Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

First Principles


infotheorist

Recommended Posts

You're saying "being polite to your neighbor" is a moral code? I think that's a stretch to what moral code really means. Is putting the TV remote back where you took it also a moral code? If I understand you right, "kindness" should be seen as a moral law, implanted in us or something? If so, I can't understand why it's so hard to understand that this could be the result of evolution. My dogs are kind to each other, are they moral? When we got the smallest one of them, Joey, she was so short to reach up to the ears to the other dogs, but she wanted to play and she was jumping and trying to bit their ears. It's a game I saw them play a lot, even the older dogs. But since she couldn't reach, she couldn't really play. So our middle dog, Tessie, she kept her neck bent down so the little dog could reach and could play. Was that a moral code of kindness implanted by god into my dog?

 

I have other stories like that. In my opinion my dogs love each other, and they're not even related. One is a poodle, one is a dalmatian and one is a papillion/poodle mix, and yet they show compassion, kindness, anger, frustration, happiness and much more. Then of course you say that I read in too much in what I see, but my answer is, then I'm reading in way too much in what I see humans do. I interpret humans intentions based on their actions, and somehow the religious people that are quite anti-animal oriented, can't allow anyone do the same thing when we look at animals. But I'm sorry buddy, I can see the dogs got emotions. And you can only see it, if you accept that they are just the same stuff as we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • infotheorist

    66

  • Ouroboros

    57

  • NotBlinded

    26

  • Kuroikaze

    19

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You're saying "being polite to your neighbor" is a moral code? I think that's a stretch to what moral code really means. Is putting the TV remote back where you took it also a moral code? If I understand you right, "kindness" should be seen as a moral law, implanted in us or something? If so, I can't understand why it's so hard to understand that this could be the result of evolution. My dogs are kind to each other, are they moral? When we got the smallest one of them, Joey, she was so short to reach up to the ears to the other dogs, but she wanted to play and she was jumping and trying to bit their ears. It's a game I saw them play a lot, even the older dogs. But since she couldn't reach, she couldn't really play. So our middle dog, Tessie, she kept her neck bent down so the little dog could reach and could play. Was that a moral code of kindness implanted by god into my dog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have some echo in here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your questions, the location of my remote is not a moral issue. I also don't think the dogs are living by a moral code.

 

Have you ever done something, even when no one was looking, and felt guilty about it afterwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have some echo in here. :)

Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we say something is good and something is bad, we say the good is closer to the standard. Before socity developed the standard and people just acted naturally (naturalism), how did they determine what was closer to the standard that wasn't there yet? I keep trying to push the process back to when naturalism meant just behaving and not knowing to behave otherwise (as one ought to).

 

as I've tried to explain, I think that it is simple trial and error. Take an example, If I start poking you with a stick and you tell me to stop, but instead I keep poking you. Then as a result you punch me, I'll probably learn that poking you with a stick is a bad idea.

 

Part of the problem is that you are trying to draw an imaginary line between naturalism and morality. It was a completely natural evolutionary process that caused humans to join together in societies in the first place. Humans choose to obey certain codes of conduct because if they didn't they could not form a successful society.

 

Again, you are still trying to make morality some mystical absolute standard, when in fact it was a standard that we invented to deal with the very real problem of how to get along with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your questions, the location of my remote is not a moral issue. I also don't think the dogs are living by a moral code.

 

All animals that live in any form of society have a kind of moral code. Did you know that wolves will sometimes sacrifice themselves so that the pack can live? various ape societies will often punish apes in the group who something considered wrong by the group

 

Have you ever done something, even when no one was looking, and felt guilty about it afterwards?

 

Yes, don't you think that the evolutionary process and thousands of years of social conditioning can produces this kind of response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your questions, the location of my remote is not a moral issue. I also don't think the dogs are living by a moral code.

 

Have you ever done something, even when no one was looking, and felt guilty about it afterwards?

When my dogs have done something bad they know they're not allowed to do, they come to me with their tail between their legs and I know they've done something wrong. (For instance, gone into the trashcan and pulled it out to get to some yummy human food.) Their greed or desires overtook the moral duties, and they come to me for forgiveness. If you say that I'm wrong, then prove it.

 

The remote control location is very important, because it shows if a person cares about the people around him or not. It shows compassion and if they care. In your argument, "be kind to your neighbor" is just as small or big as being kind to your family member and putting the remote in a location where they can find it. So either "kind to neigbor" is a moral law and also the "put the remote in its place", or neither is a moral law.

