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.
Objectivity in matters of human distinctions between right and wrong behaviours (the definition of morality) is a fundamental impossibility: human perception allows us to ascertain objective formulas that are considered objective because they work when applied to the universe around us -- for instance, mathematics -- but since behaviour is influenced by emotion, motivation, cultural conditioning -- things which are all subjective -- it is by definition impossible for humans to have objective standards for distinctions on those behaviours.
Further, to argue that God is an objective standard of morality is to presume God's existence as fact: it is no such thing. Likewise, the personal choice to believe in a personal God through faith in the stories and teachings of scripts from thousands of years ago, is an entirely subjective choice, a choice upon which any morality derived thereof is built.
In short: an objective standard for morality does not exist, or if it does, we are certainly ill=equipped to derive and determine it.
However, there are certain needs which are universal for humanity: the need for social interaction and cultural cohesion being chief among them where morals are concerned. Since humans are a social species whose collective success is entirely dependent on our working together to overcome problems to build successful civilizations and maintain a healthy gene pool, things like murder, child molestation, incest, slavery and rape are almost universally frowned upon. But far from founding these values, religious belief has in fact been historically shown to be a direct contributor in societies where these commonly held standards are ignored or patently opposed. The Papal rule of Europe for several centuries is a prime example, as is antebellum America, and as are the current Islamic states in the Middle East. America, the most religious developed nation on the Earth at present, is a nation with one of the highest rates of murder, rape and violent crime, among all developed nations.
By contrast, countries like Iceland and Finland, who have democratic political sytems and a populace made up mostly of atheists and the irreligious, have very low violent crime, very low theft, very low rape rates, very high educational success and very high quality of life.
Surely, if any society can be called "moral" it is the society in which there is no murder, no rape, no theft and high levels of cohesion and harmony among civil populations. In this regard, it is entirely certain that developed, democratic, heavily atheistic societies exhibit far higher moral standards than heavily religious societies. If indeed God were an objective standard for morality and atheism were a moral minefield, then we should expect to see atheist nations in moral anarchy, while religious nations lived in relative harmony.
It is abundantly clear that fervent religious moral codes do not engender high morality. Most often, they do exactly the opposite.
Objectivity in matters of human distinctions between right and wrong behaviours (the definition of morality) is a fundamental impossibility
If objectivity in morality was a fundamental impossibility, then one could not say that there are actually things that one ought not do. A notion that you dispel later in your post.
However, there are certain needs which are universal for humanity
If this is true, then there are certain things that humans ought and ought not do, independent of opinion. This would be objectivity in morality.
America, the most religious developed nation on the Earth at present, is a nation with one of the highest rates of murder, rape and violent crime, among all developed nations.
This taken in the context of your previous examples leads one to believe you mean that religion in America promotes these atrocities, which is typically not the case. However, the rest of your post does a fine job of illustrating morality absent religion. The rest of your post
If objectivity in morality was a fundamental impossibility, then one could not say that there are actually things that one ought not do. A notion that you dispel later in your post.
It's possible to say that there are things a person ought not do, without those things being objectively undoable or bad to do. For instance, I personally ought not to murder someone. Why? Because it's messy, hurtful, is bound to lead me to a very dark place in life, cause massive distress, end up in jail-time or worse, destroy a family (including my own), cause me huge amounts of pain, guilt and shame, and utterly ruin my life. But not everyone will have those fears and worries (psychopaths, for instance, who do not understand nor care for social adherence or closeness of bonding -- to them, murder can be nought but a means to an end. However, there are ends which are still necessary even for psychopaths: food, shelter, water).
None of those reasons above, for my morality, are objective, because they are ALL influenced by personal belief, feelings, opinion, forethought, worry, fear, emotion -- subjective premises. All morality is influenced by these things. Whether people choose to believe that an almighty God says it is wrong to murder or whether they come to the conclusion through emotion and interpretation and the use of all the skills a homo-sapient brain provides us, the outcome is vastly the same: a personal choice to believe that murder is wrong. It just so happens that the majority of us are born with similar senses, sensibilities and emotions that enable us to most often come to similar conclusions. The outliers to moral behaviours in our societies are the ones who end up ostracized from those societies. Morality is clearly a non-objective phenomena dependent on social interrelation. We jail people who defy the moral codes the majority of us adhere to -- codes which form the bases for the stability of our societies. However, those codes are almost entirely evolved from simple emotional premises: I dislike being hurt, you dislike being hurt, grief is tough, love is pleasurable, hunger is unpleasant, destruction and chaos are fearful backdrops for life. These emotional perspectives are common enough that we come to consensus which facilitate them: we ban murder, we ban theft, we create laws against chaos, we establish programs of welfare and help for the poor, we indulge and aspire to emotion and empathy in art, cinema, music, we teach our children respect and tolerance for themselves and others, we shun the continually violent and anti-social among us.
If this is true [that there are universal needs for humanity] , then there are certain things that humans ought and ought not do, independent of opinion. This would be objectivity in morality.
No, it wouldn't. It would be commonality in genetic, biological, emotional and/or social needs. That's not objectivity.
It's possible to say that there are things a person ought not do, without those things being objectively undoable or bad to do
It’s not possible to say that there are things that a person ought not do, and have it be true regardless of opinion, unless it is objectively true. That’s what is meant by objective morality.
I personally ought not to murder someone.
Actually, anyone who values living ought not murder. Murder is not conducive to basic survival or, in the long run, to surviving well. The fact that some people have physical lesions on their brain causing a disorder formerly known as moral insanity does not mean that their handicapped opinion is equally valid, quite the opposite. Most psychopaths die young or are in prison early.
None of those reasons above, for my morality, are objective, because they are ALL influenced by personal belief, feelings, opinion, forethought, worry, fear, emotion -- subjective premises
All of your subjective conditions are molded by objective conditions. Consider your eyesight, which is 100% subjective. Do you really believe that sight is simply a matter of opinion? Can we not say objectively that some people see better than others? Subjective does not equal opinion. Nor can the subjective experience be considered independent of the objective world. It isn’t.
Whether people choose to believe that an almighty God says it is wrong to murder
Thus holding God’s subjective opinion as man’s objective standard, which is not what I am doing.
the outcome is vastly the same: a personal choice to believe that murder is wrong
The fact of choice does not imply the absence of a correct answer. Morality is an evolved trait. Herein lies its objective nature, not God’s opinion. Morality evolved because it is conducive to the individual and species surviving and thriving. Some people’s morality is more conducive to living and living well than is other people’s morality. They have different subjective opinions about morality, but one of them is more closely expressing the purpose for which morality evolved than is the other. One is more morally correct, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of evolutionary biology.
We developed the ability to build shelter in order to protect us from the weather. Different people build shelter in different ways, some are better at keeping out the weather. Shelter's are created subjectively, how good they are at serving their function is independent of opinion. Morality serves a function. How close your morals are to the function of morality is not an opinion.
To use the analogy of eyes again, two people can look at something, while only one of them has good eyesight. They will have subjective disagreements about what they see, but one person has eyes that work better. Their eyes are more closely serving the purpose for which eyes evolved. Thus, their subjectivity of sight maintains the objectivity of vision. Just as our subjective experience of morals (emotions, moral reasoning etc...) maintains the objective nature of morality.
The commonality of human requirements make some moral codes less conducive to humanity than others. The fact that this is the case regardless of opinion does in fact illustrate objectivity, your objection notwithstanding.
Just as everything that evolved, morality evolved for the living and for life. And just as everything else that evolved, morality did not evolve subject to your opinion or mine, regardless of our subjective moral experience.
It’s not possible to say that there are things that a person ought not do, and have it be true regardless of opinion, unless it is objectively true. That’s what is meant by objective morality.
I didn't say it was true regardless of opinion. I said that it is POSSIBLE to say there are things a person ought not to do, without those things being OBJECTIVELY undoable or bad. I can certainly say "You ought not to cut the hand off a thief who only wanted to feed himself", without it being OBJECTIVELY bad to cut off the thief's hand.
Actually, anyone who values living ought not murder. Murder is not conducive to basic survival or, in the long run, to surviving well. The fact that some people have physical lesions on their brain causing a disorder formerly known as moral insanity does not mean that their handicapped opinion is equally valid, quite the opposite. Most psychopaths die young or are in prison early.
This is my point. Moral consenses are relative to social need. Not everyone shares those consenses. And "physical lesions"? Psychopathy is a disorder of neuronic developmental structure and biochemical abnormality consequential most often to emotional trauma.
All of your subjective conditions are molded by objective conditions Consider your eyesight, which is 100% subjective. Do you really believe that sight is simply a matter of opinion?
100% subjective would definitionally mean: entirely influenced by personal opinion. If eyesight is not a matter of opinion, then it, by definition is not "100% subjective".
Do you own a dictionary?
Besides, I never said that eyesight was "a matter of opinion". I said my motivations -- my reasons for my morals, my distinctions on behaviours -- are definitionally, necessarily, subjective -- influenced by personal feelings.
