Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I'm sure most of you here are familiar with the argument from objective morality, but I'll lay it out anyhow so we're on the same page.
Objective morality is a moral law outside of your own subjective morals so that you could say that something is in fact morally good or bad and not just good or bad in your opinion.
So the moral argument is: 1. God could not exist without objective morals 2. Objective morals do exist Therefore God exists.
Let's ignore the logical fallacy "Affirming the consequent" and just look at morality for a second.
I think this is actually pretty interesting.
Why is helping disabled veterans good, and murdering children bad?
Even if we say something along the lines of what Sam Harris says, "good is maximizing everyone's wellbeing," that doesn't explain any sort of emotional response to doing so.
So I thought about this for a while and this is the conclusion I have come to:
Explaining Morality Without God
A successful species has to be able to reproduce well. The natural way of things is for the female to choose the best suitor to reproduce with and for the male to attempt to appear to be the best suited.
Therefore it is evolutionary advantageous to do things that make you appear to be a good candidate for reproduction.
Things such as murdering children are not enabling you to reproduce and may actively inhibit your ability to find a mate who will reproduce with you. (Who wants to have kids with a child murderer? - This is NOT evolutionary advantageous)
So we fast forward a few millions of years. Is it surprising that we might evolve chemical responses to situations that would affect our ability to reproduce and our ability to maximize our evolutionary potential?
Over the course of long periods of time, these traits would be likely to change to stay competitive. The traits would evolve along with us and with the cultures that form.
Answering questions from the perspective of this theory:
1. Why is lying wrong?
I proposed this theory to my Christian brother and his first question was "Okay, then why is lying wrong?"
9 times out of 10, the purpose of lying is to portray yourself as better than you actually are.
You might represent yourself as better than you actually are to get a job, after which the business owner realizes you lied and this puts him at a financial loss.
A financial loss is bad because it makes you a worse candidate for reproduction.
You might lie to make yourself a better candidate for reproduction. Once it has been discovered that you lied, the individual will have been tricked into not gaining the evolutionary advantage that they had previously expected.
So in short: maximizing your ability to reproduce is GOOD Hurting your ability to reproduce is BAD.
well. This is a great example in the difference between "how the universe works" and "How I am making the universe work for me and my meaning." "morals" doesn't prove anything but how one might feel about some action. It also shows, maybe exposes is a better word, what a person doesn't know. Like how to justify a claim.
A successful species has to be able to reproduce well. The natural way of things is for the female to choose the best suitor to reproduce with and for the male to attempt to appear to be the best suited.
Therefore it is evolutionary advantageous to do things that make you appear to be a good candidate for reproduction.
Things such as murdering children are not enabling you to reproduce and may actively inhibit your ability to find a mate who will reproduce with you. (Who wants to have kids with a child murderer? - This is NOT evolutionary advantageous)
So we fast forward a few millions of years. Is it surprising that we might evolve chemical responses to situations that would affect our ability to reproduce and our ability to maximize our evolutionary potential?
Over the course of long periods of time, these traits would be likely to change to stay competitive. The traits would evolve along with us and with the cultures that form.
This is an interesting topic to discuss outside of the banter with the typical theist talking points. Because in the process of either becoming atheist, or just more self-aware of why we do what we do, the question of morality and values does play a big part I think. I'll just put some thoughts out there, and I make no guarantees of coherence.
I can easily rationalize why I value my family, my kids, even my neighbors or community. I can rationalize these as helping me survive, helping me reproduce (though I'm less inclined to credit this one), serving my ego in a legacy of sorts, etc. But why do I value the lives of people I may never meet nor have tangible connection to? Because the truth is that I don't value as strongly their lives to those I have connections to...but I largely do want people to thrive. And not less than myself...so why?
How do we/I explain that? Delusional remnants from religion? I think not....I've been atheist since I was a child going to church. God? Yeah, no. I suspect a more physical or materialistic explanation.
I suspect I'm empathetic. An evolved instinctual emotion which allows us to mentally simulate what it would feel like to be another. And for this type of thing, I like to look at other animals to see if they express it. And sure enough they do to degrees which may correlate to their cognitive abilities. Dogs will often pant or whimper when their owner is sick or hurt. Chimps will grieve over a dead offspring. These are connected of course, but they are feelings of empathy where we truly see no cognitive ability to correlate that with survivability...or legacy for the ego. So in that sense....animals are caring about creatures that they can't consciously correlate to their survivability (let's assume the dog can hunt for food here, so as not to derail with semantics).
So maybe the golden rule actually stems from some deeply rooted sense of empathy. And perhaps those creatures that had the empathetic tendencies, tended to live long enough to reproduce and cooperate best.
Quote:
Answering questions from the perspective of this theory:
1. Why is lying wrong?
I proposed this theory to my Christian brother and his first question was "Okay, then why is lying wrong?"
