Science of Morality

[seer]

So, you think that a "best world," based on a best moral system, can be achieved, but only if the moral system it is founded upon is ontologically grounded in a distinct deity? By what reasoning do you arrive at that conclusion seer? Your argument is that if a god did not exist, then a best moral system that you suppose is grounded in god could not exist or be followed either. Please explain how you get there. What difference would the non existence of a deity make in your after world paradise if the moral system were adhered to by its inhabitants? It would still be paradise, correct? The only argument you have is the "ultimate justice" argument, and justice itself has nothing to do with whether that moral system itself exists.

Jim you are just repeating yourself, again. How many times do I have to say that if all men followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth? With or without God. But the golden rule is a subjective moral position and no more objectively true or valid than the other golden rule; he with the most gold rules. And to the larger picture - that all our moral musing are just a meaningless as we are as a species.

No, no contradiction. Justice is distinct from the laws it adjudicates. Justice is only necessary should the moral system be violated, so it is distinct from the existence moral system itself.

And since many or most violations of moral law can not be adjudicated in man made systems, it is incoherent. If there are no consequences for wrongful moral acts then you have lawlessness, and lawlessness is incoherent when we speak of ethics.

And why do you suppose that it violates Gods law? Did god just make it up, did he just arbitrarily decide that murder is wrong? Could it be otherwise?

Jim, you already know the answer to this. God's law if grounded in His immutable more character - so it is not arbitrary. It is certain, unchanging and eternal. Unlike the laws of man. But you did not answer my point: how could murder could be wrong in itself in a godless universe? What makes it wrong apart from personal or collective opinion?

[seer]

as though

Tass you accused me of dishonesty:

So I will ask again:Tass, do we have the freedom of will or thought to do other than we do? And Do the Muslims have freedom to not think and act as they do? Have the not forces of nature predetermined them to do what they do?

And BTW - I am not widely condemned for dishonesty - I know of two other posters that have suggested such, neither of which do I trust to be objective.

[JimL]

Jim you are just repeating yourself, again. How many times do I have to say that if all men followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth? With or without God.

Then that is all you should need to know in order to understand that morality is objective. If the goal is a best world in which to live, a heaven on earth, a paradise or Eden, and there are certain rules of behavior that would, if adhered to, underlie and sustain that world, then those rules of behavior or morals are not subjective. They don't need to be grounded in anything else such as a moral being. The only thing subjective is the personal opinions concerning them. You may subjectively agree with them or disagree with them, but you would only be correct if you agreed with them, and that is what makes them objective.

But the golden rule is a subjective moral position and no more objectively true or valid than the other golden rule; he with the most gold rules. And to the larger picture - that all our moral musing are just a meaningless as we are as a species.

See above. There is nothing subjective about it. Your opinion of the rule is subjective, but the golden rule itself is not subjective. Also, your opinion that a "best world" for you and your family to live in is meaningless, is itself subjective, it is only your opinion, but such a world itself would be objective.

And since many or most violations of moral law can not be adjudicated in man made systems, it is incoherent. If there are no consequences for wrongful moral acts then you have lawlessness, and lawlessness is incoherent when we speak of ethics.

Again, thats a different discussion. Whether or not people adhere to moral law has nothing to do with whether or not moral law is objectively true, and that would be the same in your heavenly world as it is in this earthly one.

Jim, you already know the answer to this. God's law if grounded in His immutable more character - so it is not arbitrary.

And is it grounded in his immutable character because it is true, or is it true because it is grounded in his immutable character? You see, it has to be true in itself seer, otherwise it is arbitrary whether it is grounded in a deity or not, and if it is true in itself, then there is no need to assume it to be grounded anywhere.

It is certain, unchanging and eternal.

But have no need of being objectively grounded in order to be objectively true.

Unlike the laws of man.

That all depends on the laws. They can either be objectively true, or subjectively false.

But you did not answer my point: how could murder could be wrong in itself in a godless universe? What makes it wrong apart from personal or collective opinion?