Relative degrees of photosensitivity in ocular devices are quantifiable in materially scientific terms. Morality is not.
Can we not say objectively that some people see better than others? Subjective does not equal opinion. Nor can the subjective experience be considered independent of the objective world. It isn’t.
Strawman again. I never said that subjective human conscious experience is independent of the objective material universe. The assertion is ridiculous.
The fact of choice does not imply the absence of a correct answer.
I didn't say that. I said that believing murder to be wrong is subjective, it's not objective.
Morality is an evolved trait.
Yes it is.
Herein lies its objective nature, not God’s opinion.
Objectivity is not the same thing as evolutionary advantageousness, I'm afraid.
Morality evolved because it is conducive to the individual and species surviving and thriving.
Yes. The need for survival is a need resultant from biological necessity, manifested and applied through psychological functioning, which both are entirely dependent upon the existence of the human animal. The need for human survival does not exist regardless of human desire, emotion, feeling, intuition, drive -- it exists precisely because of these. It's not objective.
Some people’s morality is more conducive to living and living well than is other people’s morality.
Agreed.
They have different subjective opinions about morality, but one of them is more closely expressing the purpose for which morality evolved than is the other.
One is more morally correct, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of evolutionary biology.
We developed the ability to build shelter in order to protect us from the weather. Different people build shelter in different ways, some are better at keeping out the weather. Shelter's are created subjectively, how good they are at serving their function is independent of opinion.
Morality serves a function. How close your morals are to the function of morality is not an opinion.
My morals are as close to the function of my society's specific moral demands as I and my society decide they are; because we are the ones who decide the demands in the first place. There's no objective function to morality, because morality is not formed in an objective (devoid of personal influence) arena. You're confusing objectivity (something having the character of being not influenced whatsoever by personal opinion, taste or desire, for instance, the chemical composition of air), with commonality in desire, opinion, or taste. Morality serves a function to enable social behaviours which benefit a society relative to its needs, out of inter-personal consensus. Subjectivity defined in paraphrase.
To use the analogy of eyes again, two people can look at something, while only one of them has good eyesight. They will have subjective disagreements about what they see, but one person has eyes that work better.
Vision isn't a good comparison to morality. You're taking something that can be objectively quantified -- the measurable photosensitivity of photoreceptors -- with something that cannot: the "good" or "bad" impact of subjective differentiations between human behaviours relative to specific societies' social needs.
Their eyes are more closely serving the purpose for which eyes evolved. Thus, their subjectivity of sight maintains the objectivity of vision.
Just as our subjective experience of morals (emotions, moral reasoning etc...) maintains the objective nature of morality.
There is no objective nature of morality.
Morality: principles concerning distinctions between right and wrong behaviours.
Subjective: belonging to the thinking subject, rather than to the object of thought, or, not influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Behaviour is influenced by subjective experience. Distinctions (cosmically arbitrary opinions) on behaviour are likewise influenced by subjective experience. Commonality of desire, opinion, belief, taste are not the same as lack of desire, opinion, belief or taste.
The commonality of human requirements make some moral codes less conducive to humanity than others.
Yes, I've said this over and over again in this thread, have I not?
The fact that this is the case regardless of opinion does in fact illustrate objectivity, your objection notwithstanding.
No it doesn't. Human requirements are entirely dependent upon the needs of a cognitively functioning species of primate called humans. Those needs aren't always the same for every human, nor are they independent of the human animal's existence: majority commonality in needs precludes a level of consensus, but it does not preclude cosmic objectivity.
Just as everything that evolved, morality evolved for the living and for life.
This is very vague.
And just as everything else that evolved, morality did not evolve subject to your opinion or mine, regardless of our subjective moral experience.
Morality isn't a biological evolutionary adaptation like the eye, it is a social adaptation like the mantis chewing off its mate's head or the female chimpanzee screwing outside the group it belongs to.
I said that it is POSSIBLE to say there are things a person ought not to do, without those things being OBJECTIVELY undoable or bad
Right. And if you say it, but it is just your opinion, then it is not objectively true. But if a person ought not do something, and that is true regardless of opinion, then it is an objective truth.
This is my point. Moral consenses are relative to social need. Not everyone shares those consenses
Morality doesn’t require a consensus. An individual’s moral reasoning does not depend on what others think (though it is usually influenced by them). Just shelter structures vary depending on environmental demands, the purpose the shelter serves is independent of opinion. For this reason, a pueblo is good in the desert and bad in the arctic. The contextual difference does not make a good shelter a matter of opinion. Nor does the variety of shelters mean they are all equally good. And psychopathy is caused by physical lesions on the brain, regardless of genetic predisposition or environment. It’s pretty well established. They are morally handicapped.
100% subjective would definitionally mean: entirely influenced by personal opinion. If eyesight is not a matter of opinion, then it, by definition is not "100% subjective".
Do you own a dictionary?
Subjective
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than tothe object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
Eyesight is 100% subjective. It is a matter of personal experience. If this is your disconnect, the rest may fall into place. You experience morality subjectively. You experience everything subjectively.
Relative degrees of photosensitivity in ocular devices are quantifiable in materially scientific terms. Morality is not.
That which is now quantifiable did not used to be, was it less of an objective reality? We know that some things are objectively less healthy than other things, even though we cannot quantify health. Morality is much the same, though less people know it.
Strawman again. I never said that subjective human conscious experience is independent of the objective material universe. The assertion is ridiculous.
The assertion is ridiculous. The problem is that you equate subjective with opinion. It isn’t so. Subjective is that which you personally experience. The bright sun is objective. You seeing the bright light is subjective. The blind man failing to see the brightness but experience with more intensity the warmth is subjective to him. Though opinion are subjective, not all that is subjective are matters of opinion.
I didn't say that. I said that believing murder to be wrong is subjective, it's not objective
Believing the apple is red is subjective, not objective. But there is still a truth of the matter. The “objective” is knowable only through the subjective experience of it.
Objectivity is not the same thing as evolutionary advantageousness, I'm afraid
Don’t be afraid. The objectivity derives from moral correctness being independent of opinion, as a result of having an evolutionary function that is served with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the quality of the morality in question.
The need for human survival does not exist regardless of human desire, emotion, feeling, intuition, drive -- it exists precisely because of these. It's not objective
Desires, emotions, etc exists because of the need for human survival. Not vice versa, and not one regardless of the other. Morality also exists because of the need for human survival, and serves a function to that end.
There's no objective function to morality, because morality is not formed in an objective (devoid of personal influence) arena
And yet, some societies have moral codes that keep them groveling in disease and misery on par with the bronze age while other societies have moral codes that are conducive to flourishing beyond what we have ever known before. There are some ways in which people cannot behave and still flourish (survive well). Nobodies opinion changes this. Some ways of living are “healthier”. Some morals are better than others. To say that this is not just a preference but a truth is to say morality is as objective as health.
You're confusing objectivity (something having the character of being not influenced whatsoever by personal opinion, taste or desire, for instance, the chemical composition of air), with commonality in desire, opinion, or taste
I am asserting that if the truth of a matter is independent of opinion, then it is objective. This is not a confusion. Rather you are confusing the subjective with the opinion. All squares are shapes, not vice verse.
Morality serves a function to enable social behaviours which benefit a society relative to its needs, out of inter-personal consensus
Not quite. Morality serves a function to enable social behaviours which benefit a society relative to its needs to a greater or lesser extent, regardless of consensus. Popular opinion can be as wrong about a moral edict as it used to be about smoking. Smoking was always bad for us. So is the moral edict to devour the dead.
Vision isn't a good comparison to morality. You're taking something that can be objectively quantified -- the measurable photosensitivity of photoreceptors -- with something that cannot: the "good" or "bad" impact of subjective differentiations between human behaviours relative to specific societies' social needs.
It's a relevant analogy to indicate the difference between subjectivity and opinion. The health analogy is likely more precise and helpful.
There is no objective nature of morality
I’ve been proving this statement false with my argument. You would be better served by arguing your own case rather than repeating an assertion.
Morality: principles concerning distinctions between right and wrong behaviours.
Subjective: belonging to the thinking subject, rather than to the object of thought, or, not influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
Your personal definitions lack precision. I have above provided a correct definition for subjective. Here is one for:
Morality
1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Behaviour is influenced by subjective experience. Distinctions (cosmically arbitrary opinions) on behaviour are likewise influenced by subjective experience.
You are mis-using the word “arbitrary”. What influences your subjective experience? The objective world?
Me:The fact that this is the case regardless of opinion does in fact illustrate objectivity, your objection notwithstanding.
You: No it doesn't. Human requirements are entirely dependent upon the needs of a cognitively functioning species of primate called humans. Those needs aren't always the same for every human, nor are they independent of the human animal's existence: majority commonality in needs precludes a level of consensus, but it does not preclude cosmic objectivity
Everyone has different health needs. If it is true that smoking is bad for your health, regardless of your opinion, would you call this a subjective notion of health; or an objective fact of health?
Morality isn't a biological evolutionary adaptation like the eye, it is a social adaptation like the mantis chewing off its mate's head or the female chimpanzee screwing outside the group it belongs to.
