Morality Without Justice

[Cornell]

Moral behavior is a rational code to serve a purpose...even though the universe never gave humans a purpose to fulfill which therefore implies that purpose came from purposelessness....makes sense

And rationality came from mindless processes, which therefore implies that rationality came from non rationality...makes sense

What are you having a problem with Seer?

[seer]

moral behavior is a rational code to serve a purpose...even though the universe never gave humans a purpose to fulfill which therefore implies that purpose came from purposelessness....makes sense

and rationality came from mindless processes, which therefore implies that rationality came from non rationality...makes sense

what are you having a problem with seer?

lol...

[seer]

Your argument is that objective morals cannot exist in an exclusively natural world. Justice is a whole other question. If there is a moral system best suited to a world in which people can live in peace and joy together, such as your after life paradise, then that moral system by definition is objective. Whether people adhere to those morals, or are punished for transgressing them, has nothing to do with whether the moral principles themselves are objective in the sense that following them leads to the general good of all involved. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in the possibility of your after life moral paradise.

Jim justice is not a whole other question, it is integral to any moral/legal system. I will use this example again: If you went to a far country where a good portion of the population were allowed to steal, rape and murder with no consequences would you consider their moral or legal system rational? No, because it is unjust. That is your universe Jim.

[JimL]

Jim justice is not a whole other question, it is integral to any moral/legal system. I will use this example again: If you went to a far country where a good portion of the population were allowed to steal, rape and murder with no consequences would you consider their moral or legal system rational? No, because it is unjust. That is your universe Jim.

Justice for the transgression of morals is a whole other question than whether or not objective morals themselves exist. If objective morals don't exist, then the world of peace and joy that such morals would be founded on could not exist either. You believe in such a world, so you must also believe in the existence of the underlying objective moral system its founded on. Whether people adhere to those morals is another question altogether than that of whether they exist or not. You are being willfully blind to that fact since what people choose to do is an altogether different category than what it is people ought to do.

[seer]

Justice for the transgression of morals is a whole other question than whether or not objective morals themselves exist. If objective morals don't exist, then the world of peace and joy that such morals would be founded on could not exist either. You believe in such a world, so you must also believe in the existence of the underlying objective moral system its founded on. Whether people adhere to those morals is another question altogether than that of whether they exist or not. You are being willfully blind to that fact since what people choose to do is an altogether different category than what it is people ought to do.

Jim, of course I believe in an underlying and universal moral system - the law of God. And no such system does exist in a godless universe.

[JimL]

Jim, of course I believe in an underlying and universal moral system - the law of God. And no such system does exist in a godless universe.

And why ought people adhere to that moral system? Ought they adhere to it because it is objectively good, or ought they adhere to it simply in obedience? Is your paradise founded on a moral system that is "objectively good" for them, or is it founded on a system that is simply based on obedience. If the former then an objective system of morals that is good for people exists whether a God is responsible for it or not, if the latter, then it is purely subjective.

[seer]

And why ought people adhere to that moral system? Ought they adhere to it because it is objectively good, or ought they adhere to it simply in obedience? Is your paradise founded on a moral system that is "objectively good" for them, or is it founded on a system that is simply based on obedience. If the former then an objective system of morals that is good for people exists whether a God is responsible for it or not, if the latter, then it is purely subjective.

Jim, why or why not, men act morally is personal and subjective. The reasons vary. Men generally don't adhere to ethical principles because they are objective - most men don't even think that way. Besides, if you can get away with it, there is no good reason to follow these objective rules.

[Psychic Missile]

Yes, but why/how? Gravity is a physical force, what you are speaking of is a moral force. We know that matter and energy follow certain physical laws but why would the universe follow moral law? As far as I know moral ideals or considerations only exist in minds, not in rocks and gas.

It follows moral laws because that's how it's laws were set at its creation, just like any other scientific law.