 

I also assume you didn't look at the links Chef gave you earlier. Scientists have proven that some apes live by moral code and even have a police system. Please look them up, read them, and contemplate your standpoint about what moral really is.

 

And I don't think you read my post about game theory either. You should realize that the science and philosophy has moved along quite a bit the last couple of years, and the ancient philosopher ideas don't really work anymore.

 

-edit-

 

And it has been proven that rats know cause-and-effect of their actions, and make decisions based on it. So we have to rethink some of our understanding of the animals and how highly evolved they really are, and how much they actually do understand.

 

There is an ape that knows 500 words. She used hand-signs, and she can express love, hate, sadness, and much more. Know, most of us don't use more than around 500 different words on a daily basis. Is she that much dumber than us? We judge the animals, not because of their lack of intelligence or understanding, but solely on their inability to speak human language. Shame on us for being so prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that I find curious about you IT, you took the theory of the Big Bang and used it as part of an argument for first cause, where you had no problem to take the side of science, and then we look at morality and how philosophy and science can explain it with naturalistic means and there you take a stand against it. Why is that? What kind of guideline are you using for picking one theory over another? What kind of principle do you use to make the decision what science you like and what science you dislike? I assume you're using a very old book to establish what you want to listen and believe to, instead of using rational thought and consistency based on contemporary arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that I find curious about you IT, you took the theory of the Big Bang and used it as part of an argument for first cause, where you had no problem to take the side of science, and then we look at morality and how philosophy and science can explain it with naturalistic means and there you take a stand against it. Why is that? What kind of guideline are you using for picking one theory over another? What kind of principle do you use to make the decision what science you like and what science you dislike? I assume you're using a very old book to establish what you want to listen and believe to, instead of using rational thought and consistency based on contemporary arguments.

The mystery of the man on the other side of the computer. The bottom line is we have obviously very different biases when we approach these subjects. Maybe you are right that I am not as objective and as open minded as I sometimes should be. We are probably all guilty of that here. I do read what you write and process what you have to say. I appreciate the fact that you guys consider me worthy of further discussion. I think this kind of stuff is healthy. Honestly, I think most theists don't do this kind of stuff enough. If there is one true reality to everything to what we are talking about, then we should be open minded. Thank you for your honesty.

 

I don't downplay any of the examples in the animal world that you have given me. I also misunderstood your remote control example. I didn't realize there was another party involved unhappy with my placement of the remote. That totally changes the dynamic from me placing my remote wherever. I still have a hard time getting from what is to what ought to be.

 

Let me ask 2 questions to see if we can flesh this out some more. Does any society have a moral standard that is better than another? Does life have intrinsic value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask 2 questions to see if we can flesh this out some more. Does any society have a moral standard that is better than another?

 

it depends on what you mean by better, I'm not a pluralist so I don't think all ideas are equal, but better is a simple term to use here. I think there are some moral standards that work better. In other words, some standards are better for the survival of society and the happiness of individuals. As far as I am concerned there is no other rational definition of better when it comes to morality.

 

Does life have intrinsic value?

 

 

What do you mean by intrinsic? Fundamentalist Christians usually mean value assigned by god, personally I don't need a third party to validate my worth.

 

My thoughts on this is that there is no value without someone to assign value, so Life has value because things that are alive value themselves and the other living things around them. There is no value outside of that context because there is nothing to value them (that would imply a god...and there isn't one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mystery of the man on the other side of the computer. The bottom line is we have obviously very different biases when we approach these subjects. Maybe you are right that I am not as objective and as open minded as I sometimes should be. We are probably all guilty of that here. I do read what you write and process what you have to say. I appreciate the fact that you guys consider me worthy of further discussion. I think this kind of stuff is healthy. Honestly, I think most theists don't do this kind of stuff enough. If there is one true reality to everything to what we are talking about, then we should be open minded. Thank you for your honesty.

I appreciate our conversation and your sincerity in discussing this. And I do think it is healthy, especially for anyone that is religious minded, to consider and ponder about these things.

 

I don't downplay any of the examples in the animal world that you have given me. I also misunderstood your remote control example. I didn't realize there was another party involved unhappy with my placement of the remote. That totally changes the dynamic from me placing my remote wherever. I still have a hard time getting from what is to what ought to be.