Adaptations of the brain, and consequentially the mind, are more complex than other physical adaptations, but they are still products of evolution.
I have provided sources where relevant or necessary. Just saying...
I never mentioned religion in my comment. If you weren't referring to my comment I apologize. I do disagree with you when you say that Objectivity in matters of human distinctions between right and wrong behaviors (the definition of morality) is a fundamental impossibility. I do think there is an objective standard for morality to which we can look to and distinguish right and wrong from. However, this only proves that a theistic god exists. Whether or not a specific god exists is a different debate so I won't go into that here.
It sounds like you're saying that morality is subjective to each person. If that's not the case then let me know. If that is the case though, I would like to ask you a question that I like to ask people with a subjective mindset. If I were to break your legs and take your money, would that be wrong of me to do?
You mention needs that are universal to humanity and bring up social interaction and cultural cohesion in terms of morality. While I do agree with you, how do you know if any society is better in either of these two regards unless there was an objective standard beyond ourselves to look to? If its just your opinion against mine, any country can be the best. Logically we both know that either one person is right or everyone is wrong, but everybody cannot be right when it comes to their own opinion.
You mention Europe, America, and the Islamic states in the middle east as having higher crime rates despite being more religiously developed. You then contrast them with Iceland and Finland who have very low crime rates despite being atheistic and irreligious. To what are you comparing these countries morals if there is no objective standard? You mention that if any society can be called "moral" it is the society in which there is no murder, no rape, no theft and high levels of cohesion and harmony among civil populations. While I do agree, what standard do you have that would indicate that one society is doing better than another? Obviously one could say that lower the better, but then this standard of morality would be whomever had the lowest of these which would then make them the objective standard to which we compared everything else. However, as you mentioned earlier, because human behavior is influenced by a number of factors, it can be impossible to find an objective standard.
What I am getting at is this. You mention that there is no objective standard to which we can look to and distinguish right from wrong, but then allude to the idea, as I have stated earlier, that there are places more moral than others despite having no objective standard to which we can compare them to
You raise some interesting points as does Sean and it's a fascinating topic .
If we break the topic down we can ask ... Does morality come from us ?
Does it come from God ?
Or are there objective moral facts ?
If we are to accept that there are objective moral facts that means that things are right or wrong independently of what we , god or anyone else might think .
If there are objective moral facts that means morality is ' out there ' and independent of us all , in the case of murder if we claim it is wrong how do we detect this wrongness that he act of murder has ?
If wrongness is a property killing has anyway whatever anyone might think then we have a big problem : how do we detect this property ?
We cannot detect it , in which case we couldn't know killing is wrong .
We do know killing is wrong ,so it appears it cannot be an objective moral fact .
If God has decided it to be wrong, then that's the property which makes it objectively wrong. And that we know it because we can detect it with our moral compass. We can't mechanically detect it, because it isn't a physical property.
Morality is just a herd survival strategy that we've evolved to favour. It's been a crucial factor for civilisation to work out.
Except that, morality is what everyone in the affected group agrees to, preferably under a veil of ignorance.
With that, I generally let the childish moral absolutists think what they want to. It, after all, doesn't matter, except that they might go into moral crises.
The three positions are morality comes from us , morality comes from god , or morality is objective meaning its independent of whatever we or god or anyone else might have to say about it .
Thank you. I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
Does morality come from us ?
I would say no
Does it come from God ?
I would say yes, specifically the Christian God
Or are there objective moral facts ?
I would say yes
If we are to accept that there are objective moral facts that means that things are right or wrong independently of what we , god or anyone else might think .
I would partially disagree with you. Specifically when you say that they are independent of God. I believe that these objective moral facts come from God's nature and is the objective standard that is used
If there are objective moral facts that means morality is ' out there ' and independent of us all , in the case of murder if we claim it is wrong how do we detect this wrongness that he act of murder has ?
I would say that we 'detect' it from the unchanging nature of God
If wrongness is a property killing has anyway whatever anyone might think then we have a big problem : how do we detect this property ?
I do believe that whether or not killing someone is considered murder would depend on the context provided of how and why they were killed
We do know killing is wrong ,so it appears it cannot be an objective moral fact .
I do have a question about this just for clarification. If we know murder is wrong, wouldn't that be an objective moral fact? I thought it would be
So morality does not come from us so you would state my morality comes from a Christian god even though I'm an atheist ?
So if a Muslim claims his morality come from Allah how does one tell the difference ?
Objective moral facts are independent of us or a god and are ' out there ' regardless .
To say morality comes from god means that if god says killing is right then it's right , god did in fact ask Abraham to murder his son if Abraham carried it out would that have made killing right because god said so ?
Your question does not make sense to me as I explained that objective morality means that things are right or wrong independently of what we ,god or anyone else might think ....
You say objective morality comes from god which makes no sense as it's ignoring what the term means .
I would first explain the difference between the Christian God and Allah then try to convince them that the Christian God is the standard
If objective moral facts are independent of us, what would be the standard? Objective means that there is a standard outside of us
Based off your statement, it sounds like you're using the Euthyphro dilemma. If thats not the case let me know.
Objective morality means that there is a standard outside of ourselves. I just believe that standard is God's nature and not outside of God Himself since if God looked to a standard out side of Himself, that standard would be God
Interesting so my morality comes from a supernatural entity I don't believe in , and so does everyone else's including Muslims ?
You say ....Objective morality means that there is a standard outside of ourselves. I just believe that standard is God's nature and not outside of God Himself ......
See that you've re-defined objective ; regarding the Euthyphro dilemma my view is as I asked you earlier and you ignored regarding Abraham , if god says killing is right is it right ?
If god asked you to murder your son is it right and just that you do it ?
I realize the mistake of what I had said. I would say that everyone has some kind of standard, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the standard is reasonable. I think the only reasonable standard is God
Would you be able to clarify my redefinition? I also asked about the Euthyphro dilemma just for clarification
I apologize for ignoring your question about Abraham and murder. I tried to tie it into the Euthyphro dilemma I mentioned. I would say that God would never say that murder is right
First I would ask what you mean by right and just. For myself, I would say that God asking me to kill someone would be hard for me at first, but I may eventually come around to it
No worries Luckin it's all good . Yes we all have standards and I as an atheist try to live my life by following the golden rule ; my broader point about morality being from a god is that the teachings from that religion are not always moral as I can demonstrate if wished .
Sorry Luckin are you asking for clarification of the term objective morality ?
The euthyphro dilemma is interesting and take the case of Abraham, god asks Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice , would you not see this as god saying murder is right once he asks it ?
God indeed has said murder is right once he is doing it according to the bible .
I thank you for honestly answering the questions making you a believer worth exchanging views with .
Can you imagine god asking you to kill your son , would you not doubt the morality of a god asking such a question of one of his creations and for what reason ?
Finally how do you know the god you worship is not evil ?
The god of the bible commands plagues , murder , drought , infanticide and indeed abortion all in his name he kills going on reasonable estimates two million of his creations , why do you assume he's good ?
I would agree with you about almost every religion on the planet
You had mentioned that I redefined the term objective. I was just curious to see if you could show me were I had first defined it or where a first definition was given
I've always heard the explanation that because God had created everyone and given everyone life, it then follows that He has the right to take it away as well and is not obligated to let us keep it
I don't think my God is evil. To be honest, most, if not all, of my information about Gods nature comes from the bible which I consider to be Gods word. I do believe that God is not evil as it is not part of Gods nature
With those commands that you mention, as I said earlier, it is my belief that since God has given everyone life, He then has the right to take it. It is also my belief that God does everything for His glory. While God does not need to do or allow any of this to happen, they ultimately bring out more of His glory had they not happened otherwise.
I was saying that when I stated objective morality was independent of god that was the meaning of objective , the other two positions were morality comes from us or god , you put god together with objective morality thus re - defining what I stated .
Yes an all powerful god is not obligated to let us keep life , and I say gods nature can be demonstrated to be evil by using the very same bible .
Again I can say an evil god has given life and indeed has the right to take it away , as is consistent with evil gods nature and he does it for his glory .
Evil god wants his creations to do evil for his glory , you may say " well why is there good in the world then " ?
Well that's because evil god gave his creations free will otherwise humans would be merely puppets , it upsets evil god greatly when his creations do good .
I can of course demonstrate using the bible the evil nature of god to back my claim up , if I can do so is my claim that the Christian god is evil any less valid than the opposite , and if so why ?
Try finding the contradictions, though. Almost every theological position is either contradictory or redundant.
Good is what represents God, who is timeless and thus unchanging. Anything else is bad.
I mean, at least that's how I remember the Bible putting it. I'm not surprised that the people of the time found Christus to be surprisingly good at logic, or so I've heard.
I apologize. Would you mind if I combined two of the choices or do you want me to stick to one?
I would say that if your claim had reasonable evidence to back it up, then I would consider it valid.