9 times out of 10, the purpose of lying is to portray yourself as better than you actually are.
You might represent yourself as better than you actually are to get a job, after which the business owner realizes you lied and this puts him at a financial loss.
A financial loss is bad because it makes you a worse candidate for reproduction.
You might lie to make yourself a better candidate for reproduction. Once it has been discovered that you lied, the individual will have been tricked into not gaining the evolutionary advantage that they had previously expected.
So in short: maximizing your ability to reproduce is GOOD Hurting your ability to reproduce is BAD.
Opinions?
I think it's fair to say that one needed to live long enough to reproduce. And to do that...one needed to cooperate. And to do that...one needed the cognition or empathy or both....to cooperate and survive. But I don't think the motivation is rooted in reproduction.
As to why lying is wrong.....it is wrong because you are not allowing the person you lie to the same information that you have, in order to make more informed choices. And that suggests strongly that you do not value that person's cognitive abilities as highly as your own...or that you detect truth to be an existential threat. Otherwise....telling a stranger that the stupid hat they are wearing looks great....is essentially not wrong. You are simply avoiding harmin their ego.
So in short: maximizing your ability to reproduce is GOOD Hurting your ability to reproduce is BAD.
Opinions?
The above do make sense but it is not sufficiently precise and solidly grounded.
Objective Morality do not exists per-se.
However objective moral principles emerged within the following facts of nature as observed;
1. All livings things strive to survive at all cost and thus contribute to the preservation of the specie.
This can be easily inferred.
No individuals of any species are born to die without striving to reproduce first.
This point [1] is the solid grounding for objective morality.
2. It is from the above grounding that Kant set out his Categorical Imperative and sets of Absolute Moral Principles and Maxims.
3. One [1 of 5] of the Absolute Moral Principle is;
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
4. From 3 above the Absolute Moral Maxims are established.
5. One of the Absolute Moral Maxims from 3 is;
"Thou Shall Not Kill"
This Absolute Moral Maxims is absolutely unconditional in ALL circumstances and time.
The argument why the above is absolute is, if it is not absolute then ALL humans can kill in any circumstances which in theory will make the human specie extinct. This will contra the observed fact and grounded on 1.
Therefore "Thou Shall Not Kill" must be an objective absolute Moral Maxim.
6. We can establish other absolute moral maxims for lying and other evils.
If all humans can lie, then there will be anarchy and harms as a consequence.
Therefore there must be an objective absolute moral maxim, 'Lying is absolutely not permitted'.
7. Now the critical point is these Absolute Moral Principles and Maxims are not enforceable but merely guides for what is to be practiced.
8. In practice humanity can set practical ethical standards to guide one's consciences.
9. In the long run it is the duty of humanity to close the moral gap progressively between the objective moral laws, maxim and the practical standards.
So, I'm sure most of you here are familiar with the argument from objective morality, but I'll lay it out anyhow so we're on the same page.
Objective morality is a moral law outside of your own subjective morals so that you could say that something is in fact morally good or bad and not just good or bad in your opinion.
So the moral argument is: 1. God could not exist without objective morals 2. Objective morals do exist Therefore God exists.
..;.
Before going on with what follows, can I check what the argument is? It may make any difference to the question or the argument, but I thought it went:
"There cannot be be any meaningful (reliable, objective) morality without a lawgiver.
We live according to a morality that is meaningful (reliable, objective) and therefore it has to have been given by a lawgiver.
continuum above picked the point up.
Reliable, meaningful and objective morality cannot be human -given, since that is relative, subjective and unreliable.
The only reliable morality is an authoritative, absolute and unchanging morality, which can only come from laws given by a superior being - a god.
Since we have to have such a moral code or set of laws a god must exist to give them, and in fact there is a set of laws given by a god.
Therefore, since we have to have and do have these laws, the god must exist, and those laws are the morality by which we should live."
If I may say so, the proposition you gave has an inherent problem.
A god could exist without objective morals. Take the Greek gods who (according to the Greek philosophers) knew very well the rules of morality and approved humans living by them, but they certainly didn't abide by them themselves.
It is also not necessarily the case that there was an objective morality since what this was seemed to depend upon whom it suited. I won't go too far into that as it really is the thing that debunked the Greek gods and got Socrates executed for blasphemy, (1) but it does for Biblegod, too.
So I'll just see what is said about what I'm arguing.
(1) According to Plato, at any rate. And a side not on reason and evidence where we don't have personal knowledge. In fact, the latter is absurd since it would require everybody in the world to be present at very event or we couldn't take it for granted that it happened. Tis is why the "Were you there?" argument is absurd.
We have to do the best in going with what is more believable (weight of evidence and aits flip side - giving benefit of doubt where there seems no good reason to doubt it.
