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.
Biology. As a societal species we are (when mentally healthy) repelled by the thought of potentially reducing our numbers (via the death of infants, for example).
Now certain instincts will override that. For example, there are some historical records of infants being killed either due to apparent birth defects or disease, or due to starvation-level or other dangerous conditions.
But in general, a normal, healthy Homo sapiens will be repelled by the thought of hurting a member of its species, particularly infants, as, again being societal, we instinctively protect rather than harm possible future productive members.
Now, there ARE some animals which are clannish, and which will kill their young for reasons other than disease or starvation. For example, a lion attempting to take over a bunch of females will kill the current alpha lion and if it can, it will kill the babies. That is to make the females go into heat again (as they are no longer nursing) so that the new alpha lion can spread its own seed. Again, that's instinctive. We don't have that instinct. But to the lion, surely such a thing wold not be considered "immoral" if it had such a concept. To us it DOES seem "immoral" because biologically we are not designed to "take over a pride" in that way.
How can a biological process or a product of chemical reaction be immoral? We can certainly find that it's not conducive to society..but we can't call a natural process "immoral".
How can a biological process or a product of chemical reaction be immoral?
It can't. Technically, it's species-supporting.
However, as a verbal species we affix the word "moral" to it, due to how it makes us feel more so than what it actually does. (Verbal and written language is symbolic and can never fully convey a message.)
So for example, torturing a baby to death feels awful (for reasons I stated) and emotional, therefore we conclude it is the word/concept we affix to it: immoral.
The reason "morality" is difficult to gauge and seems to change from culture to culture and even situation to situation is that there isn't an actual "morality" in a literal sense...there is only species supporting, and species self-defeating.
So for example, we would feel it was immoral for a man to come into our house and kill us.
But we (or many of us) would feel it was *moral* to kill that man.
Both are killing. Hence you can not unilaterally say "killing is immoral." The idea of "immorality" will always be slippery, due to this fact of it being situational, as well as the fact of language being symbolic.
However, the word and concept of "morality" do exist among humans and therefore, we can only affix its general rules to what it's actually based on: whether a given action is good for our species, or bad for it. Therefore, yes, it is biological.
As a verbal species we affix the word "moral" to it, due to how it makes us feel more so than what it actually does. (Verbal and written language is symbolic and can never fully convey a message.)
So for example, torturing a baby to death feels awful (for reasons I stated) and emotional, therefore we conclude it is the word/concept we affix to it: immoral.
Yes, as Lane Craig argues it, it is a fallacy. I think it is affirming the precedent, as you said. Or as either Thunderfoot or Qualiasoup said in their video specifically addressing Lane Craig's Kalam argument, it only works if one assumes something at the start - that morality is absolute and authoritative and thus has to be plonked down by an undisputable authority. since humanism is unable to come up with anything better than contradictory human opinions on morality, it is invalid and ...there is a bit of logical misdirection here...can only exist as a valid moral code if God gave it.
This of course fails the way Kalam does - it only raises the question of: "'Which god, which religion, which holy books and which moral code?".
That is answered by: "'There is only one", and by observing that in religion and moral codes, they all basically agree on essentials. That of course merely raises the same question again - which one/which ones? So we are back to varying human religious codes, so we are no better off than with a human concensus -morality.
But it gets worse for Christianity. The very moral code that God handed down engraved on slabs of stone..which he then sent Jesus to bin by saying that most of it didn't matter and he had come to replace...*koff* Fulfil... the Law with his 'Jesus saids"...and which innate law Paul claims was 'written on our hearts' (I'll say more about that later ) makes the Bible and its example (1) look bad compared to human morality today, though it would probably pass without comment in the iron age.
The very attempts by Christian apologists to explain these things away shows that the Know they are wrong. But if they are in the Bible, they must be good - right? I mean unless God denounces the doing of them. He orders the slaughter of the Midianites, issues rules for slavery but never hints that it is wrong. If he denounced slavery to Paul, Paul certainly doesn't denounce it to us.
But through the 18th and 19th centuries, in the West, we came to see that slavery was wrong and, if as many Christians were abolitionists as those fighting for slavery, it can't have been a Biblical moral code they were both sides basing that on (2).
The abolitionists view was rather humanistic and (despite the lie about Darwin being racist) evolutionists would agree; slaves were as human and entitled to be free as anyone else. It was rather the advocates of slavery that appealed to the Bible for support. Humanist morality is therefore superior to Biblical.