The world that the law is meant to sustain makes it wrong. If your argument is that God is what makes murder wrong, then murder is not wrong in itself and that it is only wrong because god arbitrarilly chose it to be wrong. Again, murder is either wrong in itself, or it is arbitrarilly decided to be wrong and that goes whether grounded in god or not.

[Tassman]

Tass you accused me of dishonesty:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

In short your arguments are a strawman fallacy.

So I will ask again:Tass, do we have the freedom of will or thought to do other than we do? And Do the Muslims have freedom to not think and act as they do? Have the not forces of nature predetermined them to do what they do?

as thoughactualno substantive reason other than vanity.

[seer]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

In short your arguments are a strawman fallacy.

Tass you keep saying this but determinism is determinism. There is zero freedom of will or freedom of thought in your model, whether you use the term casual or not.

as though

If you are correct, the Muslims have no choice in how they think or act. And they are no more morally responsible than the rock that rolls down the hill and kills some one - and that is not misrepresenting your position. So when you bring a moral judgement against religionists like this: as bad as each other, it is completely meaningless, you might as well bring a moral judgement against the rock. Your position Tass is not rational. It is emotional.

actualno substantive reason other than vanity.

Yes Tass, you know this is what I believe. Along with the fact, like I said, that I have no good reason to assume that my experience of freedom is an illusion.

[seer]

Then that is all you should need to know in order to understand that morality is objective. If the goal is a best world in which to live, a heaven on earth, a paradise or Eden, and there are certain rules of behavior that would, if adhered to, underlie and sustain that world, then those rules of behavior or morals are not subjective. They don't need to be grounded in anything else such as a moral being. The only thing subjective is the personal opinions concerning them. You may subjectively agree with them or disagree with them, but you would only be correct if you agreed with them, and that is what makes them objective.

See above. There is nothing subjective about it. Your opinion of the rule is subjective, but the golden rule itself is not subjective. Also, your opinion that a "best world" for you and your family to live in is meaningless, is itself subjective, it is only your opinion, but such a world itself would be objective.

Jim, whether we should or should not follow the golden rule is what is subjective, that is opionion. That is an ethical goal, and goals are what are subjective.

And is it grounded in his immutable character because it is true, or is it true because it is grounded in his immutable character? You see, it has to be true in itself seer, otherwise it is arbitrary whether it is grounded in a deity or not, and if it is true in itself, then there is no need to assume it to be grounded anywhere.

It is true objectively only because it is grounded in God's immutable character. And of course with God you have authority. There are consequences for not following the golden rule. Not necessarily so apart from God.

But have no need of being objectively grounded in order to be objectively true.

Is it objectively true that we should follow the golden rule?

The world that the law is meant to sustain makes it wrong. If your argument is that God is what makes murder wrong, then murder is not wrong in itself and that it is only wrong because god arbitrarilly chose it to be wrong. Again, murder is either wrong in itself, or it is arbitrarilly decided to be wrong and that goes whether grounded in god or not.

Again Jim, God's law would not be arbitrary, and you did not answer the question - why is murder wrong in itself?

[shunyadragon]

Is it objectively true that we should follow the golden rule?

Objective truth is a myth.

Again Jim, God's law would not be arbitrary, and you did not answer the question - why is murder wrong in itself?

To many murders not enough people. We have o keep wrongful deaths to a normal level.

[JimL]

Jim, whether we should or should not follow the golden rule is what is subjective, that is opionion. That is an ethical goal, and goals are what are subjective.

I don't think so seer. Our choice as to what is good and what is evil is subjective, but what is good and what is evil in itself is objective. If murder is objectively wrong, then it is objectively wrong whether god exists or not. If it is only objectively wrong because god exists, then its objective wrongness must needs be arbitrarily decided upon and not objectively wrong in and of itself. Thats just basic logic.

It is true objectively only because it is grounded in God's immutable character. And of course with God you have authority. There are consequences for not following the golden rule. Not necessarily so apart from God.

