Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jon

Moral law

Recommended Posts

Laws regarding what is and is not proscribed regarding human behavior in a society are in essence enforceable directives or commands.

 

Laws of physics/nature are not actually laws in that sense but are merely observation of what consistently happens.

 

They should be entirely different words.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws that govern departures between two parties are called bye-laws.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, end3 said:

Very very interesting my dear.  The group here will tell you that the laws exist outside our subjectivity yet will simultaneously tell you the whole thing is subject to our will.  WTF indeed.

 

You might not call me dear if you saw my beard but I digress. :)

 

I just wanted to clarify that even though the physical world functions in a certain manner whether or not people are here to observe it, a physical law like gravity or ohms law is just a mental construct. We watched the apple fall, we took note. We experimented with more apples falling then at some point said, "I declare that falling action to be called Gravity and it always happens here on Earth so I am going to call it a law." Just like a tree was never a tree until someone pointed at it and said "Tree'. Which is why I agree with Orbit's post. A natural law is just a mental description about the behavior of nature. My response was from a material science point of view.

 

...

 

Of course I am also interested in non-dual philosophy which may throw everything into the subjective box, but that's not what I was getting at earlier.

 

From a quantum mechanics (or Zen) point of view: If a tree falls in the forest .... well does the forest even exist if nobody needs it's existence for observation at that moment? (It'd be neat if it didnt. LoL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/07/2017 at 5:40 PM, sdelsolray said:

 

I disagree.  Many human-made laws contain moral or ethical precepts in the form of prohibitions of certain behavior.  Murder is an example, unless you want to claim murder is not a moral issue.  Of course, many human-made laws do not contain a moral component, such as a sales tax law.

 

I'm not entirely absolutely sure precisely with which part or parts of the section you quoted, you disagree, but I presume from the above that it centres on the statement "There is no moral law because morality is not codified into a legal framework"

 

That is not a denial that what is called "morality" is used in deciding how laws should be framed, but merely an observation that morality is amorphous, uncertain, uncodified and not, of itself, enforced as law.

 

It seems to me undeniable that law is institutionally created and procedurally enforced.  I practice criminal law.  If a prosecutor were to stand in Court and say: "This person has done something morally wrong", the reply would be "That is irrelevant.  What offence known to law do you allege?"  If a defence advocate seeking an acquittal were to say "This person has acted in a manner that is morally unimpeachable" the answer would be: "That is irrelevant.  Explain how the conduct does not amount to the alleged offence".

 

Murder, in a strange sort of way, makes the point.  What are its' moral boundaries?  Did the Spartans murder those children they flung from the cliff?  Clearly not - as they acted in accordance with their law.  Does the hangman murder the criminal?  Not if the law states such killing is lawful, or at least does not proscribe it as unlawful (depending on the precise concept of "legality" in a given legal system).  Killing is not automatically wrong as a matter of morality, the precise boundary of the moral issues are unclear and the offences of murder and manslaughter (I use UK terminology) merely set out those circumstances in which society has decided that killing is so damaging as to require action.  The question of what makes a killing unlawful is not a moral issue.  It is decided purely on what the law says.  Moral judgements may bring about pressures for legal change, that is true.  But morality, demonstrably, is not law, and law does not depend for its' validity upon morality.  Hence the two are distinct.

 

I leave aside issues over whether morality actually has any coherent meaning anyway - a point upon which I have doubts.  But that's another discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest end3
15 hours ago, Ellinas said:

 

I'm not entirely absolutely sure precisely with which part or parts of the section you quoted, you disagree, but I presume from the above that it centres on the statement "There is no moral law because morality is not codified into a legal framework"

 

That is not a denial that what is called "morality" is used in deciding how laws should be framed, but merely an observation that morality is amorphous, uncertain, uncodified and not, of itself, enforced as law.

 

It seems to me undeniable that law is institutionally created and procedurally enforced.  I practice criminal law.  If a prosecutor were to stand in Court and say: "This person has done something morally wrong", the reply would be "That is irrelevant.  What offence known to law do you allege?"  If a defence advocate seeking an acquittal were to say "This person has acted in a manner that is morally unimpeachable" the answer would be: "That is irrelevant.  Explain how the conduct does not amount to the alleged offence".

