IMO, if you remove the 'Higher Power' part of Morality, it becomes nothing more than situation ethics, or no morality at all. People do what they want to do, & who can say they are wrong? Unless many band together with some kind of agreement, (and what basis is there for that?), all you have is the changing winds of relativism, tossing everyone to & fro until they shipwreck on the rocks of anarchy. Why are sociopaths considered an aberration in humanity? Most of them were raised moral, too, but chose to 'switch off' that part of their psyche, or some other psychobabble theory. Why would there be any morality in humans, if it is not there inherently? A male lion will kill cubs, if he can, with no consequence. Theft is a common virtue, in the animal kingdom. How are these human moral platitudes different, from the rest of the animal world, if they are just instinctive? Or, why should we submit to moralizing platitudes from manipulators, and follow their constructs?
I'm not 'proving!' either premise. I'm following the logical conclusions of each. If there is a morality embedding God, then that is the source of a 'sense' of universal absolute morality. If this is a godless universe, then there is no embedded morality. It is a human construct. Obviously, there are people who believe either premise. Proving either is outside the scope of this thread.
As are you, obviously. But why choose to follow human constructs from manipulators, instead of free actions for self benefit? Fear of getting caught and punished? If you can get away with it, it is ok?
Whether or not people who already agreed with you before this thread are "convinced" about something they already believed anyway doesn't matter in the least. If the reasoning were basic, you'd be able to provide the reasoning instead of bare premises. Where does God get his morality from? You've said it can't come from instincts or law, and that the only other option is an "Embedder." So either you left out other possibilities, or God's morals were "embedded" by an even higher God who had to have his morals "embedded" by an even higher God, ad infinitum. You've hinted at two other possible sources: philosophy (when you mentioned "philosophical bases") or values. Humans have philosophy and they have values. If morality can be derived those things, then no need for God as a middle man.
If you can't defend the premise, then the conclusions don't matter. Then this isn't a debate or discussion thread. It is just a series of statements of unsupported faith.
I guarantee that you believe in situational ethics and relativism. All I have to do is start calling out the sacred cows of conservatism for the evil they committed and you’ll start talking about how they can’t be judged by modern standards.
Humans, like many other animals, are capable of learning. Unlike many other animals we have a highly developed brain. We are quick to learn as infants and as we develop and get older. We are trained by our caregivers. One of the concepts were are trained is is acceptable behaviour. Acceptable behaviour or morality in a society is determined by the members of that society. Provided our caregivers subscribe to the mainstream morality we'll internalise it. How did that morality get started? I'd say it probably grew from necessary behaviours for early humans, behaviours such as cooperation.
I have believed our conscience is the "Light of Christ." That is different than the Holy Ghost. The Light of Christ encompasses the entire universe. It's how those who don't believe in God can still know the truth and the difference between right and wrong. However, all people have the right to choose good or evil. So, for those who will sit at the judgment seat of God and say they never knew what the truth is doesn't hold water. They may not have been taught the correct doctrine and participated in the ordinances of the Gospel by those with proper authority, but they still can't deny they were told what the right and the wrong were.
However, behaviors over time change from good to evil back to good and back to evil many times. What that suggests is there are two outside influences acting upon the minds and hearts of mankind. Some call it Ying-Yang and others call it Christ versus Satan. Good and evil exist together. How do we know the difference? Sometimes, people are influenced by evil persons. How do you know murder is evil? How do you know it's wrong or evil if someone steals property from you? You know, but how? Cooperation doesn't answer this. A Godly conscience does.
Based on this reasoning, God's morality is nothing more than situational ethics or no morality at all. God does what he wants to do, and who can say he is wrong? In order to have Morality, he'd have to have a "Higher Power"
How the hell are kids supposed to know whether the "morality" their parents subscribe to is "mainstream"?
Agreed.. if you assume the premise of a godless universe. In a 'God infused morality' universe, these 'feelings' of morality are embedded.. not learned. That is the difference between a God centered view of morality, and a godless one. In a godless universe, these 'moral standards!' are just made up, human constructs, for manipulation and control. There is not anything real there. It is an indoctrinated delusion, as you have clearly pointed out.
'Thou shalt not steal' Let's examine this moral imperative. Moral value? Yes Animal instinct? No Human Law? Yes This is a good example of a moral belief, that has been codefied into Law, in almost every human society. In every animal setting, theft is a virtue.. it enhances survival, and better thieves have better chances of survival. But in humanity, this has been declared a 'sin!', or a criminal act. Religions, throughout the human experience condemn theft, and all human societies that have any law respect the basic right of property. The Enlightenment philosophers waxed long and eloquently on the essentials of 'Natural Law', and summarized it thusly: Right to Life Right to Liberty Right to Property The BASIS for this 'moral', is that it is a God given right, to your property, and any who take what is another's is guilty of a crime. Bastiat confirmed the basic right of property, which is the foundation for the 'moral value'. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat Morality, such as described by philosophers, can only exist in a God made universe. They are meaningless platitudes in a godless one. If we are in a God made universe (Who has embedded moral values in man), then morality is a Real Thing, and we ought to follow our moral inclinations, as given by the Creator. BUT... if we are in a godless universe, then all such moralizing are human constructs, to manipulate and control. Morality is NOT Real, but is a delusion, indoctrinated into people for some human agenda. We are fools and dupes, to submit to such manipulation. Theft is a good example of the difference between a moral precept, a law, and instinct.
