or specific gain so much as for perceived natural well-being that comes with knowing a properly ordered universe.
It seems to me that "possibly misplaced faith" is not something we can avoid and that viewing knowledge as "justified true belief" rather than "our strongest though possibly faulty certainties" is the most dangerous kind of faith.
This is a distinction I haven’t considered in any detail.
I think we should be careful to speak of science strictly as a method. Science doesnt "make prescriptions" or "have a focus". Individuals and groups with agendas do.
Science is a method to help us know what is. My point is that the strict separation between “is” and “ought” is an illusion. The field of medicine is a highly scientific one. We use medical science to know what is, so that we can know what we ought to prescribe. This need not be limited to medicine, so long as the same understanding of fallibility is afforded to other areas of science as well. The scientific method doesn’t give us the best, but it gives us something better.
Do you think the book shares valuable insights? Perhaps I will read it..
I thoroughly enjoyed this book as well as Sam Harris’s. Harris had Haidt on his podcast for an interview which was also very interesting.
Supposing our government decreed through legislation that all new citizens and children were by law required to undergo a supposedly non-religious "philosophical and moral foundations" program which not only simply trained them in how to comply with the law, but also to be versed in officially approved narratives concerning epistemologically why the laws ought to be obeyed. So long as religious considerations (as you understand them) were carefully left out of the language used, would such legislation disturb your secular sensibilities in any way?
That kind of legislation would disturb me, primarily because in a free country, morality drives legislation, not vice versa. It’s the difference between government and tyranny. I would, however, approve of a high school level criminal justice class that teaches the basics of criminal law, to include a summary of the reasoning behind our laws. I think this kind of class is a good idea, I don’t think it should be a government mandate.
Thank you for your direct answer and your other carefully thought out responses. Even taking the time to respect my point of view though we differ..
You may notice that I get insulting toward some on this site. When I do that, though I shouldn’t, it is not because we disagree, it is because their position seems to lack reason or intellectual honesty and their demeanor is not deserving respect. Neither your position nor your demeanor fail these standards, regardless of my agreement or lack thereof. Even so, you're welcome.
Should I take this to mean that you believe animals who express rudimentary morality are also engaged in religion?
in a rudimentary sense, yes. Though their "social systems by which moral values are instilled" (which is what I think religions are) are not as developed as ours, they serve the same function.
After considering this, I think it is unlikely. Not only have we had tyrants more often than not in human history, but the representatives of God have often been the tyrants.
In thinking of how tyrannical authority figures are established as morally authoritative, it seems to me that gods allow for a kind of subversion of this power dynamic. Instead of putting another person in the position of "most high" we can suppose the existence of an invincible moral authority that supercedes human autbority entirely. While I admit it's not fool proof (it can be, and often enough is itself subverted by those appointed as intermediaries) it's interesfing to think about in response to the tough question of WHOSE moral system should be given the highest regard.
Human morality makes more use of shame and guilt than of force or scary stories.
Depends on the human(s) in question I suppose. But that's beside the point.
I’ve never read Hitchen’s perspective on this. If it is in line with my perspective, I am likely to take a somewhat softer position concerning religion.
If I didn't seperate superstitious gullibility from religion (which I didn't for a good long while), I would take a harder position on religion.
Sometimes. I also think people are religious because they feel they are interacting with the divine. Not for favor or specific gain so much as for perceived natural well-being that comes with knowing a properly ordered universe
Like being religious in the Einsteinian sense?
This is a distinction I haven’t considered in any detail
.............(seems ripe for a seperate discussion)
Science is a method to help us know what is. My point is that the strict separation between “is” and “ought” is an illusion. The field of medicine is a highly scientific one. We use medical science to know what is, so that we can know what we ought to prescribe. This need not be limited to medicine, so long as the same understanding of fallibility is afforded to other areas of science as well. The scientific method doesn’t give us the best, but it gives us something better.
At the moment I dont find anything objectionable with your view as expressed here. But with Sam Harris' similar view, I do...This subject is ripe for a seperate discussion as well though.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book as well as Sam Harris’s. Harris had Haidt on his podcast for an interview which was also very interesting.
I will read it, and listen to the podcast, tell you what I think. Thanks for the recommendation. In the mean time you have any points of contention with either Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" or Harris' "The Moral Landscape" or do you agree wholeheartedly with what's expressed in them?