But, if it gets worse for religion, it gets better for humanist morality and atheism. There are basics to morality. Morality is not as Lane Craig would have it, laws given to us by God, but instincts given to us by evolution. That they are evolutionary is shown by their being there to aid survival, not to do good or evil. There is no innate good or evil but survival. Nope .. hold on before you protest. There are good survival instincts such as family and tribe co -operation and bad such as fighting the other tribe for resources and females.
But of course, while that is good enough for animals it isn't good enough for thinking humans. In fact some evolved instincts look bad to us, at least in animals. but the advanced problem -solving that led us to farming and community also enabled us (or that's my explanatory hypothesis anyway)to deal with conflicts.
They are not arbitrary rules or mere human preference, not based in reality. Just as Occam's razor is based in natural fact, the principle of reciprocity is also based on fact. If you fight someone, he'll likely fight you. If you negotiate with someone, he is more likely to negotiate with you. It is in the individual and community interest to evolve a code of morals and laws that will enable a community to work where family instincts might cause conflict - and do.
Education and problem solving based on the instinct to survive and survive comfortably if at all possible, is the basis of morality and the origin of moral codes. A divine authority is not.
So Lane Craig's assumptions are illogical at the outset - the old a priori assumption of a god without which theism has no argument.
But worse, that morality looks evidentially so NOT given by god, it is actually a darn good reason to conclude there isn't one. Or at least, not one we need bother about.
(1) yep. has to be a footnote. ..slavery is a hot example.others being the destruction of all creation including the fluffy bunnies apart from a token family and a breading pair of each kind of critter, sea -mammal (save the whale), plant and fatal bacillus; and the good old survival of fittest order to slaughter the rival tribe and take their nubile daughters to assimilate into your gene -pool.
(2) though as is usual with Theists, they would have both claimed it was God was on their side and should get the credit - whichever side won.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-15-2015 at 10:37 AM..
I agree that there is no possible way to say "morality" is absolute.
It will change given the circumstance.
As I said, if someone comes into my house to murder me, and I shoot him as he's descending upon me, nearly anyone hearing the story would feel the would-be murderer was acting in an immoral way, but that I was acting in a moral way, even though we BOTH had the intent to kill.
Stabbing a baby with a needle would definitely be considered immoral in nearly anyone's mind. But giving a child a vaccination would (generally) not be.
Refusing a child food must be immoral. Well...unless the food the child is being refused is something the child has an intolerance to. Or unless the child had just recently been vomiting.
And on and on and on...there is NEVER a way to make "morality", any morality (IMO) "absolute."
OK....so again....nothing is objectively immoral? It's all just how we see it?
Did you even read my post, Vizio?
Can you please for the love of God (sorry) get to the pouncing "aha" already? The suspense is killing me. And I know it's killing you. Rubbing your hands together all set to pounce. I guess that's that Christian love we've all been hearing about...Sometimes I wonder if people even hear themselves when they speak (or type).
But yeah, get it over with already so I can at least answer the oncoming "aha." I didn't watch the video/hear the argument I see people referencing here so I have no clue where all this is leading. Therefore, I am answering from a position of honesty rather than setting up a bunch of balls to knock down. I can see you're doing the latter, Viz, but it's all good, just out with it if you please.
Biology. As a societal species we are (when mentally healthy) repelled by the thought of potentially reducing our numbers (via the death of infants, for example).
Now certain instincts will override that. For example, there are some historical records of infants being killed either due to apparent birth defects or disease, or due to starvation-level or other dangerous conditions.
But in general, a normal, healthy Homo sapiens will be repelled by the thought of hurting a member of its species, particularly infants, as, again being societal, we instinctively protect rather than harm possible future productive members.
Now, there ARE some animals which are clannish, and which will kill their young for reasons other than disease or starvation. For example, a lion attempting to take over a bunch of females will kill the current alpha lion and if it can, it will kill the babies. That is to make the females go into heat again (as they are no longer nursing) so that the new alpha lion can spread its own seed. Again, that's instinctive. We don't have that instinct. But to the lion, surely such a thing wold not be considered "immoral" if it had such a concept. To us it DOES seem "immoral" because biologically we are not designed to "take over a pride" in that way.
OTOH, it's recorded that only a few thousand years ago, human societies did behave in that manner, and there are 20th century examples of the same thing happening--and not being regarded as "immoral" for the societies that did it.
BTW, I'm a Christian and do not argue that morality is objective, but that it's subjective to God. The argument for an objective morality is an ultimately anti-Christian appeal to virtue ethics.
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.
That of course merely raises the same question again - which one/which ones? So we are back to varying human religious codes, so we are no better off than with a human concensus -morality.
hold on before you protest. There are good survival instincts such as family and tribe co -operation and bad such as fighting the other tribe for resources and females. 