 

Murder, in a strange sort of way, makes the point.  What are its' moral boundaries?  Did the Spartans murder those children they flung from the cliff?  Clearly not - as they acted in accordance with their law.  Does the hangman murder the criminal?  Not if the law states such killing is lawful, or at least does not proscribe it as unlawful (depending on the precise concept of "legality" in a given legal system).  Killing is not automatically wrong as a matter of morality, the precise boundary of the moral issues are unclear and the offences of murder and manslaughter (I use UK terminology) merely set out those circumstances in which society has decided that killing is so damaging as to require action.  The question of what makes a killing unlawful is not a moral issue.  It is decided purely on what the law says.  Moral judgements may bring about pressures for legal change, that is true.  But morality, demonstrably, is not law, and law does not depend for its' validity upon morality.  Hence the two are distinct.

 

I leave aside issues over whether morality actually has any coherent meaning anyway - a point upon which I have doubts.  But that's another discussion.

 

Not sure how you can separate the two.....I understand one is limited in scope and definition.  I guess that's what you are getting at.

 

Does not a conviction illicit the same feelings most often...."you x or you y, you are an xy".  Granted the lawyers job is seemingly to remove the emotion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/08/2017 at 1:54 PM, end3 said:

Not sure how you can separate the two.....I understand one is limited in scope and definition.  I guess that's what you are getting at.

 

Does not a conviction illicit the same feelings most often...."you x or you y, you are an xy".  Granted the lawyers job is seemingly to remove the emotion.

 

 

I'm equally uncertain how you connect the two.  What is the relevance of a feeling of revulsion against certain convicts?  Levels of revulsion or attraction seems to me at best a rather blunt instrument to identify moral issues - otherwise, presumably, chocolate would be morally superior to brussel sprouts.

 

Granted that such feelings can coincide with moral judgements, and that moral judgments can coincide with legally defined concepts, but that coincidence is not the same as saying that law, morality and such feelings are all the same thing.  I'm Welsh, but speak no Welsh.  I've met a Greek who speaks more of the language than do I.  Welsh speaking and being Welsh can coincide - but are not the same thing.  Same with law and morality.  Coincidence is not identity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ellinas said:

 

I'm equally uncertain how you connect the two.  What is the relevance of a feeling of revulsion against certain convicts?  Levels of revulsion or attraction seems to me at best a rather blunt instrument to identify moral issues - otherwise, presumably, chocolate would be morally superior to brussel sprouts.

 

Granted that such feelings can coincide with moral judgements, and that moral judgments can coincide with legally defined concepts, but that coincidence is not the same as saying that law, morality and such feelings are all the same thing.  I'm Welsh, but speak no Welsh.  I've met a Greek who speaks more of the language than do I.  Welsh speaking and being Welsh can coincide - but are not the same thing.  Same with law and morality.  Coincidence is not identity.

 

 

Ellinas,

 

Your response to End3 hits the nail on the head.

The coincidence of one thing with another does not mean that they share a common identity.  Likewise, connection and/or correlation between things does not equal causation.  One thing does not necessarily cause the other.  He has had this explained to him many times, by several of us, but defiantly persists in following his chosen (but flawed) s.o.p.   Specifically, taking the truth of the Bible as a given and then trying to connect it to whatever aspects of science/human behavior/law he believes correlate/connect to it.  

 

As far as I can see there are three main flaws in his methodology.

 

1.

He takes his beliefs as a given and then proceeds to find 'evidence' for them by selecting that which appears to support them and de-selecting that which doesn't.  So he begins with the conclusion he wants, rather than letting the evidence lead him wherever it will and then accepting that evidence-driven outcome.  This, of course, reverses the proper order in which open minded investigation is done.  You begin with a question and then see if you can find an answer to it.  You do not begin with a conclusion and then seek out only that which supports it.

 

2.