Then you don't believe that murder is wrong in and of itself, which means that you only believe murder to be wrong because god arbitrarily decided it to be wrong. And there are consequences for not following the golden rule even if it is not grounded in god. Thats why the rule ends in "as you would have done unto you." It also has consequences for society as a whole, a society of which you are a part and so are effected by the transgressing of it. You would have to live in that immoral world.

Is it objectively true that we should follow the golden rule?

Yes! for the same reason that murder is objectively wrong in and of itself.

Again Jim, God's law would not be arbitrary,

I think I explained why it would logically need be arbitrary in the above reply. If murder is not wrong in and of itself, if it is not wrong even if god did not exist, then logically speaking, the fact that it is wrong would be dependent, and whatever is dependent is arbitrary.

and you did not answer the question - why is murder wrong in itself?

You have been given the answer to that many times over seer in this very thread, but the fact is that you just don't believe that murder is wrong.

[Tassman]

Tass you keep saying this but determinism is determinism. There is zero freedom of will or freedom of thought in your model, whether you use the term casual or not.

If you are correct, the Muslims have no choice in how they think or act. And they are no more morally responsible than the rock that rolls down the hill and kills some one - and that is not misrepresenting your position.

So when you bring a moral judgement against religionists like this: as bad as each other, it is completely meaningless, you might as well bring a moral judgement against the rock. Your position Tass is not rational. It is emotional.

See above re making effective choices.

Yes Tass, you know this is what I believe. Along with the fact, like I said, that I have no good reason to assume that my experience of freedom is an illusion.

[Tassman]

Jim, whether we should or should not follow the golden rule is what is subjective, that is opionion. That is an ethical goal, and goals are what are subjective.

It's an ethic we're predisposed to follow by our very nature.

It is true objectively only because it is grounded in God's immutable character. And of course with God you have authority. There are consequences for not following the golden rule. Not necessarily so apart from God.

The moment you start interpreting the supposed demands arising from "God's immutable character" as contained in God's alleged holy word, his supposed absolute qualities become subjective, i.e. they become the opinion of the interpreter and thus subjective.

Is it objectively true that we should follow the golden rule?

What is true is that we are genetically predisposed to follow the Golden Rule. This is how we've evolved as a social species. And this is why we can find variations of the Golden Rule in virtually every human society throughout history. And this is why, when the ancients were developing the concept of God, such qualities were attributed to him...i.e. because they arise naturally in us.

Again Jim, God's law would not be arbitrary, and you did not answer the question - why is murder wrong in itself?

"Murder" is generally held to be wrong because it damages the fabric of society, not because it is necessarily wrong in and of itself...after all we kill people in war or in self defence or in those countries that still practice capital punishment.

[seer]

I don't think so seer. Our choice as to what is good and what is evil is subjective, but what is good and what is evil in itself is objective. If murder is objectively wrong, then it is objectively wrong whether god exists or not. If it is only objectively wrong because god exists, then its objective wrongness must needs be arbitrarily decided upon and not objectively wrong in and of itself. Thats just basic logic.

You are not making sense Jim. In a godless universe nothing is objectively right or wrong in itself. You have to demonstrate how that could be. And no if God's law is grounded in His immutable character then it can be in no way arbitrary. It would be the most non-arbitrary thing possible.

Then you don't believe that murder is wrong in and of itself, which means that you only believe murder to be wrong because god arbitrarily decided it to be wrong. And there are consequences for not following the golden rule even if it is not grounded in god. Thats why the rule ends in "as you would have done unto you." It also has consequences for society as a whole, a society of which you are a part and so are effected by the transgressing of it. You would have to live in that immoral world.

Jim, of course murder is not wrong in and of itself - how could it be? And I'm not arguing for or against what kind of world that would produce, only that you can not demonstrate that things like murder in a godless universe are inherently wrong.

Yes! for the same reason that murder is objectively wrong in and of itself.

OK, prove it.

I think I explained why it would logically need be arbitrary in the above reply. If murder is not wrong in and of itself, if it is not wrong even if god did not exist, then logically speaking, the fact that it is wrong would be dependent, and whatever is dependent is arbitrary.