We have only Plato's word for it that Socrates was executed for blasphemy, and it must be observed that Plato does look like he was making up events rather than describing events. in "The Syposium", a meeting of notables, including Socrates, Alicbiades, a poet of the time, Aristophanes the comic playwight, a doctor or physician. And each makes a speech about "love", none of whom know the first thing about it, since human biology was in its infancy,at that time.
There is another useful factor here which I consider as significant as 'the principle of embarrassment' in assessing literary accounts - I hadn't made up a title..."better for the story than for the reality" I think covers it. I won't go into detail, but the "Stooge -line" where a remark is made that serves no purpose but as a feed line for what the author wants the character to say. Luke's "Increase our faith" is a prime example.
So I won't go into the details that suggest that the Symposium never actually happened, but ask, if we can't trust this as an actual even, can we trust Plato on the Death of Socrates?
Tis of course is the question about the Bible and that leads to whether we can trust any history -book and to my observation that Bible scholars have a tendency (as d historians, it seems) to prefer not to ask this question but take the accounts as reliable, otherwise they simply have no material to work with. It underlines my response to 'If we can't trust the Bible, we can't trust any other book' that is 'each such book should be assessed on its merits'. I won't digress into whether this in practice even matters, other than in the cause of academic satisfaction, but argue two points in favour of Plato.
(1) if Socrates hadn't been executed for blaspheming the gods, would Plato have dared to claim that he was?
(2) Aaristophanes in independent evidence that philosophers -and he picks out Socrates in particular - are blasphemers of the gods. So on balance, even if Plato's story shows signs of being made up, that doesn't mean that he is lying about the death of Socrates.
Cue the Bible -debate. And the serious point that, even if it is chock -full of invented material (The Shekel -eating fish is surely nonsense), that doesn't mean, does it, that the basic story isn't true, does it?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-22-2016 at 05:17 AM..
I think it's fair to say that one needed to live long enough to reproduce. And to do that...one needed to cooperate. And to do that...one needed the cognition or empathy or both....to cooperate and survive. But I don't think the motivation is rooted in reproduction.
I like your points on empathy, though I am still trying to figure out the situation where it is helpful to be empathetic. Is empathy generated due to morals or are morals generated due to empathy?
It's easy to imagine that empathy would be useful to make morality a more beneficial tool. It's also easy to imagine how morality could spawn from empathy.
To address what I quoted though, I maintain that survival and reproduction must be at the root.
Before I get into this, I'll readily admit that my lying example was poorly chosen.
What I am concerned with is how morality could have started. Once it is started, it is easy to conceive of ways it could evolve. I would say that if we can give a practical and logical explanation for moral ontology, then there's no reason or need for objective morals. Aside from that it's actually pretty interesting to think about.
To TRANSPONDER
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Before going on with what follows, can I check what the argument is? It may make any difference to the question or the argument, but I thought it went:
"There cannot be be any meaningful (reliable, objective) morality without a lawgiver.
We live according to a morality that is meaningful (reliable, objective) and therefore it has to have been given by a lawgiver.
The Argument from Objective Morality is actually unnecessary for this discussion; I just provided it for context. IE, "where did objective morality come from?"
The form of the argument I provided is from Dr. William Lane Craig.
As quoted from The Moral Argument for God | Reasonable Faith:
Quote:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
That said, there are other forms, as you pointed out and in all forms, objective morality is proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Reliable, meaningful and objective morality cannot be human -given, since that is relative, subjective and unreliable.
The only reliable morality is an authoritative, absolute and unchanging morality, which can only come from laws given by a superior being - a god.
Since we have to have such a moral code or set of laws a god must exist to give them, and in fact there is a set of laws given by a god.
Therefore, since we have to have and do have these laws, the god must exist, and those laws are the morality by which we should live."
If I may say so, the proposition you gave has an inherent problem.
A god could exist without objective morals. Take the Greek gods who (according to the Greek philosophers) knew very well the rules of morality and approved humans living by them, but they certainly didn't abide by them themselves.
...
So, I may have been misunderstood in my first post. I am not providing a root for Objective Morality, nor do I think the ability to prove a lack of or an alternate explanation for objective morals will disprove God.
I am providing a theory for why we experience morality and why it might appear objective. It may seem that my theory is proposing an isolated and independent morality explained by evolution; but on the contrary it is a personalized morality that closely resembles other people's due to common ancestry. IE, we all evolved together and the majority of cultures have not been isolated long enough to see much evolutionary difference.
This does bring up an interesting point though. If morality is an evolved trait then if there was an isolated group of people who have been isolated for a LONG time, we should expect that their morality may have evolved significantly different then ours.
Also, this is not a Christian specific debate. I'd prefer to leave specific religions out of this because I don't want the thread to get hijacked
Quote:
"better for the story than for the reality"
On a side note, I always liked "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story".
To Continuum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The above do make sense but it is not sufficiently precise and solidly grounded.