He takes secular, natural, materialist scientific data and tries to use it to argue for the religious, supernatural, spiritual conclusion he has already decided must be the answer.  But you don't hammer a nail into wood using a saw.  Science cannot be used in the way he wants.  That's not it's purpose, not it's function and not within it's remit.  It's not the right tool for the right job.

 

3.

He takes it as another given that if he sees a connection or correlation between science and scripture, then the fact that he sees it must mean that this connection/correlation is valid.   Thus he appears to have no rigorous method of checking and testing his own judgments.  In simple terms, if he can join the dots, then he does so.  Without checking or testing the validity of the links he sees.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest end3
16 hours ago, Ellinas said:

 

I'm equally uncertain how you connect the two.  What is the relevance of a feeling of revulsion against certain convicts?  Levels of revulsion or attraction seems to me at best a rather blunt instrument to identify moral issues - otherwise, presumably, chocolate would be morally superior to brussel sprouts.

 

Granted that such feelings can coincide with moral judgements, and that moral judgments can coincide with legally defined concepts, but that coincidence is not the same as saying that law, morality and such feelings are all the same thing.  I'm Welsh, but speak no Welsh.  I've met a Greek who speaks more of the language than do I.  Welsh speaking and being Welsh can coincide - but are not the same thing.  Same with law and morality.  Coincidence is not identity.

 

Yes, I'm with you to the extent of my understanding.  I gather that we cannot completely itemize morality, yet I think it's reasonable to believe that a good bit of written law is an attempt to do so in so much as our ability to define morality.......hitting the high spots so to speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted 2 hours ago

  18 hours ago, Ellinas said:

 

I'm equally uncertain how you connect the two.  What is the relevance of a feeling of revulsion against certain convicts?  Levels of revulsion or attraction seems to me at best a rather blunt instrument to identify moral issues - otherwise, presumably, chocolate would be morally superior to brussel sprouts.

 

Granted that such feelings can coincide with moral judgements, and that moral judgments can coincide with legally defined concepts, but that coincidence is not the same as saying that law, morality and such feelings are all the same thing.  I'm Welsh, but speak no Welsh.  I've met a Greek who speaks more of the language than do I.  Welsh speaking and being Welsh can coincide - but are not the same thing.  Same with law and morality.  Coincidence is not identity.

 

Yes, I'm with you to the extent of my understanding.  I gather that we cannot completely itemize morality, yet I think it's reasonable to believe that a good bit of written law is an attempt to do so in so much as our ability to define morality.......hitting the high spots so to speak. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ellinas is uncertain about how connect the two, End.

 

So am I.

 

And you haven't addressed his uncertainty by informing him how you connect the two.

 

I'd like to know too.

 

So, could you please go beyond 'it seems to me' and clearly demonstrate for us, in a step-by-step fashion, just how you establish the logic that connects these two things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:05 PM, Thumbelina said:

 

I wish skeptics will stop using God's descriptive writing interchangeably with his prescriptive writings. Some faulty behaviors were/are part of God's permissive will (God meets people where they are at) & not His expressed will. Just like He didn't create Adam with a harem, He didn't create him with slaves. All of that happened because of sin.

 

Wait Thumbelina you started out by saying that you hate it when non-believers conflate God's prescriptive will with Bible description. You then cite the Bible description of Adam and Eve as a moral prescription! Where in Genesis does God prohibit polygamy?

 

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 9:28 PM, Thumbelina said:

For the benefit of WHOMEVER wants to know:

 

An innately holy God cannot sin, Pops.:

https://www.gotquestions.org/can-God-sin.html

So what if God changes his mind as he often does in scripture. He regretted making man so he sent a flood and then he changed his mind again and said we wouldn't do that again. Moses made God change his mind. Or how about when God contradicts his own commands? Love does no ill to its neighbor except the Amalekites apparently.

 

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 3:07 PM, ironhorse said:

 

 

People inwardly know that stealing is wrong. We know inwardly know murder is wrong. We know inwardly know sex with another person’s spouse is wrong.

As humans, these red flags are built into us. This is what Paul is talking about in Romans. It is built-in to our consciousness.

If you read other ancient laws or codes, all them contain similar prohibitions against these basic behaviors.