That kind of legislation would disturb me, primarily because in a free country, morality drives legislation, not vice versa.
Just little earlier in this conversation you said that " I think that the institution of criminal justice wherein crime is punished, is state sanctioned moral indoctrination", can you understand how that seems contradictory to me, and maybe help clear up my misunderstanding of your view?
It’s the difference between government and tyranny. I would, however, approve of a high school level criminal justice class that teaches the basics of criminal law, to include a summary of the reasoning behind our laws. I think this kind of class is a good idea, I don’t think it should be a government mandate.
This, in my view speaks to the issue of freedom of religion. The only way I can see a government honoring this value, this (what I consider) sacred right, is to divorce itself from the base reasoning and simply enforce the shared conclusions that those with differing moral epistemologies agree on. I have some concern that I may just be grasping at straws, trying to hold on to one of my most cherished myths. I fear postsecularism.
Thanks again for the time you take to spar with me.
"Should I take this to mean that you believe animals who express rudimentary morality are also engaged in religion?"
in a rudimentary sense, yes. Though their "social systems by which moral values are instilled" (which is what I think religions are) are not as developed as ours, they serve the same function.
I think this comes back to our differences in our understanding of what constitutes religion. Though religion is a social system through which morality is instilled, I don't believe al such social systems are religion.
In thinking of how tyrannical authority figures are established as morally authoritative, it seems to me that gods allow for a kind of subversion of this power dynamic
True. God concepts have been successfully utilized to subvert tyrants and increase freedom. But I don't believe this was the initial intent.
the tough question of WHOSE moral system should be given the highest regard.
While your view of religion is broad, my view of morality is broad. So much so that I consider the question of ought to always be fundamentally a moral question. Even when considering choice of moral systems.
Like being religious in the Einsteinian sense?
I don't know. I think that when religious people involve themselves in their religion they feel connected to God, and so they feel they are part of something bigger. This sense feels like an end in itself for them, not a means to some other material end.
In the mean time you have any points of contention with either Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" or Harris' "The Moral Landscape" or do you agree wholeheartedly with what's expressed in them?
It has been a while since I read them. I like Haidt's basic theory, and he does a very good job of supporting it, but some of his experiments seem to lack rigor or nuance. I may be misremembering.
I like Haris' basic premise, that objective morality is a secular notion, but I think he over-applies it. Human morality evolved in humans for humans. While cruelty to animals can be seen as reflecting the quality of the person doing it (one who fails to appreciate the import of suffering) and can thus hold appropriate moral sanctions, it is a mistake to put other animals value on par with humans. I may have the same sense of moral indignation at animal cruelty as Harris, but for different reasons.
It is a mistake for him to claim an evolved human moral capacity requires a standard based around a general ability to suffer. Especially if we someday find that plants somehow suffer in some way. Human flourishing is not the same as general reduction of all suffering (for all life). And the difference could have important long run effects.
Just little earlier in this conversation you said that " I think that the institution of criminal justice wherein crime is punished, is state sanctioned moral indoctrination", can you understand how that seems contradictory to me, and maybe help clear up my misunderstanding of your view?
I suppose it does come across as contradictory. Morality provides an individual with internal incentives to act or refrain from acting. If a person lacks that internal incentive of morality, law enforcement provides the external incentive (indoctrination). As we reason and debate moral topics in a free country, what we consider moral and immoral will change. This is followed by changes in law. In the cycle of morality and law in a free country, morality is first, it is the driver. Though neither are completely static
The only way I can see a government honoring this value, this (what I consider) sacred right, is to divorce itself from the base reasoning and simply enforce the shared conclusions that those with differing moral epistemologies agree on
How can a Legislature divorce itself from the base reasoning of laws it intends to create?
I fear postsecularism.
Thanks again for the time you take to spar with me
What does post-secularism look like?
Thanks again for the time you take to spar with me
Though religion is a social system through which morality is instilled, I don't believe al such social systems are religion.
I suggest we try to articulate how we agree, then use this as common ground for discussion going forward
Would you agree that any moral reasoning must appeal to some sense of a "greater good" ?
True. God concepts have been successfully utilized to subvert tyrants and increase freedom. But I don't believe this was the initial intent.
I strongly suspect that our ability to carry out simulated dialogs with mentally generated personality complexes has had no small role in the development of moral systems, what say you?