Well, what I mean is that if "kind to neighbor" is a moral code, then "kind to my family" is just as much or more, and the remote control is just an example of the right action someone should take in their kindness to their family.

 

Considering the "kind to neighbor" I have to admit that in my neighborhood the religious people are less kind than the atheist/agnostic ones. I don't know why, that's just what I've observed. The religious ones have a higher level of demanding their "rights" and demanding other neighbors to give them what they "ought" to have, without giving the same back.

 

How far should you take this "kindness"? If your neighbor tear down your apple tree because it hides the view, should your kindness allow this to happen, or should you send a complaint to the association? What is "kindness" in your opinion? I hope you realize that this word "kindness" and even "moral" is a very gray subject. For instance consider "murder". It's immoral to kill someone, except when it's war, or you defend yourself or if by accident or if it's capital punishment or ... You see my point? Moral isn't a cut-n-dry definition of anything. No one can, not even religious people, define the exact meaning of morality. How do "do to others as you want them do to you" work if you're an sadomasochist or a masochist?

 

Let me ask 2 questions to see if we can flesh this out some more. Does any society have a moral standard that is better than another? Does life have intrinsic value?

I don't think any society have one single moral standard. If you look at US you will find a plethora of different standards, but most gravitate to a few basic concept, which one is "don't hurt other people, because then they can hurt me."

 

If you talk about laws and culture, some societies give more personal freedom and let people have more options in life. That is not a moral construct, but a construct by law and constitution.

 

Does life have an intrinsic value? In a global sense probably not, but it have a value to me personally, and for me to live a long and happy life (such selfish notions!) I know I can succeed in such if I don't go and rob a bank or kill someone. I don't want to spend my life in prison, but I want to spend it with my family. My personal wish and desire is to live with my wife until we grow old, so I don't cheat on her. Simple things, simple rules, no god is needed to define my life and I can understand fully why I have to do things a certain way, and why they are right and wrong. I know this because of what I want in the long term. If I didn't have a wish to fulfill my desires, I'd live on the street in a box (preferable insulated cardboard :) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you IT,

 

Does absolute moral exist?

 

If your answer is yes, then is it immoral to kill someone?

 

If you answer yes, then is it immoral to kill someone that is about to attack or kill your wife and kids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that you are trying to draw an imaginary line between naturalism and morality.

Kuroikaze, thanks for being patient with me (even if you are getting frustrated with me). I was at a class tonight and I was trying to define your position to some people, but I was having a hard time with it. Since naturalism is nature and the laws of nature, can you give me the physical law that describes morality? That will help me know better how these 2 worlds (descriptive and prescriptive) meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you IT,

 

Does absolute moral exist?

 

If your answer is yes, then is it immoral to kill someone?

 

If you answer yes, then is it immoral to kill someone that is about to attack or kill your wife and kids?

Did I take a wrong turn? I thought I was on the ex-christian website defending theism. Sorry, I just had to do that. I hope that didn't offend you. I assume you come from a Christian background, so you should know my answer. Also, murder and justice are 2 different things.

Does life have an intrinsic value? In a global sense probably not, but it have a value to me personally, and for me to live a long and happy life

So life doesn't have value, but it does to you. So you are pro-life then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is nothing more than a description of interactive behavior among social animals.

I see what you are saying about animals making decisions, 1. but I don't really understand how a decision for survival is the same as me being polite to my neighbor because of my moral code. Can I ask you a personal question? 2. Do you have your own personal moral standard by which you live?

 

1. That's because you haven't thought it out. You just assume that politeness is metaphysical. Politeness works to help you assure a position in the group. Now of course your neighbor may not be part of your monkey sphere, but since you are hard wired to be polite unless circumstances intervene, you will be polite. Yes, it is true that you learned what your culture considers politeness (whether or not that burp was appropriate after the meal, or whether or not it is ok to touch your neighbor's child with your left hand), but the desire to be polite is part of your emotional make up.

 

2.Certainly you may ask. And certainly I do. And it's better than yours or I'd go by yours instead. :wicked:

 

When we say something is good and something is bad, we say the good is closer to the standard. Before society developed the standard and people just acted naturally (naturalism), how did they determine what was closer to the standard that wasn't there yet? I keep trying to push the process back to when naturalism meant just behaving and not knowing to behave otherwise (as one ought to).