I observe a universal 'sense' of 'right and wrong' that cannot be explained as an instinct, and is in every race, region, and era of human beings. Ancient phosophers, through the Enlightenment up to today have acknowledged a Universal Standard, that is in almost every person. The exceptions are defined as 'sociopaths', or people with no innate sense of morality. Even among people who BELIEVE in 'amorality', there is a universal observance of it. They 'feel' the sting of conscience when they violate their innate moral code. It is the conundrum i spoke of before. Believing that morality is a human construct for manipulation, yet observing it anyway. IMO, this 'moral sense' is evidence for God.. a Creator Who has embedded this sense in every human. The naturalistic explanations for morality are far fetched, and wishful thinking, for the most part.
I have a feeling every biologist in the world would disagree with you on this. For one thing, for it to be theft there would have to be some concept of personal property. For another, plenty of species exhibit some degree of moral sentiment or another, and some do so even when decreasing their individual chances of survival. When a honey bee stings, it dies, but it does so to protect the hive. The notion that all individual animals are driven only by a concern for personal survival isn't treated seriously by anyone who studies wildlife. And we do, indeed, have moral instincts. Every human, aside from the mentally ill, exhibits an instinctual concern for others, and they begin doing so at around the time their mirror neurons, which are responsible for sympathy, develop. Neurologists have shown that when a human witnesses another human in pain, the parts of their brain associated with the experience of pain "light up." To some degree, we experience what others experience and this drives us to act when we see others in pain. This can be short-circuited by teaching children that some other individuals are not part of their "in group," but it is part of our natural development otherwise.
You are describing a moral instinct in order to bolster your argument that it can't be an instinct. The instinct comes first; the philosophy comes later as an attempt to codify these instincts and reconcile conflicting instincts. That's why there are universal moral instincts among humans, aside from psychopaths, but no universally agreed-up philosophy. That's why all moral/ethical philosophers rely on extensive thought experiments (such as the Trolly Problem) in order to probe those instincts to test their theories. What is lacking in psychopaths is not a philosophy but a lack of empathetic instincts. When a normal person witnesses someone in their in group exhibiting signs of fear and pain, their own fear and pain responses instinctively activate. When an exceptionally altruistic person witnesses the same, they have a wider concept of in-group, and they have a stronger response. When a psychopath witnesses the same, they do not have the same sympathetic instinctive response.
IF... there is a God, or Something, that embedded a moral 'sense' in humanity, THEN that is the philosophical basis for morality. 1.) (G v E) --> M IF... there is no God, or no moral 'sense' embedded, THEN any moral 'sense' is a delusion. 2.) ~(G v E) --> ~M Premise 1 is not equivalent to Premise 2. 1a.) The equivalent of premise 1 is ~M --> ~(G v E), or “If there is no morality, then there is not either G or embedded moral sense.” (Logical Rule of Transposition) 2a.) The equivalent of premise 2 is M-->(G v E), or “If there is morality, then either there is either a G or embedded moral sense. (Rule of Transposition) So the equivalents of premise 1 and 2a should be tautologies, and they are! That is good! (G v E) --> (G v E) (1, and 2a., Hypothetical Syllogism) So the premises are consistent but there is a problem with the idea of necessary and sufficient conditions. That means the sufficient condition must always be in the antecedent of a conditional statement. Sufficient condition --> Necessary condition. So “If it rains, then there are clouds” for example. I must symbolize it as… If Rains -->clouds I cannot write, “If there are clouds, then it will rain,” If clouds--> rain …because clouds are necessary for rain, but not sufficient for it to rain. Like wise the proposition, “If there is either no G or Embedded moral sense, then there is no morality.” 2.) ~(G v E) --> ~M The sufficient condition is in the place of the necessary condition. That is to say that belief in G or Embedded moral sense may be a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition for morality. In other words, belief in G may not be necessary to have an ethical system at all. Christian Theologian Fredrick Schleiermacher believed that…“Christianity brings nothing entirely new or alien into the domain of Ethics. It rather supplements the general principle of all morality.” (Schleiermacher: Personal and Speculative, by Robert Munro B.D., Pub. Paisley, Aleander Grardner, 1903, p. 257) Not Copyrighted, [Pdf].
I agree. We just have a different word or phrase for the universal sense. I call in the Light of Christ. And as you said, it's in every human.