That is just silly, why would a dependent moral truth necessarily be arbitrary? God's moral moral character is not arbitrary - it is eternal, fixed and certain. The most non-arbitrary thing possible.

You have been given the answer to that many times over seer in this very thread, but the fact is that you just don't believe that murder is wrong.

First Jim, even if I wasn't a Christian I would subjectively believe that murder is wrong. But no, you have not given a coherent reason for why murder would be wrong in and of itself. You say, that it would make the world less livable - but that tells us nothing about whether your theory is true or not. But even that doesn't follow - a man does not have to believe that murder is objectively wrong to believe that it is subjectively wrong. Believing in "objective" moral facts doesn't change a thing.

[seer]

Tass please give me a direct answer. Do the Muslims or the monkey have the freedom to do otherwise? Are either of them morally responsible? Are are their behaviors predetermined?


Ok then Muslims are no more morally responsible than the ape.

[seer]

It's an ethic we're predisposed to follow by our very nature.

Just as we are genetically predisposed to be selfish and violent.

[JimL]

You are not making sense Jim. In a godless universe nothing is objectively right or wrong in itself. You have to demonstrate how that could be. And no if God's law is grounded in His immutable character then it can be in no way arbitrary. It would be the most non-arbitrary thing possible.

To argue that gods law, morals, are grounded in his immutable nature, tells us nothing about the nature of morality itself. If murder is only wrong because god exists, if it isn't wrong in itself, then that fact tells us that murder being wrong is arbitrary and dependent. Thats all there is to it seer. I understand that you will argue against that point until the cows come home, but you can't defeat that logic. Its like your kid believing that eating ice cream is immoral, not because there is anything evil about eating ice cream in and of itself, but because its being evil is just an eternal fact based on nothing. Morality is based on reason.

Jim, of course murder is not wrong in and of itself - how could it be? And I'm not arguing for or against what kind of world that would produce, only that you can not demonstrate that things like murder in a godless universe are inherently wrong.

I think I can, but again being right or wrong has nothing to do with punishment or reward. Morality has to do with human beings, and what is in best interests of human society, and that has nothing to do with whether an external source exists. There is no need of an external source of morality to exist in order to determine that.

OK, prove it.

Its not proof, its plain logic. You are the one asserting the existence and necessity of an external source of morality, so it is for you to prove it. What I proved logically is that there is no need of an external source in order to dtermine right and wrong, or what is good and what is evil.

That is just silly, why would a dependent moral truth necessarily be arbitrary? God's moral moral character is not arbitrary - it is eternal, fixed and certain. The most non-arbitrary thing possible.

Again, it is just plain logic seer. If a thing is neither good or evil in itself, then its goodness or evilness is arbitrary.

First Jim, even if I wasn't a Christian I would subjectively believe that murder is wrong.

Why?

Thats whats silly seer. But no, you have not given a coherent reason for why murder would be wrong in and of itself. You say, that it would make the world less livable - but that tells us nothing about whether your theory is true or not. But even that doesn't follow - a man does not have to believe that murder is objectively wrong to believe that it is subjectively wrong. Believing in "objective" moral facts doesn't change a thing.

Thats whats silly seer. Believing something to be wrong means nothing, if it isn't actually wrong. When it comes to morality what is right and what is wrong is what is in the best interests of of human life and human society, and that is based on reason and sound logic. But that doesn't mean that we actually know what that is, which is why, just as in the case of your idea of a distinct and objective standard, we don't actually know it.

[Tassman]

Tass please give me a direct answer. Do the Muslims or the monkey have the freedom to do otherwise? Are either of them morally responsible? Are are their behaviors predetermined?

apparenthttp://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/2318...ople-have-free

Ok then Muslims are no more morally responsible than the ape.

Just as we are genetically predisposed to be selfish and violent.

We are primarily predisposed to be reciprocal creatures that are genetically conditioned to accept the rules of the group. This is why we proscribe selfishness and violence within the group and have developed methods of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative communities.