Objective Morality do not exists per-se.
This is the first time I've attempted to write it down. It's just been a thought in my head for a while, so constructive criticism is welcome.
I said this to TRANSPONDER as well, my original post must have not been worded well, I am not proposing an alternate objective morality. I'm proposing how morality would arise in the absence of a God or gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
5. One of the Absolute Moral Maxims from 3 is;
"Thou Shall Not Kill"
This Absolute Moral Maxims is absolutely unconditional in ALL circumstances and time.
The argument why the above is absolute is, if it is not absolute then ALL humans can kill in any circumstances which in theory will make the human specie extinct. This will contra the observed fact and grounded on 1.
Therefore "Thou Shall Not Kill" must be an objective absolute Moral Maxim.
I'm not sure I understand. I don't think any of this addresses moral ontology. This sounds more like semantics. It sounds like a way to create a morality. But what will this morality be based off of? Our morals.
"I don't want to get killed, so I must abide by the Absolute Moral Maxim and not kill anyone else."
My dear Skylark. I enjoy your posts and you are clearly a baanced and rational thinker. However...
Quote:
The Argument from Objective Morality is ...
The form of the argument I provided is from Dr. William Lane Craig.
'Nuff sed.
Others may wish to elaborate.
Quote:
"I don't want to get killed, so I must abide by the Absolute Moral Maxim and not kill anyone else."
This is the Principle of Reciprocity. It is actually a survival mechanism to NOT start a fight with someone who might sign you off. In fact along with fire, farming and fornication, social co-operation was the most advantageous invention of humanity.
It is a human convenience but a survival -enhancing one and so necessary that we suppose that there must be some Absolue basis.
The nearest is "If I don't want him to hit me, I'd better not hit him". This is close to the Golden Rule, which we might discuss.
There is no more Absolute rule than that, and when you think about it, we are better off without one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-22-2016 at 08:25 AM..
My dear Skylark. I enjoy your posts and you are clearly a baanced and rational thinker. However...
'Nuff sed.
Others may wish to elaborate.
Haha, I appreciate it. Don't get caught up the Argument from Objective Morality. The point of this conversation should be to talk about how morality arises in a God-free world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
This is the Principle of reciprocity.It is actually a survival mechanism to NOT start a fight with someone who might sign you off. In fact along with fire, farming and fornication, social co-operation was the most advantageous invention of humanity.
It is a human convenience but a survival -enhancing one and so necessary that we suppose that there must be some Absolue basis.
The nearest is "If I don't want him to hit me, I'd better not hit him". This isclose to the Golden Rule, which we might discuss.
There is no more Absolute rule than that, and when you think about it, we are better off without one.
No, that's not universal though, and it's not morality. If I know for fact that I can hit you and get away with it, let's say I'm 5'10, 300lb and 10% body fat, then what's keeping me from hitting you? Maybe I know you have a 350lb, 10% body fat friend who can roll me, but maybe you don't or maybe I don't know it. My understanding of the Maxim rule proposed by Continuum is that I wouldn't hit you because I wouldn't want anyone to hit me. Not because I think there's going to be a direct repercussion from hitting you.
Yes. Morality/ Ethics IS rather relative and yes, there are ways around it. And we do devise consensus rules that say if someone hits you and it doesn't matter, you don't hit them back. This all consensus -ethics enforced by social disapproval (or approval) if there isn't some legal force to it.
This is not absolute laws given by a god. It is nt perfect, but it s the best we have...it is ALL that we have. And we constantly strive (or so we like to believe) to make better rules and ourselves more willing to observe them because we know they benefit us in the long run.
P.s that is of course the Rationale. In fact, since we do not teach logic, critical thinking or any kind of sound reasoning at school, most people Do ethics because it's what it's what everyone else does and it's what they are used to. Pretty much the same reason they do everything else.
Yes. Morality/ Ethics IS rather relative and yes, there are ways around it. And we do devise consensus rules that say if someone hits you and it doesn't matter, you don't hit them back. This all consensus -ethics enforced by social disapproval (or approval) if there isn't some legal force to it.
This is not absolute laws given by a god. It is nt perfect, but it s the best we have...it is ALL that we have. And we constantly strive (or so we like to believe) to make better rules and ourselves more willing to observe them because we know they benefit us in the long run.
P.s that is of course the Rationale. In fact, since we do not teach logic, critical thinking or any kind of sound reasoning at school, most people Do ethics because it's what it's what everyone else does and it's what they are used to. Pretty much the same reason they do everything else.
It's not morality or ethics and does nothing to explain moral ontology.
Hitting or not hitting someone is not a decision of right or wrong. It's a decision of what's best for your survival.
I'm not saying the Maxim rules are bad or useless or anything along those lines, only that it's unrelated to the question topic.
It's essentially defining laws based on morals. The topic is how did morals come about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