 

For example, ancient Egypt:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ethics.htm

Crimes of a cultic nature: blasphemy, stealing from temple offerings or offerings to the dead, defiling the purity of a sacred place

Crimes of an economic nature: tampering with the grain measure, the boundaries of fields, or the plummet of the balance

Criminal acts: theft and murder

Exploitation of the weak and causing injury: depriving orphans of their property, causing pain or grief, doing injury, causing hunger

Moral and social failings: lying, committing adultery, ignoring the truth, slandering servants before their master, being aggressive, eavesdropping, losing one's temper, speaking without thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse this is a huuuuuge selection bias that you haven't even adequately represented I might add. Universal norms are only universal until they stop being universal. Slavery was a human universal norm we outgrew. Some societies don't see private property as a huge deal and take things actually. For the most part we outgrew that. Polygamy was a common norm. Blasphemy is a terrible idea even though it once was a norm as well! Now we understand the value of free speech. Tribalism was a universal norm. Though shalt not kill unless of course it's one of those guys! Lying can be moral if it saves a life. Morality changes a lot! So quite frankly what are you talking about sir? And being non-religious doesn't make a person not care about the poor so what is your point exactly?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/08/2017 at 2:39 PM, end3 said:

Yes, I'm with you to the extent of my understanding.  I gather that we cannot completely itemize morality, yet I think it's reasonable to believe that a good bit of written law is an attempt to do so in so much as our ability to define morality.......hitting the high spots so to speak. 

 

Firstly, I don't understand what you mean by "itemize morality".  One can only itemise what pre-exists.  It is the nature of morality that it is purely subjective, variable from individual to individual and from society to society, and there is no "collection" of moral precepts to be observed and itemised.  Law is not an itemisation of some pre-existent state of affairs that legislators are struggling to identify.  It is the canon of rules that legislators consider best suited to the particular needs of a society (or the needs of society's rulers, its' rich and powerful, if we are going to be cynical about it).

 

Secondly, i don't understand your doubt of human ability to define morality, since it is both created and defined in the human mind.

 

Thirdly, I find it bizarre that you consider law to be an attempt to "hit the (moral) high spots".   I have heard, with tedious regularity, the complaints of Christians I know about the immorality of current UK law - issues such as gay marriage, abortion, even the absence of a death penalty.  Others might consider those same laws utterly reasonable.  So, there is no agreement even as to what counts as a "high spot" let alone a codification of some identifiable moral background.  And the law is still undeniably law, regardless of any moral viewpoint.

 

The reality is that the majority of the legal canon has little or no morality behind it.  If it did there would be cause to debate the moral superiority of the UK's national speed limit (70) versus that of the USA (which I understand to be 55) and the absence of any such limit on German autobahns.  In fact, these are just rules based on figures plucked out of the air by whoever thought of them at the time.  Likewise much financial regulation, the basis of land ownership and so on almost ad infinitum.

 

So, no.  I still do not understand how you connect law and morality

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:53 PM, Blamtasticful said:

 

Wait Thumbelina you started out by saying that you hate it when non-believers conflate God's prescriptive will with Bible description. You then cite the Bible description of Adam and Eve as a moral prescription! Where in Genesis does God prohibit polygamy?

 

So what if God changes his mind as he often does in scripture. He regretted making man so he sent a flood and then he changed his mind again and said we wouldn't do that again. Moses made God change his mind. Or how about when God contradicts his own commands? Love does no ill to its neighbor except the Amalekites apparently.

 

 

Ironhorse this is a huuuuuge selection bias that you haven't even adequately represented I might add. Universal norms are only universal until they stop being universal. Slavery was a human universal norm we outgrew. Some societies don't see private property as a huge deal and take things actually. For the most part we outgrew that. Polygamy was a common norm. Blasphemy is a terrible idea even though it once was a norm as well! Now we understand the value of free speech. Tribalism was a universal norm. Though shalt not kill unless of course it's one of those guys! Lying can be moral if it saves a life. Morality changes a lot! So quite frankly what are you talking about sir? And being non-religious doesn't make a person not care about the poor so what is your point exactly?