While your view of religion is broad, my view of morality is broad. So much so that I consider the question of ought to always be fundamentally a moral question. Even when considering choice of moral systems.
again, I think we ought to see how much common ground we can establish before we focus on where our perspectives differ. Not just you and I in this discussion but people in general. Especially when comparing moral systems.
Could we agree that all systems of morality require the moral agent to:
1. envision future conditions they desire/desire to avoid
2. view their own actions or inactions as effecting the liklihood of the realization of these desires
I think that when religious people involve themselves in their religion they feel connected to God, and so they feel they are part of something bigger. This sense feels like an end in itself for them, not a means to some other material end.
Do you suppose that perhaps people in general have these kind of experiences and merely favor different ways of explaining them, or do you think the kind of experiences you are talking about are truly unique to this "religious" class of people?
It has been a while since I read them. I like Haidt's basic theory, and he does a very good job of supporting it, but some of his experiments seem to lack rigor or nuance. I may be misremembering.
I like Haris' basic premise, that objective morality is a secular notion, but I think he over-applies it. Human morality evolved in humans for humans. While cruelty to animals can be seen as reflecting the quality of the person doing it (one who fails to appreciate the import of suffering) and can thus hold appropriate moral sanctions, it is a mistake to put other animals value on par with humans. I may have the same sense of moral indignation at animal cruelty as Harris, but for different reasons.
It is a mistake for him to claim an evolved human moral capacity requires a standard based around a general ability to suffer. Especially if we someday find that plants somehow suffer in some way. Human flourishing is not the same as general reduction of all suffering (for all life). And the difference could have important long run effects.
You can be critical of those you admire. I admire you for that. In the interest of keeping this conversation from getting overly bloated, I wish to nip this here and bring it up later after I read Haidt's book.
In the cycle of morality and law in a free country, morality is first, it is the driver. Though neither are completely static
Can you see how I think precedence is as difficult to establish here as with the "chicken/egg" conundrum?
How can a Legislature divorce itself from the base reasoning of laws it intends to create?
Perhaps by establishing the liberty to independently formulate ones own moral epistemology as a primary protected right...
What does post-secularism look like?
overt or covert collapse of the distinction between government and religion. Rather than calling it government imposed religion, religion would be narrowly defined in a manner similar to how you define it which would allow for a government imposed "moral philosophy". It would look like a theocracy hidden by careful use of words that don't reference "religious" (as you understand it) issues.
Would you agree that any moral reasoning must appeal to some sense of a "greater good" ?
Not necessarily. One must appeal to a greater good when reasoning through a moral dilemma wherein two or more moral goods must be considered. Often our choices are clear cut enough for moral reasoning to appeal to simply the “good” over the evil.
I strongly suspect that our ability to carry out simulated dialogs with mentally generated personality complexes has had no small role in the development of moral systems, what say you?
It may have been a necessary characteristic, as it is often the form of empathy, sympathy, and strategy.
Could we agree that all systems of morality require the moral agent to:
1. envision future conditions they desire/desire to avoid
2. view their own actions or inactions as effecting the liklihood of the realization of these desires
I don’t think I can agree with this. While moral systems may develop around future goals, often the moral agent is required to do what is considered right by a given moral system, not for future profit or reward, but simply because it is right in that given moment. Reasoning future states is reflective of your personal value system and the lense through which you understand moral systems, but it is not necessarily a trait inherent to moral systems as such.
Do you suppose that perhaps people in general have these kind of experiences and merely favor different ways of explaining them, or do you think the kind of experiences you are talking about are truly unique to this "religious" class of people?
I think that people have these kinds of experiences in different ways for different reasons. One such way (and very common) is via religion.
”In the cycle of morality and law in a free country, morality is first, it is the driver. Though neither are completely static”
Can you see how I think precedence is as difficult to establish here as with the "chicken/egg" conundrum?
The construct of “law” is relatively new when compared to morality. Laws enforce moral systems already in place. Laws don’t change without a moral argument to change them. These conditions are the reasons I give primacy to morality in the moral/law cycle.
”How can a Legislature divorce itself from the base reasoning of laws it intends to create?”
Perhaps by establishing the liberty to independently formulate ones own moral epistemology as a primary protected right…
The codification of this right into a law would require moral reasoning to justify the creation of said law. Failure to codify this idea would be a failure to establish it in any meaningful or consistent sense.