 

So what is this standard that is apart from the hard wired desire for most humans to fit into their monkey sphere. Why do you insist that it be else where than in the individual and its interaction with the group. You may think it immoral behavior to be naked in public, but there are places where no one would give a second thought. You may think it moral to eat meat, but there are some who would consider it quite immoral behavior. Which one of these moral dilemmas is closer to the standard?

 

What moral behavior can you think of that neither aids group cohesiveness* and cooperation, or survival? When you do this try to consider what it was like before civilization especially global civilization got humans in it's a least doubtful clutches. Why? Because we haven't had civilization long enough for the evolution of our behavior to accommodate it. That may happen if civilization doesn't kill us all first.

 

*which of course aids survival or there would be no point in being social in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you IT,

 

Does absolute moral exist?

 

If your answer is yes, then is it immoral to kill someone?

 

If you answer yes, then is it immoral to kill someone that is about to attack or kill your wife and kids?

Did I take a wrong turn? I thought I was on the ex-christian website defending theism. Sorry, I just had to do that. I hope that didn't offend you. I assume you come from a Christian background, so you should know my answer. Also, murder and justice are 2 different things.

Does life have an intrinsic value? In a global sense probably not, but it have a value to me personally, and for me to live a long and happy life

So life doesn't have value, but it does to you. So you are pro-life then?

I'm just trying to figure you out. Some of your questions and responses are truly colored in a theistic view, so I'm just trying to see where you stand.

 

And actually I don't know the answer when it comes to "killing another human" according to the Bible, because it say that you shouldn't kill anyone, and yet it promotes murder and genocide. So no, I don't know the right answer for a Christian. If moral exists outside of ourself, i.e. an external source like god, then wouldn't moral be an absolute? And if "killing" is absolutely immoral, then there is no doubt that any kind of killing is immoral, regardless the reason for it. Justice is served in this country based on you intent and not your actions, so the real moral maybe should be defined of what you intended to do, not what you actually do.

 

When it comes to abortion I am pro-choice and pro-life. I believe that we should do what we can to help someone to avoid having to do an abortion, but yet if it is necessary there shouldn't be any condemning of the person making that decision. And observe, my self value really never touches the value of the fetus. My decision is not based on moral or ethics, but rather on compassion. And here we might come into a bit trickier subject than morality, unless you'd like to argue that they're both the same thing.

 

So IT, my real question is: what is morality? Can you define what you mean with morality, a moral action, a moral intent, etc, because I think that's where we have our biggest gap of understanding each other, so lets try to start from your end what morality really means.

 

--edit--

 

Oh, I just saw you answered it before.

When we say something is good and something is bad, we say the good is closer to the standard. Before society developed the standard and people just acted naturally (naturalism), how did they determine what was closer to the standard that wasn't there yet? I keep trying to push the process back to when naturalism meant just behaving and not knowing to behave otherwise (as one ought to).

Lets see... So the standard (majority opinion?) sets the morality code. Good or bad is what the majority decide is good or bad. Is that what you mean?

 

When humans where just hunters, I don't think they had a concept of social contract or culture the way we do. They most likely had some standards that were set in the family, like the elder decided what and when to eat etc, or where to hunt. So morality probably was to follow the lead of the leader, and conform to the family group. If you didn't, you most likely died, had no offspring and your "immoral" genes disappeared from the family tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that you are trying to draw an imaginary line between naturalism and morality.

Kuroikaze, thanks for being patient with me (even if you are getting frustrated with me). I was at a class tonight and I was trying to define your position to some people, but I was having a hard time with it. Since naturalism is nature and the laws of nature, can you give me the physical law that describes morality? That will help me know better how these 2 worlds (descriptive and prescriptive) meet.

 

 

My analogy about poking you with a stick is probably a good way to look at it. But lets take it down to the very basics. Lets say we are living 15,000 years ago in a hunter/gather society

 

The people traveled in small groups they owned very little if any property so the only thing they really had to loose was their lives. By traveling in groups they could maintain their lives (this is how social animals operate) a single human on his own would be quickly killed by a bear or lion or some type of animal, but in a group they could work together to kill those same animals and provide food for the group.

 

Now, can a group work together if they are constantly in fear that other member of the group may kill them? The answer of course is no. So the rule against killing one another was born out of a need to work together, and was essentially the way society had its beginning. This is a physical NEED (the need to live) that translates into actions.