I do think your take on evil god as a contrast to the Christian God is interesting. I never heard someone come up with that analogy. However, I do think that evil s a privation of good and not a stand alone thing.What I mean by that is that there can be good without evil but there can't be evil without good
Ok let's leave the choices to one side for the time being ; my claim has as much validity as your claim .
You say ...... I never heard someone come up with that analogy. However, I do think that evil is a privation of good and not a stand alone thing.What I mean by that is that there can be good without evil but there can't be evil without good......
I can take your statement and say ...... However, I do think that good is a privation of evil and not a stand alone thing.What I mean by that is that there can be evil without good but there can't be good without evil
That statement is equally valid , also the way you and fellow believers know your god is good is through the bible , I can demonstrate that your god is evil using the very same source .
If I can demonstrate this as being the case why should your claim be taken more seriously ?
That's a fair point. I do believe that your statement is valid in theory but not in practice. Here's what I mean. In a universe where evil god did exist, good would be a privation of evil. However, that is not the case. In this universe, evil would be the privation of good. However, I think we are already familiar with each other's views on objective morality so I won't get into that here. I will add though that I do consider the argument from morality to be an inference to the best explanation without the need for the Bible as an explanation
Well yes I wouldn't expect you to see your argument for morality to be anything less than what you claim ,the argument you're making is the one made famous by St Augustine of Hippo I've done it before and i have no intention of doing so again as it always goes the same way .
How do you make your claim about morality and it's source without citing a god , the morality of the Christian god can only be known by the word of god and his deeds which are indeed claimed to be in the bible ?
I think I worded my statement wrong. I don't need to go to the bible immediately to know that there is an objective source although it is a good starting point. The bible does narrow down what God does consider to be right and wrong. The reason I made the statement earlier was because the moral argument all on its own only proves that a theistic god exists and doesn't point to a specific standard
Well you cannot prove there is an objective source , the bible as I said can demonstrate by its words that god is evil or good depending on your viewpoint .
The argument either way does not prove a god evil or good exists
Ok. I think at this point in the argument, all we can do is agree to disagree. It is nice to talk to you about these topics. I hope to debate these things with you in the future
Casuistry and hair-splitting. You know, like me, that it's wrong to kill someone, precisely because you wouldn't like to be killed yourself. Empathy. That's natural, ingrained, evolutionary. It doesn't require God, it just requires a human brain.
Morals are distinctions of right and wrong between human behaviours. Human behaviours are subjective, because human conscious experience is coloured through personal values, beliefs, thoughts, feelings and associations. We also decide behavioural norms as culturally relative beings: not all cultures think exactly alike, just like not all humans do.
However, the evolutionary advantages of our species are our intelligence, and our co-operative nature: these are the attributes which allow human civilizations to thrive, and to thrive is to live well and live long, which is exactly what all species on this planet aspire to, including us. For that to happen, we NEED distinctions between culturally advantageous behaviours, and those behaviours which are disadvantageous.
This is not the same as an objective standard. Objective means factually true: not influenced by personal thoughts or feelings. Behaviour is not objective, and distinctions on behaviours are not objective, because all behaviour is personally motivated. That does not mean that there are not commonalities in the needs of human cultures. We need co-operation to survive; having conventions against murder, rape, theft, abuse and other forms of social harm, allow societies to co-operate and survive together. God is not necessary in this. We do not need an arbiter to tell us that murder is bad for the health of our society, the safety of ourselves and our children, and for our survival. That much is plain obvious, even to a child.
These ideas of murder, rape and destruction being negative, are not confined only to bible-bashing civilizations: they are for all humanity throughout all recorded history an essential standard of behaviour, and they are required if humans are to continue to thrive as we have and do.
Morality has naturally arisen for itself out of cultural and social necessity, not religion. It in no way requires or proves God's existence, whatsoever.
In a subjective mindset, whether it be natural or evolutionary, empathy is not necessary. Stalin was only empathetic to people in his inner circle and killed 15 million of his own people. Yet he died shaking his fist at God one last time
How does differences of opinion make morality subjective? Do differences in the opinion between scientists of how the universe was started mean that the universe didn't begin or that the universe started every way they say it did?
Based off of your statements, it sounds like you are an evolutionary ethicist. If thats the case, how did evolutionary ethics come about?
I do agree with you on some of the things you say. There are commonalities in the needs of human culture and we do need to cooperate to survive. However, no one stopped people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot from killing several million people each. They each thought that the killing of those people, sometimes their own was for the betterment of the health of the society
You mention that murder, rape, and destruction being a negative were an essential standard for all of humanity throughout recorded history. So is there an objective standard or is there not?
You're right when you say that it doesn't prove that a specific god exists. Just that a theistic one exists
In a subjective mindset, whether it be natural or evolutionary, empathy is not necessary.
Clearly it is. Without empathy, we can't have social moralilty. It's really that simple. Case in point:
Stalin .... killed 15 million of his own people. Yet he died shaking his fist at God one last time
How does differences of opinion make morality subjective?
Morality is a distinction between right and wrong human behaviours. It is not a mathematical, objective science, unlike astrophysics:
Do differences in the opinion between scientists of how the universe was started mean that the universe didn't begin or that the universe started every way they say it did?
Clearly you're struggling with what objectivity and subjectivity denote.
Based off of your statements, it sounds like you are an evolutionary ethicist. If thats the case, how did evolutionary ethics come about?
Ethics are part of many species' survival strategies. Humans thrive best when we cohere and co-operate. Ethics are necessary for that.
I do agree with you on some of the things you say. There are commonalities in the needs of human culture and we do need to cooperate to survive.
True.
However, no one stopped people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot from killing several million people each.
Bad eggs do not mean that chickens stop laying. There will always be outliers, non-conformists, psychopaths: people for whom social cohesion and empathy are alien concepts. That doesn't mean that we as a species do not have a moral imperative for the most-part. If humans did not have morals to allow us to cohere, we would not survive the century.
They each thought that the killing of those people, sometimes their own was for the betterment of the health of the society
Yes, they did. And was it? Clearly not!
You mention that murder, rape, and destruction being a negative were an essential standard for all of humanity throughout recorded history. So is there an objective standard or is there not?
I didn't use the word objective. I said necessary. What is necessary for the survival of the human species is a level of social cohesion, which requires co-operation, compromise and ultimately a sense of morality. Morality itself is relative and subjective to the society that needs it. Just because humans share biological and physical traits which make co-operation a better survival tactic than animosity, does not mean that morality is "objective". How can what is directly influenced by bias, behaviour, emotion and cognition, be objective?? That is exactly the definition of subjectivity.
You're right when you say that it doesn't prove that a specific god exists. Just that a theistic one exists
Clearly it is. Without empathy, we can't have social moralilty. It's really that simple.
True, unless empathy is deemed socially immoral
Morality is a distinction between right and wrong human behaviours. It is not a mathematical, objective science, unlike astrophysics:
Is that objectively true?
Clearly you're struggling with what objectivity and subjectivity denote.
You talked about morality not being objective because people disagree on things. This concept can be applied to other things as well. Do differences of opinion between scientists on how the universe began mean that the universe didn't begin?
Ethics are part of many species' survival strategies. Humans thrive best when we cohere and co-operate. Ethics are necessary for that.
Who's ethics?
Bad eggs do not mean that chickens stop laying. There will always be outliers, non-conformists, psychopaths: people for whom social cohesion and empathy are alien concepts. That doesn't mean that we as a species do not have a moral imperative for the most-part. If humans did not have morals to allow us to cohere, we would not survive the century.
Whether or not people have a sense of right and wrong isn't the issue. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Who's ethics are we comparing these psychopaths to? Who's ethics are these people outliers of?Whose ethics are they not conforming to?
Yes, they did. And was it? Clearly not!
According to who?
I didn't use the word objective. I said necessary. What is necessary for the survival of the human species is a level of social cohesion, which requires co-operation, compromise and ultimately a sense of morality. Morality itself is relative and subjective to the society that needs it. Just because humans share biological and physical traits which make co-operation a better survival tactic than animosity, does not mean that morality is "objective". How can what is directly influenced by bias, behaviour, emotion and cognition, be objective?? That is exactly the definition of subjectivity.
Whether you use the word objective or necessary, the question remains the same. All of science is influenced by bias, behavior, emotion, and cognition regardless of how small the influence. However, you still consider it to be objective
No, it doesn't. Not at all.
You mean that a specific god exists or that a theistic one exists?
Scientific and mathematical conclusions and theories are theories and conclusions because they are held and proven to be objectively true: a hydrogen atom has one electron, whether or not humans are around to measure it. It always has one electron. It is a scientific, universal fact.
Morals aren't like that. Morals, unlike hydrogen atoms, don't exist independent of humanity. Human life is necessary for human morality, and human morality is dependent on social and personal needs, desires and other motivations.
None of this proves that any kind of God at all exists.
It doesn't matter what the theory or conclusion is. Based off your idea that things that are directly influenced by bias, behavior, emotion, and cognition can't be objective, that would mean science is subjective as well, even if the influence is very small. If morality is left to mob rule, what made the Nazi's the bad guys? If morality is decided by a criminal, what reason do we have to name him as such?
