Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2015, 01:06 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,779,219 times
Reputation: 1325

Advertisements

In the interest of keeping the discussion moving forward and not splintering into a million little back and forth exchanges and disconnected one-liners, I figured I'd try to outline something a bit more structured. I welcome criticism or further dissection, I certainly may be missing something and appreciate the chance to refine my thoughts.

On the nature of morality

What is morality? What does it mean for something to be right or wrong? We all have some sort of gut feel, and possibly a more refined philosophical view, but at its core, what is it?

So lets postulate a world, a complete reality with no sentient or conscious inhabitants. With no entities that can make a decision, that have a will, there seems to me to be no possibility for morality. What is right and wrong, good or evil if there is no one to choose one or the other, no one to desire an outcome, no one to benefit or injure?

So then from this, I would argue that 1) morality requires a moral actor, an entity to have desires, to have a will, and to make decisions. Morality is inextricably linked with choosing good or bad, right or wrong and without the ability to make choices, it is a meaningless idea.

This is a major problem for the idea of an objective morality. If an objective morality were to exist, it should not need a moral actor to do so. A moral actor, a thinking desiring, choosing entity implies subjectivity. There is inherently "something it is like" to be that entity, which should not be needed for an objective morality.

Secondly, lets populate our postulated world with one moral entity. How does this change morality? What behavior can a single actor engage in that can be evaluated as good or bad? I would argue in this case the only possible standard is the desires of that single actor. So morality is simply what our lone actor wants. Anything it does not like is bad, anything it does like is good. The basis of this is not might, or knowledge or goodness, or any other objective measure. It is simply the only viewpoint present, the only possible measure of morality. However, this view of morality as simply desire leaves much to be desired.

This leads us to the second idea, that 2) morality is dependant on the viewpoint of a moral actor, that is it is inherently subjective.

Now, let us add a second entity to our world. Now how do we define morality? Is it the view of the first entity, the second entity, or something else? I would argue that in this world each person may have a personal morality, but that between them they collectively hammer out a shared morality. In essence there are three moralities, each actor's view of good and evil, and whatever shared consensus they have hammered out. It may be hammered out by applying empathy and projecting one's own desires onto the other, it may be hammered out by inventing a third party and claiming that its view(which just happens to coincide with mine...) is correct, or it might be as simple as one entity forcing the other to capitulate.

From this we can see that 3) morality is a social phenomenon. That is, if morality is to be more complex and meaningful than simply one person's desires, it must become a social phenomenon involving multiple moral actors.

From this, it seems straight forward to me that morality as we experience it must be a subjective social phenomenon. It is an ever changing consensus on what we collectively desire, and can be radically different over time, or for different definitions of "we".

Is absolute morality possible?

It is often implied that absolute or at least objective morality is required for any moral judgements, but this does not seem to follow. In our second example, where the only standard of morality is the desire of a single entity, there is a clear standard of morality, although it is subjective. The desires of the only moral entity define right and wrong.

In the case of two entities, what is the basis of a shared morality? Is there an objectively correct basis? Without introducing our own morality into the scenario as an arbiter, it seems that there is no moral basis for preferring how this is handled. Within the scenario there are three judgements, that of Entity 1 (E1), that of Entity 2(E2), and the consensus view (C). Each entity uses its own view, and where they overlap, consensus occurs, and a shared moral framework is generated. Where there is disagreement, one party may convince the other, may force the other, may deceive the other, or they may agree to disagree and construct social or moral conventions to mitigate the clash of subjective moral views. But in this scenario there can be no morally privileged reference frame, there is simply no basis for preferring one subjective view, and any such basis is in itself a subjective moral judgement.

Now, one way of looking at this is that no one can make any moral judgement, since there is no way to objectively choose a reference frame. The other point of view is that we all choose a preferred frame of reference, our own. Each and every one of us judge morality based on our own reference frame. And the collision of multiple judgements is worked out in a collective moral yardstick, which in turn shapes our own personal measures of good and evil. The result of this is that there is no contradiction in each individual being able to judge good and evil, right and wrong for themselves, and the feedback cycle of our collective morality ensures that our collective morality drifts at a relatively slow rate. When it changes dramatically, the results tend to be bloody and nasty.

Objections to the divine origins of morality.

Often when an objective morality is postulated it is based on a divine morality, a God mandated definition of right and wrong. I find that this has some fundamental contradictions, and I will spell out a couple here.

If we postulate that there is a God, with no other moral being existing, it is clear that case 2) from above applies. If it is the only mind, then its subjective viewpoint is sufficient to establish a morality.

However this justification hold only as long as it is the only moral agent present. If such a God creates humanity, then either mankind cannot be moral agents, capable of making moral decisions and capable of bearing responsibility for those actions, or we require a new justification for why God's subjective view of morality is the preferred reference frame.

This new justification is crucial because it becomes the foundation for morality. Do we prefer God's reference frame because He is powerful? Then Might makes Right. Do we prefer God's reference frame because, as His creations, we are the fruit of His labor and thus His property? Then Lockean property rights are the foundation of morality. But in all these cases, the question remains, why is that particular metric the correct one? And even more troubling to the idea of divine morality, if there is some way to measure or justify the goodness of God outside of His own viewpoint, it implies that there is some other frame of reference by which we should judge God, which destroys the idea that God is the source of morality.

