Godless universe = sapience and all its constructs God universe = sapience and all its constructs Religions are ENTIRELY sapient constructs. the only question is, does the reason (god) of any or all of them actually exist?
I mean, if your only argument is that it is self-evident, in the face of people who don't find it self-evident, then your reasoning is pretty thin. As I said, I don't mean to say that you have said something about the rarity, but my point is that in most cases, people's subjective morality will still apply. You won't kill me in cold blood because there is a morality which I argue is within you. It is true that there are also people who do not feel that, who do not contain that morality, and I would argue that they are not moral agents, similar to how a tsunami is not a moral agent.
I'm not convinced self-evident truths work at all. It seems to me just a way to avoid the meat of the argument. Again, this looks more like avoiding the argument than anything. It may be that we use the words subjective and objective to mean different things. I use objective to mean independent of the person, and subject depending on the person. For instance, objective morality would still be there if there were no humans, whereas subjective morality would not exist if there were no humans for it to originate from. Humanism argues that morality comes from our humanity, and as such, it depends on the person, i.e. is subjective. However, most humans are similar, and will have very similar moralities. As such, the example of you not killing me is perfectly consistent with a subjective morality.
You equate God directed with godlessness... how is that a rational conclusion? IF... there is a God, AND IF... This God 'endowed' a sense of morality, purpose, and destiny, THEN.. those senses are God imbued. IF.. there is no god, but only atheistic naturalism, THEN.. there can be no morality, purpose, or destiny, and any 'sense' of those things is a delusion. They are not real, as there is nothing and no one to imbed them. They are human constructs only, for manipulation and control. 'Sapience!' is a pretender, in a godless universe, to try to justify moralizing controllers. The only 'sapience!' in a godless universe is acceptance of purposeless, amoral annihilation. How would a delusional belief in 'purpose!, morality!, and soul!', be anything but a delusion, in a godless universe?
Good point. This would be a 'universal sense' of morality that is common to man.. aka, 'self evident'. This is problematic for the amoralists, who contend that morality is only a human construct. Why is it so universally consistent, in humanity, if it is a construct? Some moral platitudes are obviously regional, cultural, or temporal. But not all. Why is this 'sense' exclusive to humans? 'Might makes right' is the only 'law' of the jungle.
Yes. No. Why the hell should I? Before that idea ever gets refined into a moral code that's worth anything, a funnel will refine urine into champagne. Speak for yourself, if you don't mind. That phrase doesn't mean anything like what you think it means. Obviously you haven't got a clue about marriage. Stealing a man's wife is every bit as possible as stealing a woman's husband, and neither concept is an insult to either sex. There is hardly any need for such equivocation, as my reasoning in support of objective morality is utterly nonexistent - which is, after all, how self-evident truth works. No it won't, because there isn't any such thing. Of course it is. That hardly makes it anything but objective.
I wouldn't call that self-evident. That is just common to man. Having two arms is pretty common to man, but if someone was to question it, we wouldn't merely proclaim it as self-evident, we'd look at the sides of our bodies. As far as I can tell, people mostly use self-evident when they can't or won't talk about the real reasons. I'm not strictly sure what you mean by amoralists here but maybe it won't matter. I don't think that's so tricky a problem, evolution is a perfectly useful answer (although it wouldn't surprise me if there were other answers). It is no stranger than the fact that having two arms is so universally consistent. It doesn't mean it's universal (indeed ants or rocks don't follow the pattern). I don't reckon it is exclusive to humans, I think it is fundamentally the same function as mothers caring for children, ants or bees working together, the loyalty of dogs, etc.. True, humans have some very well developed peculiarities to it, in that we are able to think ahead, we can understand systemic and strategic issues, we can learn from one another, and those are probably some of the reasons behind our specific brand of it. However, it doesn't make our morality exclusive, just unique in its development. I think there's also a bit of the anthropomorphic principle at play here, when we compare the morality of different animals, we're using a human morality to compare them with. It is possible that a bee might consider us immoral in our failings to be as cooperative as a bee. Might makes right is not the rule of the jungle, the rule of the jungle is survival of the fittest, and that only equates to might makes right in some situations.
No I do not equate god with godlessness. Two entirely different states. Your conclusion is predicated on an incorrect assumption to begin with. Your insistence that a godless universe means that we humans have no purpose, morality or destiny is itself merely a construct of your sapience. It is predicated on your own individual understanding (or lack thereof) of your own existence and mortality. I don't buy that my existence is simply a delusion and ask who's delusion am I experiencing? The purpose of my individual existence is pretty simple. To live the best life I can, strive to contribute to the welfare of all and leave this place in better shape than when I arrived. I do this by abiding by the morals and values that are both biologically (congenital) and intellectually (taught) driven. I happen to believe that God is an illusion born of our fundamental ignorance and upon which the delusion of religion has been built. God is not required to understand the golden rule. God is not required to love and care about others. God is not required for the rain to fall or the sun to shine or the crops to grow. God is not required to be honest. God is not required to ascertain what is right behavior from wrong doing. I am an agnostic, by which I mean that I fully understand that I could be completely wrong, but based on my own critical thinking skills I am wholly comfortable with my total lack of belief in a God the Creator and my rejection of most religious dogma. I get you arrived at a different conclusion. If it works for you, great. But most assuredly neither of us will ever convince the other of our personal beliefs. Individually we build the intellectual and emotional constructs needed to satisfy our personal psychological needs. It takes more than mere words to alter those constructs once solidified. Cheers.