I can't decide whether you are wilfully ignorant or just haplessly unintelligent.
Does a hydrogen atom have one electron or not? If you say no, then you're an idiot. If you say yes, then clearly we can establish objective facts.
Fact: a thing known to be proven or true.
Whether you like it or not, morality is always left to consensus and cultural context. The Nazis were bad because we as humans with morals say they were. Killing is bad because we say it is. Rape is bad because we say it is. Theft is bad because we say it is.
Criminals can have their own moralities just like religious nutjobs can have theirs. Some religious people think it's moral to traumatize their children with stories of neverending torment for having a natural desire to have sex. Some people think it's moral to kill infidels. Some people think it's moral to cut off part of a baby boy's penis. Some people think it's moral to rape little kids in churches.
Most people do not think those things are moral not because of a cosmic objective standard, but because humans are born with emotions, needs and desires, and morals are a natural, common, near universal outgrowth of such things. We feel guilt: we do not think it. We feel love: we do not think it. We feel regret: we do not think it. We feel bonds: we do not think them. We feel joy: we do not think it. We feel fear: we do not think it. All personality, motive, intent, speech, thought itself, is preceded by electrical impulse interpreted as feeling. Feeling is the stimuli that is necessary for thought. Without the ability to feel, physically, emotionally, chemically, we are entirely devoid of our consciousness. Feeling is our response to stimuli: internal or external, atomic or macrobiological.
As for religions, religions are as subjective and relative as all unfounded belief is. Religions and beliefs in God -- in biblical morality, in myth and superstition and legend -- are not manifestations of objective standards. Beliefs in God vary wildly; morals gleaned from religious scripts vary wildly; and most importantly: the choice to believe in texts compiled by religiously-synchronous murderers and peadophiles of the post-Roman era, found in ancient caves in barbaric ancient places and of undetermined authorship, is not in any way shape or form an objective choice. It is a subjective belief. It is a personal conviction unsupported by any objective evidence or proof.
All morality is subjective, and relative, because human behaviour is such. Human behaviours are not entirely based on mathematical proofs: there are illogic elements to our motivations, feelings, desires, needs. Our objectivity in moral matters extends only to the extent that our commonalities and compromises allow. If society's primary need were a defense against tyranny then moral normality shifts from common pacifism to common aggression. If society's primary need were a redistribution of power then morality shifts from a general compliance to a general dissent. If society's primary need is peace and co-operation then morality shifts to patience, inquiry, freedom, the rule of law.
We progress, and as we progress, our needs as a collective change and morph. This is why morality never stays exactly the same. At the smallest social level we have families: we treat our familites, usually, with reverence, respect, love, co-operation, and fierce protective instincts, because they are our blood, our genes, our siblings, parents and children, our nurterers and protectors. And this extends quite often to wider communities, and then states, countries, for some even on a global podium.
Morals bind human societies, and the things which we tend to consider wrong: murder, theft, rape, we consider wrong from an emotional standpoint: murder is painful, leads to death and destruction, is bad for cohesion, illicists fear and anger: all these are undoubtedly negative feelings and associations for most of humanity. We do not tend to enjoy fear, or death, destruction, grief, loss, starvation, fractured familial ties.
Humans are happiest when we are nourished, hydrated, loved and secure. These are the drivers for our morals.
This isn't about whether or not something is proven to be true. If I say murder, theft, and rape are good, would you let me be to think that, even if I murdered, stole, and raped?
Society wouldn't let you be. You'd be hunted down, incarcerated, killed or exiled. All without biblical precedent. To commit murder is anti-community, anti-cooperative, anti-empathetic, anti-social, anti-love; to be murdered is anti-survival, anti-secure, anti-happiness.
Humans want happy, loving, well-fed lives. It's universal in every child that has ever been born: anything else, we simply learn, or better or worse.
You can go at this all day but it's impossible to make a case for morality being an objective phenomena: it requires human emotion, bias, need and desire. In order to exist, subjective social needs in the human species are necessary. Without a human or humans to arbiter it, human morality does not exist, because it cannot.
Hydrogen and its single electron, on the other hand, exist regardless of the human race. Morality is a linguistic conceptualisation of relative sociocultural behavioural standards of the human race. It is fundamentally a matter of subjective human arbitration. It requires human emotion, behaviour and cognition, as well as an interpersonal interaction between human specimens, in order to exist. We, as a species, are both the vessels and the directors of morals, based upon our needs, which are themselves largely biologically determined.
We must eat and drink, as must our children. To eat and drink, we need food and water. To get food and water for ourselves and our offspring, it is better to work together, share and co-operate: survival is easier and more efficient that way. Easier and more efficient are naturally better options in this regard. Thus, establishing behaviours to safeguard these communal survival mechanisms are beneficial to our most basic human desires.
We use morals because they benefit us, all of us.
All other primates have moral codes, too, for exactly the same kinds of reasons. Packs of dogs feed their starving and wounded, out of loyalty. They will fight to the death for one another, out of familial bond.
Gorillas will hold funeral ceremonies to allow themselves to grieve their dead, and they will share food with one another and forage in groups. They will share child-rearing responsibilities and the alpha male will vehemently put an end to infighting and violence within the group: to maintain both harmony and control, because these are best for the survival of the group.
It's nothing new. Morality doesn't need to be objective, it just needs to fulfil a need or serve a positive purpose. Undoubtedly is a world of peace harmony, prosperity and plenty not more happy, desirable and pleasant than a world of destruction, hatred and poverty?
I doubt you will find anybody on this planet who sincerely disagrees, other than those few whose biological makeup is so warped from the norm that they are rendered incapable of emotions like the vast majority of us experience.
It comes down to simple desire: would you rather live in fear, hostility and possible death or starvation at every turn, or in safety and security? If the answer is the latter, then your sense of reason and logic should dictate to you that in order to live in such a safe, secure way, you must be willing to offer that same security to others, through truce or through law: do not kill others, rape others, steal from others, with the agreement that they will not do those things to you.
That's how morality works, through empathy, and when we conceptualise and standardise these ideas, then we are into the territory of written or spoken law. But nomatter where you go in the world, the unspoken human standard is almost invariably the same: be civil to others, others will almost always be civil to you.
Again, there are murderers, and there are psychopaths, and there are rapists, but there are also morals, laws, and prisons: no society on this planet has no law against murder, even ones that are born out of atheistic cultures or cultures that do not prescribe to the Abrahamic God.
Murder has always been frowned upon. I live in Ireland. In Ireland there is evidence of pagan culture predating almost all known cultures on the planet, who were against murder.
It's nothing new. We don't need divine revelation to tell us we don't want to be murdered. If none of us want to be murdered, it kinda makes sense that we don't try to do it to other people, don't you think?!
Hitler murdered millions of people because he claimed is was for the betterment of society and was happy to do so. Who decides what constitutes a happy, loving, well-fed life? If subjectivity is necessary, who decided that? Why are you assuming that people would be willing to work together for the betterment of society as a whole? You talk about a world of peace, harmony, prosperity, and plenty, but according to who? Or with safety and security? Wouldn't subjectivity require that I not impose my morality on others? Who decided that empathy was necessary?
Hitler murdered millions of people because he claimed is was for the betterment of society and was happy to do so
And how many people do you think consider what he did morally positive? A very small number indeed.
Who decides what constitutes a happy, loving, well-fed life?
Happy: the state of being content, joyful.
Loving: a strong feeling of affection; compassionate.
Well-fed is self explanatory.
If subjectivity is necessary, who decided that?
Subjectivity is the state of something being subjective. Subjective means dependent on human perception or feeling, as opposed to something not dependent on human perception or feeling. Morality is fundamentally a matter of human perception. Nobody decided subjectivity was necessary for it: subjectivity is a word used to describe something being dependent on human perspective, and since human moralities are distinctions on right and wrong human behaviours (which are relative and subjective themselves), morality is a subjective phenomena. There need not be a cosmic authority to say so: it is definitional.
Why are you assuming that people would be willing to work together for the betterment of society as a whole?
Because we do. That's what a society is.
Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
You talk about a world of peace, harmony, prosperity, and plenty, but according to who?
According to biological and psychosocial need. Peacefulness is defined as the absence of mental distress or anxiety, and peace is defined as freedom from disturbance and war. Harmony is defined as the state of being in agreement or concord. Prosperity and plenty are fairly obvious concepts.
If you have peace, harmony, prosperity and plenty you have freedom from war, poverty, discord, significant distress, violence and oppression. That's essentially what both our societies aim for in their legal frameworks: no internal war, no tolerance for lawlessness, no tolerance for violence or oppression or the infliction of physical and in many ways, mental, suffering. Those are basic, simplistic ideas that resonate with nearly all human beings. We don't get lasting, successful societies full of happy people if there is constantly oppression, war, lawlessness, violence and poverty. None of us enjoy being victims of those things, and almost all of us do not enjoy inflicting those things on others, with the exception of the aforementioned psychopaths and other deviants for which prison was invented.