 

 

I'm not referring to different laws held by various cultures through history, but "universal morals" that are known in every person's heart.

 

I'm thinking of this:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) the position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

 

 

I'm not referring to different laws held by various cultures through history, but "universal morals" that are known in every person's heart.

 

I'm thinking of this:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) the position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.

 

 

 

Yes.  This is the very system that taught every culture throughout history that human sacrifice was immoral and teaches every culture in the modern era that hating people based on their sexual orientation is wrong... except, it didn't actually work out that way because there are still pockets of tribal natives who practice human sacrifice and there are still one or two people these days who hate gay people.  Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

I went ahead and asked the question several times because I may not be online much over the course of the next week and won't have time to write several posts asking you to answer the same question again and again.  Hopefully, you will answer this question at least one of the times I've asked it in this one post.  Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  This is the very system that taught every culture throughout history that human sacrifice was immoral and teaches every culture in the modern era that hating people based on their sexual orientation is wrong... except, it didn't actually work out that way because there are still pockets of tribal natives who practice human sacrifice and there are still one or two people these days who hate gay people.  Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

Ironhorse, can you please name for us ONE universal ethic that is applicable to every culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.  Just name ONE that has been universally accepted by all of humanity throughout its' history.

 

I went ahead and asked the question several times because I may not be online much over the course of the next week and won't have time to write several posts asking you to answer the same question again and again.  Hopefully, you will answer this question at least one of the times I've asked it in this one post.  Thanks.

 

 

Do not falsely accuse others.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

Do not falsely accuse others.

 

Once again Ironhorse shows great insight and present well thought out content to present his case.

 

Care to present evidence of how this is a universal moral law that applies per TRP's question?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest end3
On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 4:10 PM, Ellinas said:

1)  It is the canon of rules that legislators consider best suited to the particular needs of a society

 

2) Secondly, i don't understand your doubt of human ability to define morality, since it is both created and defined in the human mind.

 

3) Thirdly, I find it bizarre that you consider law to be an attempt to "hit the (moral) high spots".   I have heard, with tedious regularity, the complaints of Christians I know about the immorality of current UK law - issues such as gay marriage, abortion, even the absence of a death penalty.  Others might consider those same laws utterly reasonable.  So, there is no agreement even as to what counts as a "high spot" let alone a codification of some identifiable moral background.  And the law is still undeniably law, regardless of any moral viewpoint.

 

4) The reality is that the majority of the legal canon has little or no morality behind it.  If it did there would be cause to debate the moral superiority of the UK's national speed limit (70) versus that of the USA (which I understand to be 55) and the absence of any such limit on German autobahns.  In fact, these are just rules based on figures plucked out of the air by whoever thought of them at the time.  Likewise much financial regulation, the basis of land ownership and so on almost ad infinitum.

 

So, no.  I still do not understand how you connect law and morality

 

1) Yes, written rules as well as they may define or describe morality to govern a meandering morality.  Not all law mind you.  2) We would have to know or understand the reason for our existence in order to ultimately define morality.  Kind of all we have is the notion of the value of life itself and the quality thereof.  3)  Since we can't ultimately define morality, then we are left with creating law that hits the high spots, or paints with a broad brush.  Then we are left to define the painting with a jury......rather than it being so exactly defined as you assert.  4)  the examples you have given about speed limit, real estate law are not what I am referring to.  I'm describing taking someone's life, stealing, etc.

 

I think where we are having the disconnect is you are describing regulatory type law.  Apologies, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the nomenclature......."regulatory type law" is the best my mind could describe.  Thanks E. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, end3 said:

3)  Since we can't ultimately define morality,

 

Why can't we define morality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ironhorse said:

 

 

Do not falsely accuse others.

 

 

You obviously don't know many Ukrainians.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Why can't we define morality?

 

How about "Minimize harm to others." 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, midniterider said:

How about "Minimize harm to others." 

 

This is what I am getting at. It is very possible to basically define morality as relating to the welling being of humans, and we can extend that to other living creatures. E.g. we can say it is morally wrong to harm another human, and we can also say it is morally wrong to harm animals.