 

Now of course some humans likely didn't work well in groups, but those would naturally be cast out...and as I said, a single human alone would probably get killed quickly (and even if he or she lived, would not be able to reproduce because there wasn't anyone around to have sex with).....this is commonly known as survival of the fittest and it is the most basic building block for evolution.

 

The ones who worked together had a better chance of survival, and thus the concept of morality was born.

 

I'm not sure if this really answers your question completely....but I'm not really sure you are going to get an answer to your question from my world view, because honestly it seems you want an answer to a question that doesn't even make sense to me, as your dividing line between descriptive and prescriptive just seems unnecessary to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.Certainly you may ask. And certainly I do. And it's better than yours or I'd go by yours instead. :wicked:

Hey Chef, thanks for joining in again. Why do you have a personal moral code? I am not talking about the one in the office or around friends. I am talking about the code when no one is looking. What do you do if you violate your code?

 

You said that your code is better than mine. What do we use to decide which code is better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do we use to decide which code is better?

The same thing you use to decide if something is hot or not. :)

 

Really though...It's a feeling that is invoked in you when you do something and what that emotion feels like will be based on what your experiences are. If you think that doing something is bad because of what has happened to you or to others then when you do it, you will feel a negative emotion whether you are alone or not.

 

I think you should think more about how a person is conscious to begin with instead of thinking about the secondary effects of consciousness. Just my thoughts though... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that your code is better than mine. What do we use to decide which code is better?

Personal opinion, experience, knowledge, culture, social influence, upbringing and genetic propensities and also somewhat influence from viruses, disease and parasite infections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah I was gonna say the same thing, we know a code is good because it leads to good (or desirable) results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice is served in this country based on you intent and not your actions, so the real moral maybe should be defined of what you intended to do, not what you actually do.

This is a great point about intent. Your analogies of monkeys and amoebas are descriptions of instinctive natural behavior, which is exactly what we would expect from naturalism. They don't say anything about intent, or the "oughtness" of the situation. Will the monkey decide tomorrow that he ought to share his bananas (or whatever the scenario was we had earlier)? I might do something that on the outside looks moral, but my intentions may be evil.

 

If someone comes at me screaming that her child is trapped in a burning building, my first instinct is to stay out of the burning building. Then something may tell me I ought to go save the child. This thing that makes me decide between the 2 choices is neither of the choices. It is something else. It is also the thing that makes me feel guilty if I choose option 1 to save myself. What is that and where did it come from?

 

When it comes to abortion I am pro-choice and pro-life.

Is there a connection between morality and law (I mean jurisprudence as a whole, not individual laws)?

 

So IT, my real question is: what is morality?

I would very simply define morality as what one ought to do. By the way, I didn't bring up the Bible, but since you did. The Hebrew word for murder is different from the word kill, just like in English. The command is not to murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal opinion, experience, knowledge, culture, social influence, upbringing and genetic propensities and also somewhat influence from viruses, disease and parasite infections.

If we say that moral codes are based on personal opinions, who is right? I like chocolate, you like vanilla, who cares? If we say one code is more right than the other, then we must be comparing it to some real morality that transcends our opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone comes at me screaming that her child is trapped in a burning building, my first instinct is to stay out of the burning building. Then something may tell me I ought to go save the child. This thing that makes me decide between the 2 choices is neither of the choices. It is something else. It is also the thing that makes me feel guilty if I choose option 1 to save myself. What is that and where did it come from?

 

The simple answer, and probably the one you don't want to hear, is that evolution (as well as social conditioning) has built into us a desire to do these things because it is beneficial for our survival.

Of course I'll admit this is somewhat of an overly simplistic answer, its really only the beginning of an answer.

 

Even if your argument had merit...and I'm not saying it does, it would still leave much to be desired when it comes to the orthodox Christian world view. This argument must assume that our innate sense of goodness must be pretty close to God's. Otherwise the whole argument falls apart.

 

In other words, if our innate sense of right and wrong differs too much from God then it still must have come from somewhere else and we are right back where we started.

 

So why is it that I (and others here) find so much of the bible totally morally repugnant? Please don't say it is because we don't understand it, because that is just not believable. God in the bible is misogynistic, racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc etc... Indeed he is almost every thing that MY sense of right and wrong tell me is bad. So if I am getting my sense of right and wrong from a 3rd party the it most certainly can not be the god in the bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.