Or with safety and security?
Safety is self explanatory. Security is self explanatory. I feel like you are being disingenuous at this point.
Wouldn't subjectivity require that I not impose my morality on others?
Again, just because morality is subjective does not mean that humans collectively have a free-for-all and anything goes. You keep trying to abstract morality from its human underpinnings and cultural contexts, but the results of any such attempt are doomed to be an unsatisfactory resolution to the moral question, because humans are the creatures who utilize morality; thus, we are necessary for its existence. In order to understand it, we have to look at it in context with its nature. Do humans impose morality on each other? Yes, we do, to an extent. Are all moralities as valid as one another? It depends who you ask. But the crucial point here is this:
Intrinsic moral instincts do not necessarily require imposition upon people. Even a child understands that it has done wrong when it hurts another person and that person reacts as a hurt person does. Children and infants instinctively show guilt, regret, empathy, altruism, compassion and affection. They do not need to be told about these things before they exhibit them; they are ingrained evolutionary social adaptations. Sometimes, yes, they need a reminder when they falter or when their morals slip, when they are being self destructive or selfish or heinous -- as we all do, and as we are all guilty of. There isn't one of us that lives a life that we could call totally moral: everybody has an opinion on whether a thing is bad or good, be it not sharing your bread with a homeless person or spanking your child in public. It is impossible to fulfil all the expected moral obligations of any given society and all its members, but almost all of us try at least to live in a manner that causes us and others around us as little distress as realistically possible, because we desire to fit together, we desire companionship, comfort, love, inclusion, friends, meaningful connections, work, play. We can't have those things without a level of compromise and consideration, for which empathy and other natural emotional abilities play a key role.
I would direct you towards the altruism experiments carried out by Stanford University psychologists Michael Tomasello and Elizabeth Spelke, and the international collaborative experiments carried out by Jason Cowell, Kang Lee, Randa Mahasneh, Susan Malcolm-Smith, Bilge Selcuk and Xinyue Zhou, regarding relative levels of altruism in children of religious and nonreligious families.
The results show that children naturally gravitate towards altruism and co-operation rather than animosity, and that children of religious affiliation tend to show significantly less altruistic tendencies than children with religious affiliations.
Who decided that empathy was necessary?
Nobody decided it. Empathy is a natural trait in humans and many other mammals. It is the ability to mentally put oneself in another individual's shoes and direct one's behaviour with that in mind. It's not complex, it doesn't require a conscious decision, but it is a very strong influence on our morals.
And how many people do you think consider what he did morally positive? A very small number indeed.
The number of people that think its positive is irrelevant. In a subjective society, what was it that Hitler did was wrong?
Happy: the state of being content, joyful.
Loving: a strong feeling of affection; compassionate.
Well-fed is self explanatory.
That doesn't answer the question. Who decides what constitutes a happy, loving, well-fed life?
Subjectivity is the state of something being subjective. Subjective means dependent on human perception or feeling, as opposed to something not dependent on human perception or feeling. Morality is fundamentally a matter of human perception.
So if I were to kill someone in cold blood, no one could say I did anything wrong?
Nobody decided subjectivity was necessary for it
So if nobody said it was necessary, why impose it on others?
Because we do. That's what a society is.
What evidence do you have that people would willingly sacrifice their own desires for the betterment of society? Or do what they alone considered beneficial to society?
According to biological and psychosocial need. Peacefulness is defined as the absence of mental distress or anxiety, and peace is defined as freedom from disturbance and war. Harmony is defined as the state of being in agreement or concord. Prosperity and plenty are fairly obvious concepts.
According to Hitler, he needed to take out the jews to accomplish that
Safety is self explanatory. Security is self explanatory.
The question still remains unanswered. Safety and security according to who?
Again, just because morality is subjective does not mean that humans collectively have a free-for-all and anything goes.
Except whats to stop people from having this free-for-all if morality is completely subjectivised?
Do humans impose morality on each other? Yes, we do, to an extent.
Why impose morality to any extent if morality is subjective? Doesn't imposing morality to any extent make it objective?
Even a child understands that it has done wrong when it hurts another person and that person reacts as a hurt person does.
Its wrong according to who?
Children and infants instinctively show guilt, regret, empathy, altruism, compassion and affection.
Who do they have to answer to if they feel guilty or regretful? Who decides whether or not a person or action is empathetic, altruistic, compassionate, affectionate?
Sometimes, yes, they need a reminder when they falter or when their morals slip, when they are being self destructive or selfish or heinous -- as we all do, and as we are all guilty of.
If morality is truly subjective, wouldn't people just be guilty of following their own moral code regardless of what happened to someone else?
It is impossible to fulfil all the expected moral obligations of any given society and all its members, but almost all of us try at least to live in a manner that causes us and others around us as little distress as realistically possible, because we desire to fit together, we desire companionship, comfort, love, inclusion, friends, meaningful connections, work, play.
So there is objectivity then? Otherwise there wouldn't be moral obligations. Also, it sounds like those desires are outside people otherwise people wouldn't try to conform to those norms
We can't have those things without a level of compromise and consideration, for which empathy and other natural emotional abilities play a key role.
According to who?
Nobody decided it.
If thats the case, why is it so important that we impose empathy on others in a subjective society?
It's not complex, it doesn't require a conscious decision, but it is a very strong influence on our morals.
Ya, its what got Stalin to be empathetic only to his inner circle and kill 15 million of his own people
Coorock said it well, it's simple common sense. Morals which are not objective are not morals but rather are personal opinions, situation ethics.
I like how the amoral ethics practitioner has to write about a thousand words trying to explain why he recognizes no objective moral standard. There is no reason why society should not decide the moral thing to do would be to grind this guy to powder and sell him for his salt....according to his own "morals".
The amoralist simply suspends belief in your opinions until you can prove them. That's all the explanation that's required. Threaten the amoralist with 'society' all you like, but you still haven't proven a thing.
whatever, homo...you hope to get out of reality in death, you claim you know nothing and hope in nothing and nothing anybody says can possible contradict your stupid hope in death. You'er a dirty pervert who hopes in death to get him out of reality, and you want to take down as many in your mud with you as you possibly can. You're a sick bastard on your way to Hell.
Nothing. I shouldn't have posted my little quip as I don't want to talk to you any more than you want to talk to me. I apologize. Perhaps I can try to never interact again.
I don't think anyone should be afraid of a stain. Especially with these strings of words you seem to expect to be profound - they're not even shallow. You're boring.
Also, you're simply too unworthy to be the antichrist.
Usually, you don't want to talk, you want to express your chip on your shoulder. How can I talk to you when you are acting the way you have in these last few of your posts? You're not talking to me when you are acting that way, you're just acting hateful and expressing things that really have nothing to do with me when you act this way.
I want nothing because I already have everything I might want. I don't hate you. But I have no respect for your philosophy, your thoughts, or your presentation of either. I dont think I have ever encountered a non-criminal more lacking in virtue than yourself. I don't hate you, but I don't want to interact with you. That's why I apologized for initiating this thread.
hahahahah.......be honest now. You feel compelled to argue against the things I present as truth because you know it goes against you as you are against the truth. You have everything you want and it amounts to nothing but death, and you hope death exonerates you so you will not have to appear before God in judgement.
I guess your concept of virtue has nothing to do with objective morality, so the word virtue itself is unreal and you have no standard by which virtue is established.
Sorry you have to carry your record throughout eternity, sorry you cannot get out of accountability for everything you have ever said, thought, or done in every place you have ever been or will be. God can relieve you, but you think you relieve yourself in death, you are fooling yourself, wanting death and it's all you have.....yes you do have everything you want. Too bad it's pulling you down to Hell, too bad you won't believe God made the way for you to be saved and have eternal life with Him in His Kingdom.
I'm safely carried across that chasm which you want to pull me down into with you. The Savior plunged in for me to carry me across in His resurrection. Keep on trying to make it on your own, keep on trying to pull me down with you, you will fail in both desires. You are not God, you can't make it on your own but you can try if you want to...I don't have time for your nonsense.
Look at that icon you display. Why would I want to read anything coming from something like that? You love death, I love life. You can have your own way, I'll go the way of the cross.
Obviously morality is dependent on the Christian faith in America. The morals of false religions that teach it is ok to kill women, children, Gays, and all infedels for simply not being Islamic, is laughable.
Look what has happened to America's culture since the Left separated any mention of God in our public square.
In a few short decades, man has gone from abortion being illegal to what became first trimester, then 2nd trimester, and then 3rd trimester abortions of viable babies for any reason up to birth!
That is the morals of man without God.
Look at the priorities of this new age man without God.
Our families are falling apart with millions of children having no fathers at home, and what are the priorities of the anti God Left? They focus on issues such as boys who think they are girls going into our daughter's bathrooms in EVERY Public school in the nation.
These control fanatics want to force EVERY pubic school to allow this regardless if parents do not want it.
Obviously morality is dependent on the Christian faith in America.
How? You tell us all the time that Christian progressives have no morality.