You are completely missing the point. You made the claim: "science can verify true things to others." But that claim can not be verified by science. Yet you believe it is true. So not all truths are discovered by science. Your claim certainly is not scientific.

It's a hypothesis which can be tested through experimentation and verified by anyone.[/QUOTE]

[seer]

It follows moral laws because that's how it's laws were set at its creation, just like any other scientific law.

As far as I know only minds create moral laws. Do you know of something else?

It's a hypothesis which can be tested through experimentation and verified by anyone.

No, the question is - is science they only way to discover or know truth?

[Tassman]

Moral behavior is a rational code to serve a purpose...even though the universe never gave humans a purpose to fulfill which therefore implies that purpose came from purposelessness....makes sense

It does actually. The evolved "purpose" is survival of the species. Survival is the prime imperative of all living creatures.

And rationality came from mindless processes, which therefore implies that rationality came from non rationality...makes sense.

Humans and the higher animals have evolved to exercise rational decisions because they have survival value.

What are you having a problem with Seer?

Seer's "problem" is his delusion that the only form of survival that matters is eternal survival in an imaginary heaven with his imaginary deity. He dreams!

BTW: Nothing personal, but I amened you by mistake.

[Psychic Missile]

As far as I know only minds create moral laws. Do you know of something else?

What if minds don't create moral laws, but instead describe moral laws?

No, the question is - is science they only way to discover or know truth?

What other alternative exists?

[Cornell]

It does actually. The evolved "purpose" is survival of the species. Survival is the prime imperative of all living creatures.



Humans and the higher animals have evolved to exercise rational decisions because they have survival value.



Seer's "problem" is his delusion that the only form of survival that matters is eternal survival in an imaginary heaven with his imaginary deity. He dreams!

BTW: Nothing personal, but I amened you by mistake.

So which conglomerate of matter gives evidence to your claim that survival is our purpose to our species?

When did rationality come from non rationality?

[JimL]

Jim, why or why not, men act morally is personal and subjective. The reasons vary. Men generally don't adhere to ethical principles because they are objective - most men don't even think that way. Besides, if you can get away with it, there is no good reason to follow these objective rules.

We are talking about the objective moral system within which men live, not the subjective and personal morals of particular men. Those are 2 separate things. Men don't generally adhere to the moral principles of society which is why society codifes them into law to give them force. But none of that is the point, the question is whether or not there can exist objective morals in a godless world, not whether or not men abide by them. So, tell me, what is the point of the moral nature of your believed in paradise? What is the point of men behaving in accord with the moral principles of that world. Is it because the moral principles which are adhered to by all its inhabitants makes for a pleasant world in which to live? Isn't that why its called paradise? Of course it is. So then, if you understand that, then you should be able to understand that the existence of such a system is not dependent on minds, or a mind. Its a world in which there is no murder, no rape, no theft, no anything that could be detrimental to a pleasant and peaceful life for the inhabitants therein. The moral principles would need to be adhered to in order for it to work yes, but that is a different question as to whether such principles could objectively exist in a godless world.

[Tassman]

Tass is that all there is to ethics then it certainly is irrational.

Ya think! There's no reason why societies would devise an irrational code of behaviour. This is evidenced by the deities we've made in our own image. All of them have many of the same attributes we do...including similar notions of right an wrong behaviour.

Not only is justice not always done, it is also non-rational since the forces of nature that caused us to act this way are non-rational.

The forces of nature just and they demonstrably do

And there is no rational reason, or moral imperative, that we as species should survive in the first place

do have strong, evolved survival instincts. All living creatures do.

- so behaviors that cause us to survive are as meaningless as we as a species are.

[Tassman]

So which conglomerate of matter gives evidence to your claim that survival is our purpose to our species?

'Survival' is an evolved instinct and it's common to all living things. Why would you query this when survival is so important to you that you want it to last for eternity?

When did rationality come from non rationality?

At what point does a baby develop rational thinking from its initial non-rational condition?