So we are left with no foundation for an objective morality at all, God or not. All we have is our own personal subjective view of morality, which shapes and is in turn shaped by our collective morality as expressed in our culture, nation, family, and religion. It may not be satisfying to some, but I cannot see another alternative open to us.

This does not preclude us from making moral judgements, in fact it makes it even more important to do so, because collectively, our moral judgements and perspectives will shape morality from now on. We each of us leave a tiny mark on morality itself. Out of a history of violence, bloodshed, oppression, tribalism, and division, these tiny taps and scrapes have begun to form a vision of equality, of peace, of cooperation and individual liberty, however incomplete and flawed it is.

In my mind, this makes the idea of being the change you want to see even more imperative. Like it or not, for better or worse, our attitudes and actions shape the future of morality itself. In a very real way it places a greater burden on us to be mindful and deliberate in our actions and beliefs.

-NoCapo

Last edited by NoCapo; 07-02-2015 at 01:14 PM.. Reason: And another thing...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2015, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,091,717 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
That's after the freewill division. Angels have a division, humans have another. After that , peace will come. God has foreknowledge to put whoever not qualified in heaven to divide during the earth period.

As for afterlife. God hid the Tree of Life from the reach of humans such that humans have no access to what would happen after death. The same day you choose to rely on your knowledge/intelligence to make a judgment to say that afterlife doesn't exist, the same day you shall surely die (Genesis 101).
You can't make this stuff up, folks!

Hmmm...wait a sec...well, I guess you can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 01:10 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,779,219 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
That's after the freewill division. Angels have a division, humans have another. After that , peace will come. God has foreknowledge to put whoever not qualified in heaven to divide during the earth period.

As for afterlife. God hid the Tree of Life from the reach of humans such that humans have no access to what would happen after death. The same day you choose to rely on your knowledge/intelligence to make a judgment to say that afterlife doesn't exist, the same day you shall surely die (Genesis 101).
The specific theology here doesn't matter, my point stands. If heaven is possible, then an omnipotent God could have gone straight to that. Unless God's hands are tied by some force greater than Him, all death, all suffering, and certainly any eternal suffering exist simply because God wanted them to. The only conclusion one can draw from that is that God likes suffering. Which then leads one to wonder why such a God should be worshipped and venerated as good...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 01:23 PM
 
Location: USA
18,461 posts, read 9,106,258 times
Reputation: 8495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins View Post
That's after the freewill division. Angels have a division, humans have another. After that , peace will come. God has foreknowledge to put whoever not qualified in heaven to divide during the earth period.

As for afterlife. God hid the Tree of Life from the reach of humans such that humans have no access to what would happen after death. The same day you choose to rely on your knowledge/intelligence to make a judgment to say that afterlife doesn't exist, the same day you shall surely die (Genesis 101).
Of course. It all makes sense now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Upstate SC
792 posts, read 493,789 times
Reputation: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Why? You really need to answer that before we can go any further. Why does the presence of harm determine immorality?
Google says: harm:actual or potential ill effect or danger.

If I have to explain why that is undesirable I suppose we are done.

I find it interesting that every single religious debate devolves into either definitions of words or personal experience. All of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 06:29 PM
 
468 posts, read 264,920 times
Reputation: 38
I should come back here and start terrorizing this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 08:48 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,678,753 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
You've made that lame accusation a hundred times...and you have never backed it up. I'm challenging you here and now to back it up. Can you do that?
The first born of the Egyptians. Not only did God kill them, according to the Bible, but he was the one who hardened Pharoah's heart in order to be able to justify killing their first born.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,091,717 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
The first born of the Egyptians. Not only did God kill them, according to the Bible, but he was the one who hardened Pharoah's heart in order to be able to justify killing their first born.
Vizio: "Deserved it. Every one of them was rotten to the core. God knew. It was execution, not murder. Next."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 09:40 PM
 
63,565 posts, read 39,855,129 times
Reputation: 7818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
You've made that lame accusation a hundred times...and you have never backed it up. I'm challenging you here and now to back it up. Can you do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
He routinely disregards ANY facts or supporting information no matter how logical or reasonable it might be. His God decides everything, especially innocence. So if God killed them, by Vizio's definition they were NOT innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Give me an example from that of God ever killing an innocent person, please.
Why. You will simply deny their innocence based on the fact that God killed them. In your twisted view God cannot kill any innocents because He decides who is innocent. You are a real piece of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
The first born of the Egyptians. Not only did God kill them, according to the Bible, but he was the one who hardened Pharoah's heart in order to be able to justify killing their first born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Vizio: "Deserved it. Every one of them was rotten to the core. God knew. It was execution, not murder. Next."
Ah, Trout channeling Vizio . . . very accurately, I see!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 09:53 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,088,332 times
Reputation: 32578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
It's a question that you and the usual suspects have been incapable of answering. You like to make fun of me for it, and you try to belittle me, as you have here...but you simply can't answer it. It's your thing. When youre argument is defeated, you start the ad hominems.
So you have a problem with people pointing out that much of what you post is lifted from the website of the aptly-named Slick. You present his arguments......as if they were your own. You repeat his questions....as if they were your own. And you feel belittled because people are pointing out that fact?

The seemingly- endless regurgitation of Slicksterism (TM) by someone who claims to have a master's degree is, quite frankly, pathetic.

If you have something to say that didn't originate in the aptly-named Slick's brain cells (such as they are)....go for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top