The morals of false religions that teach it is ok to kill women, children, Gays, and all infedels for simply not being Islamic, is laughable.
The fact that you have to distance yourself from other religions doesn't help your case.
Look what has happened to America's culture since the Left separated any mention of God in our public square.
Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.
Look at the priorities of this new age man without God.
Still with God though. Liberals have God. Needing God displayed everywhere indicates that you don't have God yourself
Our families are falling apart with millions of children having no fathers at home, and what are the priorities of the anti God Left? They focus on issues such as boys who think they are girls going into our daughter's bathrooms in EVERY Public school in the nation.
And yet here you are bringing it up.
These control fanatics want to force EVERY pubic school to allow this regardless if parents do not want it.
You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.
These are the morals of the Godless Left.
Calling Christians Godless kind of proves that religion has no morality.
They don't have Biblical morality. They have morality that is based on how and what the Liberal world tells them to think. It's a form of idolatry. Examples?
1)Child brides are an abomination Biblically.
-Liberals defend Islam's right to take child brides as a "minority".
2)Offense based Violence is wrong Biblically.
-Liberals support offense based violence if against Conservatives.
3)Acts of Homosexuality are an abomination Biblically.
-Liberals disagree.
So... their "morality" isn't Biblical morality. It's some newly tortured definition of morality.
Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.
Well this isn't really a strike for or against either religion or non-religiosity. Crime spiked between the 80's and 90's then went back to where it is now. If non-religiosity is related to less crime then why did the spike happen when religiosity has had a downward trend since the 70's?
You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.
1) Wanting a religious view in schools doesn't mean you want science out of schools, this is a major assumption.
2) This person was addressing bathroom policy, not science, so I don't know why this came up anyways. If you wanna argue religion vs. science, that's fine. Just don't combine arguments.
This aside, morality is not dependent on religion. It's an arbitrary concept based on a person's values. But societies do tend to flourish when the society, as a whole, follows Judeo - Christian morals. Even the Bible addresses this point. The God of the Bible always tells people to follow "HIS statutes" and "HIS commandments", but you can find times when God gave up the Israelites to other standards besides His own. And the people suffered for it. The Biblical argument is not "you can only be moral if you believe in God", but God's morals cause individuals and societies to flourish.
Well this isn't really a strike for or against either religion or non-religiosity. Crime spiked between the 80's and 90's then went back to where it is now. If non-religiosity is related to less crime then why did the spike happen when religiosity has had a downward trend since the 70's?
There is no correlation to religiosity and morality even according to you. That only demonstrates my point.
1) Wanting a religious view in schools doesn't mean you want science out of schools, this is a major assumption.
Your statement is correct, but those were 2 independently determined facts fused together into one sentence. He has demonstrated both of those ideas. There is no assumption here.
2) This person was addressing bathroom policy, not science, so I don't know why this came up anyways. If you wanna argue religion vs. science, that's fine. Just don't combine arguments.
It came up because it shows he didn't have any idea what belongs in schools. He brought up schools to prove his point. It isn't a religion vs science argument, it is a FromWithin versus reality argument.
This aside, morality is not dependent on religion.
Agreed.
The Biblical argument is not "you can only be moral if you believe in God", but God's morals cause individuals and societies to flourish.
I was arguing against the guy who made that argument.
There is no correlation to religiosity and morality even according to you. That only demonstrates my point.
It's doesn't really prove anything as you said but it doesn't prove your point either. My point is that a CLAIM to religion does not mean a thing. But following the Judeo - Christian values does. For example, the most fought over Christian moral, sexual chastity, was proved by Joseph Unwin in Sex and Culture when he was able to prove sexual restraint and monogamy leads to the success of a society. This was later proved in the University of British Columbia. This is just one of many morals only the Judeo - Christian worldview really supports. You could say Islam but they really just piggy-backed off the Judeo - Christians.
Most eastern religions believe sex between two people who love each other (in any way, married or non, hetero or homo, monogamous or polygamous) as moral and polygamy is supported. Eastern religions were very much like Native Americans in their sexual standards, who were very loose with their sexual standards.
Obviously morality is dependent on the Christian faith in America.
Obviously? How is this obvious? Many groups is this country have struggled and continue to struggle for basic rights because of Christianity. Most Christians supported racial segregation and everything they could to keep the white man in power. Religion is also the reason for women have had such difficulty in gaining equal rights, and to this day religion is at fault for the LGBT's lack of rights.
The morals of false religions that teach it is ok to kill women, children, Gays, and all infedels for simply not being Islamic, is laughable.
The Bible also teaches this to be okay (aside from the use of the word infidel)
In a few short decades, man has gone from abortion being illegal to what became first trimester, then 2nd trimester, and then 3rd trimester abortions of viable babies for any reason up to birth!
I'm an atheist yet oppose abortion; moral without religion.
Look at the priorities of this new age man without God.
We base our morality on what is good for humanity rather than what an old book says. That's a good thing.
They focus on issues such as boys who think they are girls going into our daughter's bathrooms in EVERY Public school in the nation.
I'm with Cartman on this; it's you that's bringing it up.
These control fanatics want to force EVERY pubic school to allow this regardless if parents do not want it.
Christians want to force EVERY public school to teach religion as fact regardless if parents do not want it.
These are the morals of the Godless Left.
Your short rant doesn't quite sum up our morals; in fact you don't mention many at all. Many on the left do believe in God, and some on the right do not, so to attribute a political stance to a particular religion (or lack of) is inaccurate.
No one is moral, not even Christians. God condemns even your evil thoughts and motives, thus the human vision of morality dies to an omniscient being. That's what salvation and the intercessor are all about. Without Christ, your "righteous acts" are just filthy rags covering immoral desires, dreams, and thoughts.
Obviously you are wrong. Morality existed long before Christianity. Christians like to pick and choose which Bible morality they follow unless you advocate killing your neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday, denouncing people who eat shellfish and bringing back slavery.
The reason things are falling apart is not lack of religion it's lack of equality in a collapsing empire. Trump is a perfect example of the type of authoritarian rule by sociopaths that always gain control at the end. It's the religious right that promotes corporate destruction of society and the environment. Apparently you're convinced Jesus will come and save you and you want to get there as quickly as possible. That's why you don't give a damn about the environment and worship the billionaires, like Trump, who are destroying the world.
The bathroom issue is an argument for idiots. Just like same sex marriage and voter fraud. Things only the low information religious right would believe
LOL, I stopped reading after you spewed the laubable lies of how Christians want to bring back slavery. Why I even responded to the likes of you is amazing.
All you bigots have is lies and deception. You can't live in the real world because then you would have to admit the truth of what is becoming of our nation when God is separated.
If it were not for the Christians in this nation, America would have decades ago collapsed from the bankrupcy of morals. We are seeing a slow deth spiral as broken famiies are being replaced with case workers.
This is the new America wallowing in the vacuum of the Christian moral values once lifted up. It was the Christians who helped end slavery when the Democrat Party supported it.
PATHETIC LIAR! Dont worry I won't be responding to your next regurgitation of lies.
We know. We've watched the cult of Atheism start mega churches, pass out pamphlets, take offerings, and even give sermons, all to redefine what is "good" and what is "bad". They've used this religion of Progressivism to try and demonize Evangelicals. What Evangelicals were condemned for doing by the left in decades past (Defining morality and right and wrong), is what the new "religious left" is now doing. Condemning and demonizing and preaching.
Immorality is dependant on religion in a sizeable amount of immoral acts carried out collectively worldwide , that's why the words of ' sacred ' books written by neantherdahl goatherds are used by believers to demonise , tyrannise and oppress people worldwide .
Morality must not be viewed as universal in meaning and neither dependent with religion but merely depends on the developed cognition of an individual. Religion may influence our respective dogmas about morality at some point, yet it is the personal discernment of an individual matters, wherein it serves purely as the foundation of our own context of morality. Thus, religion is partly an element that may affect our point of view towards morality.
GOD, NO! If that were the case we'd have something worse than Sharia Law! We'd be burning witches (or bitches), at the stake, keep our women behind locked doors, find dead gays in every alley, be hanging our neighbors wives (the friendly ones), swim completely clothed, J-Lo would be a Bronx gang member!
I stayed at a Hotel when there was a large religious group in many of the rooms. I wanted to use the Hot Tub but found it full of fully dressed women! No telling WHAT they had in their undies! I declined to find out!
"Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what's right."
I believe it is good morals is doing unto others as I would have them do unto me, like Yeshua said. If I want to choose, I need to allow other humans to choose.
This topic has repeated multiple times on this site so if you really believe morality depends on religion go read up.
1) Civilization is more than just the ten commandments and New Testament. From the moment early humans worked as a team there were behaviors necessary for coexistence. Those behaviors are just as much a part of "morality" as "thou shall not commit adultery", but for some reason the religious believers of this world think zero morality of any kind existed before then.
2) There were many different religions through history and thus a wildly diverse set of interpretations for what religious morality should be. And the fact a sucky religion (like Aztecs with human sacrifice) can be abandoned to convert to one less sucky (hypothetically, Christianity) is in essence proof the moralities associated with those religions are also not the end all be all.