 

End3 is being dishonest by saying we cannot define morality. The reason he doesn't want it defined is because this allows for the "God created morals, and those morals are objective" argument.

 

PS @Ironhorse a far better candidate for a universal moral code would be do no harm - however it doesn't take much to see that that is not a universal code. It's ideal, but not universal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ironhorse said:

 

 

I'm not referring to different laws held by various cultures through history, but "universal morals" that are known in every person's heart.

 

I'm thinking of this:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) the position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.

 

 

 

I am perfectly find saying that some sort of universal morality may exist. Why do you need god for that? You don't. It's a complete non-sequitur. It's like saying universal morals exist because my smart friend Steve decreed them. Or that 2 times 7 equals fish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ironhorse said:

 

 

I'm not referring to different laws held by various cultures through history, but "universal morals" that are known in every person's heart.

 

I'm thinking of this:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) the position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.

 

 

 

 

Catch is Ironhorse, the logic underlying your argument is, once again, circular.

 

Neither you nor any other human can know what's in another person's heart.  

But, according to the Bible, God can and does.  So you are relying on your faith in God and the authority of the Bible to claim that there is a set of universal morals in everyone's heart.  Which means that you are employing the concept of moral universalism in your argument, not because of any evidence of what's actually in people's hearts, but because of what the Bible tells you about what God knows about us.  So your appeal moral universalism is actually an appeal to your faith in God and the Bible.  Which means that once again, you are using faith to support faith.  Circularity!

 

Even if you claim that by the power of the holy spirit, it is possible to know what's in another person's heart - once again your appeal is to the Bible and your faith in that book.

Another circular argument.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest end3
20 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Why can't we define morality?

One, there would have to be a unified purpose.  Then laws written to achieve that purpose.  Also, we would have to then understand the subjective interpretation of each individual within the group......and all the associated variables contributing to the subjectivity.

 

For example if you had 300 cats in a pasture.  How do we define morality if our cats have no purpose....how are their actions deemed moral if there is no purpose.  Then, you would have to write laws for the cats to achieve the purpose.  And then finally, if cat 72 ate more than his fair share, is he immoral or ultimately is cat 72 contributing to the morality as it's defined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest end3
19 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This is what I am getting at. It is very possible to basically define morality as relating to the welling being of humans, and we can extend that to other living creatures. E.g. we can say it is morally wrong to harm another human, and we can also say it is morally wrong to harm animals.

 

End3 is being dishonest by saying we cannot define morality. The reason he doesn't want it defined is because this allows for the "God created morals, and those morals are objective" argument.

 

PS @Ironhorse a far better candidate for a universal moral code would be do no harm - however it doesn't take much to see that that is not a universal code. It's ideal, but not universal.

I'm not being dishonest, I'm answering as well as my mind can think it through.  Yes, perhaps our entire moral compass has evolved to where it's at now, but if that's so, there would be no absolute morality.  All I'm saying is the permutations are so great, that if we are left to judge morality, we are sadly unequipped.  Grace would be our only best answer.

 

Edit:  It would mean that humanity has defined it's own purpose....  life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a repost of what I have stated earlier: before you even begin delving into absolutism as it applies to theology there is one very critical issue that MUST be understood before progressing further: Which is that belief in god doesn't actually provide you with any absolute sense of right or wrong that you didn't already have before.

 

As a human being, your comprehension of reality is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any experience of a "God" is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any sense of right or wrong gained from that "God" is STILL subjective to your own understanding. Similar to the reasons why you cannot disprove last Thursdayism, you also cannot prove that any experience of an "Objective source" is not also a part of last Thursdayism.

 

Whenever I see arguments like this, it becomes very clear very quickly that religious people seem to believe that believing in god somehow magically breaks them out of subjectivity prison. It does not. And understanding why it does not is mission critical to understanding any sort of objective/subjective argument from the perspective of theology and philosophy, otherwise you are arguing in circles from a faulty premise. Simply believing that you're religion makes you morally superior does not magically grant you objective understanding of the universe, for much the same reasons why believing that you can fly will not suddenly cause you to sprout wings out of your ass.

 

Feels are not reals. Beliefs are not facts.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.