3) Death and destruction and suffering brought on by religion or in the name of religion throughout history heavily counters the claim religion has a monopoly on morality. In fact, a superior argument based on all of history is that when religion steps out of line it's people thinking and acting independent of those religions who help to restore balance and fairness to their civilizations.
4) Theoretically, atheists (or indeed anyone from any belief system other than your own chosen religion) should be wallowing constantly in their own debauchery and utterly incapable of even having an ethics discussion with the religious if indeed it were true that only through religion can one be moral.
5) If you truly believe God made everything including the rules then you must accept that by him making people who then don't follow the rules it's all part of a master plan you don't understand. So you should stop judging them. Leave it to your God to judge in the end who did what they were supposed to do or not.
Morality is a construct created by religion so of course it's dependent. If we take a look at a time when religion didn't exist, a time when humans were more primitive, morality wasn't a thing. You didn't think twice about killing a bird, even another human if the time called for it, it was all about survival instinct. Religion swung around and suddenly, that changed. Killing another person wasn't tolerated. People thought twice about killing that bird. Manners happened and society was created and now we have a lot of conflicting morals - many which have diverted from religion. But without religion, none of it could've happened or if it did, it would've taken much longer.
That's not true at all , you're claiming morality only came into being when religion appeared ?
You say ' morality wasn't a thing ' and you base this idea on what ?
Religion and the founders of religion introduced their moral codes into society , indeed we have all seen the destruction and mayhem brought on civilisations by so called religious morality.
That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-sociality predates religion. It is what allowed people to exist in groups in the first place, which is a necessary prerequisite to religions forming.
Objective morality is, yes. But as we have seen in full force, the Liberals and Atheists came up with their own orthodoxy and rules of morality and are using it this very minute to condemn Conservatives with, even though it's made up, no one voted on it, and its based on opinion and semantics.
An omnipotent deity may be the only possible source for an objective morality, but that does not mean that religious people actually know what that morality is any more than their secular counterparts.
No. Its painfully obvious that it isnt. We can look back thousands of years and find evidence of cavemen who had a concept of morality. There was a finding where they found the remains of an elderly man who had a crippling disease or injury and it was apparent that he was born with it or was injured when quite young. Yet he lived to an old age. This could only be possible if the other members of his group cared for him and brought him food and water despite his inability to offer any kind of labor for the group. Morality is purely subjective but it is mainly dependent on biology. Our brains evolved to have a capacity for empathy because if you can understand how someone is feeling and put yourself in their shoes it allows you to better assess the quality of your actions. I might not care about killing someone but if i can put myself in their shoes and the shoes of their family it becomes apparent to me that killing them is not something i would want done to me or done to people i care about. And thus i refrain from it. Its a mechanism to make living in social groups much easier. If we had no ability to judge our actions in this way we would do all kinds of shit that just wouldnt allow for any social cohesion whatsoever. And that is literally our only defense mechanism/survival method. We have no fangs or claws or poison sacs. We are squishy little two legged meals if were out in the wild alone. But put a dozen humans together and we can take down a mammoth. Morality was absolutely necessary to our survival as a species.
No, morality is not depended on anything. People should know to moral not because it's written out for them but because it is the correct thing to do. You don't need the Ten Commandments to tell you that murder and stealing is wrong.
Apparently hate is a moral instinct in radical Christians. Reading the hate spewed by FromWithin, Nowasaint, brontoraptor and a couple of other faux Christians (at least anti-Jesus), on CD and around the country! I'm a proud Atheist. I could NOT embrace a religion that breeds such vicious cruelty and hatred for those who think differently, and I am NOT singling out Christianity, or any other religion, many of whom are good people. It's just the few that think everyone MUST agree with them! (The sick ones).
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."
people most definitely is not. As the late Christopher Hitchens once said, and I paraphrase: "to think that I couldn't differentiate right from wrong if I didn't have a controller over me, is offensive." And it is, we humans are capable of as much goodness as we are capable of evil, but we don't need religion to figure that out for us. A person can be perfectly moral without a religion.
Actually, religion affecting people´s morality has a negative effect. It makes faith or "god" an excuse to do basically anything you want, evil or not. The bible for instance, says husbands should stone their wives if they are not virgins by the time they get married. The ten commandments say nothing about rape. Some religions allow woman to be punished by killing them, but if they are not virgins they can rape them first to then kill them. The worst part is that the people committing this atrocities think they are acting in a good and even riches fashion. All of this because of religion interfering with people's morality.
Ok to start this is my personal opinion and I do not claim it to be fact. I would argue that if anything, religion has the ability to corrupt morality. It gives the rights and wrongs and lists the punishments and rewards for both. This is where the term "God fearing man" comes from. I believe that a truly moral person should do good deeds and be a good person out of the kindness of his/ her heart. Being good simply out of fear of punishment in the afterlife doesnt make you a good person in my book. I am not overly religious but I do believe what we do in this life effect what comes after this life in some shape or form. I don't base my good acts solely based on this however. When I do something right or wrong I know in my gut whether it was good or bad. If I am mean to someone and recognize it I feel remorse and try to make up for it by apologizing or a good act towards them ect. When I do something good, i feel good about it inside. I rarely think about how it effects my religious standing with God. Even if i knew for sure at death there was nothing it would not change these actions and I believe the majority of people are the same way or at least id like to think that. I would probably try even harder to be good if that was the case because then all that would matter is how I feel about my self and I would want to feel that a led a good life.
LOL, you can thank me for your debate suddenly getting all this attention and garnering you all these points from the dysfunctional stalkers who run to my every comment. They fear my every word because they know it to be true.
You must have wondered what happened all of a sudden to your debate. We have stalkers on this site who copy my every debate and spend their lives watching for my every word, and then attacking me with a thousand insults.
If you are the type of debater looking for points, we might make a deal :)
They fear my every word because they know it to be true.
Fear? You have run from every argument and you think we have fear? You stalk us and down vote without giving any responses and we have fear? You create entire debates to respond to a single argument then block all the people who would totally rip apart your nonsense and we have fear?
Youre one to talk about debates not getting attention when you spend the vast majority of your time in little echo-chamber debates where everyone else is banned but a select few that you can circle jerk with.
Perhaps people wouldnt need to track you down outside of your debates if they were able to voice their opinions to you inside of them.
Youre really shocked that you post nothing but inflammatory things against liberals on this site and thus people want to pick an argument with you?
On a DEBATE site? GOD FORBID.
People wouldnt have to copy and paste your debates if you werent such a pussy and didnt ban everyone who actually wants to argue against you.
You might have an ounce of credibility if you were banned from my debates. You are NOT on my ban list and you seldom respond to any of my debates.
I have no problem debating people who are not vulgar, deceptive, or childish. There are Liberals on this site that I seldom ban because they stay civil and actually address my arguments with opinions rather than insults.
Spew your insults to someone dumb enough to believe your rhetoric.
I haven't been on this site for a solid 6 months. As of the last time I was on I was ABSOLUTELY on your banned list.
Vulgar and childish? Hahahaha all you do is shit talk and whine about liberals using all kind of childish names. That's your shtick.
Liberals that you seldom ban. Pfft. Cuaroc is banned. I WAS banned. And cartman is banned im sure. He was when I was. We were some of the highest profile people on the site and some of the most frequent users. Hence why after we were banned your debates got zero traffic.
If you ban people for any reason other than spam, or pure insult with NO relation to the content topic you're a pussy.
I might call your stances idiotic. But I always respond to them.
Lmao what "rhetoric"? The rhetoric that I was banned? That would be a fact. Not rhetoric
If you didnt ban people there would be no point in copying your debates. You post inflammatory shit knowing full well people will want to respond to it. Then you block them from responding to it. Then you get mad when we copy it elsewhere so we can actually respond to it.
Insecure! HAHAHAHAHA says the pussy who bans people on a debate site.
You weren't praised as a child, your relationship with your parents was meaningless, and you've been abused in many ways throughout your life.
That's why, your development couldn't properly take place and yet you do desperately crave validation, which is the reason for all your debates and that screaming of words which is practically your signature. Also all the downvotes.
This has nothing to do with an ego. I want these dysfunctional fools who copy my every debate and chase my every comment, to be shown for the insecure dysfunctional stalkers they are.
I want everyone on this site to learn to ban these idiots because they are a total waste of time to debate.
The site clown copies every debate and the other insecure stalking fools post on his copied debates purely to insult me, not to debate the issue. This is why they are banned and a total waste of time.
It's hardly to insult you....or it could be....I can't speak for them, but if they are banned or know that they will be they will comment elsewhere. It's your banning practices that breeds that.
Read what I wrote again. This is usually the people who know you will ban them or are pre-banned. I've had some great conversations with you, even though we don't see eye to eye often but if I was I would probably respond to Curo...Curaoc? copy post just to point out my side of it.
Except for me. I have countered your arguments countless times. I have even done it without insulting you sometimes. You are lying. You just don't like counter arguments.