IMHO, you got those impulses from God, who planted his truth/conscience in every human heart, and from living in a Judeo Christian society. Islam doesn't care about the Golden Rule, or caring for those outside of their tribe and faith. You can find people comfortable in their habits in other areas of life, that are seriously damaging to them, i.e., poor eating choices, no exercise, smoking, etc. It's not a matter of working for an individual, Christianity is either true for everyone, or true for nobody.
You are totally wrong about Islam, but I am not surprised. Even a cursory google search would inform you, hell even wikipedia can. Yes, imagine that. People thinking different thoughts and displaying different behaviors. I am satisfied that over my life I have developed a personal philosophy that makes me comfortable in my own skin and accepting of both my humanity and mortality. Hope yours does the same for you. So is Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Taoists, etc. And its ALL about what works for the individual, which is why your book and your preachers can't convert everyone, even those NOT under the influence of Satan.
Amoralist = one who does not believe in absolute morality. It is a human construct, to manipulate or control. Anyone's moral platitudes are as good (or bad) as another, since they are all made up. Unique, exclusive, label it how you will. But only humans have it. All other organisms either are bound by instinct (like your bees), or do what they want, including killing within the social group. ? 'Morality' is implied rules of behaviour. If they are made up human constructs, to manipulate and control others, that is quite unique to humans. Animal instincts are followed, without question, by all the rest of living organisms. Humans can choose to defy their instincts, and either submit to social mores, or face justice from the collective. 'Might makes right!' is just the unspoken rule of 'survival of the fittest'. They are functionally the same, in the natural world. Only among human moralists does 'right!' supercede 'might', and even then, it takes might to enforce it. It is the only logical conclusion. No amount of sapience can give you a soul, or embed absolute morality, or provide a greater purpose beyond existence. Those are elements of theistic worldviews, and have no meaning in a godless universe. Nor is that my goal. I prefer to debate philosophical issues with intelligent, thoughtful, civil people. I enjoy the sapience, when it presents itself, though it is a rarity in these forums..
But many animals have "social mores" and even a form of justice from the collective. is that not morality? I understand the elements of theistic worldviews. I also understand the power of the faith, if not the experience, that powers those views. OTOH, it is the only logical conclusion when only those variables are assumed to be true in the first place. My worldview was constructed in a different fashion, where I metaphorically wiped the white board of my mind clean and started at the beginning, seeking to eliminate any intellectual constraints in developing my own worldview and my position within it. One should not conflate "sapience" with intelligence, education, wisdom or ulterior motivation.
No. That is instinct. Living organisms must follow their instincts. Human 'morals', whether codified into collective law or not, is beyond instinctive. They are legislated, or appealed to, as moral platitudes for the collective. They are either: 1. Endowed by a Creator or 2. Human constructs, for control What examples do you have in the natural world, of legislated morality, or social mores? Exactly. None. 'Morality!' is irrelevant and meaningless in the natural world. It only exists in humanity, as an abstract, with the 2 basic beliefs about its origins. 1. Everybody gotta believe something. Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying. 2. Everybody is a product of their formative factors. Education/Indoctrination, experience, and background. 3. Sapience is often vague and undefined, like 'intelligence!' or 'wisdom!'
On the contrary, self-evident truth is the meat of any legitimate argument, since all arguments are built on unprovable propositions which are either falsehoods or self-evident truths. It's avoiding an argument over nothing, which is the most charitable characterization possible of subjective morality. So do I, in the sense that no individual gets to modify it, any more than individual planets get to modify their solar irradiation, which nevertheless affects them all differently. Unless there are other creatures endowed with moral agency, no it wouldn't, because morality has no more meaning outside the human sphere than Ohm's Law has in a game of chess. If that's the case... ...what does this have to do with it?
Hm, I assume you mean that the two latter sentences are beliefs that you say an amoralist holds, right? There is a difference between believing that there are no morals and believing that there are subjective (i.e. not objective) morals. Humanism suggests that true morality originates in our humanity, so it is not avoidable, and not made up (at least not directly), but still dependent on the moral agent, and therefore not absolute. Most non-religious people today are humanists (even though not all will have thought this aspect of it through). Why couldn't instinct and morality be the same thing? With the possible difference that humans intellectualise it a bit. I reckon instincts vary from species to species, humans have just put the word "morality" on their particular brand or instinct. A bee (if it had the brain to think this) might say that their behaviour is morality, and human morality is merely an instinct. The fact that humans have called it morality doesn't mean it's fundamentally different. Animals can choose to disobey their instincts as well, like a trained dog. Besides, I think the fact that humans can defy their instinct is a product of the fact that we have powerful and influential brains, not that there is anything fundamentally different about the instinct we can override. Might makes right is a rule of survival of the fittest in some specific circumstances. Human society is not one of those circumstances. Humans have thrived because of their ability to cooperate. If might made right in all cases, then all humans would be eaten by lions and die, but due to our cooperation, and our ability to learn from each other, my guess is more lions are killed by humans than vice versa. Survival of the fittest made sure that only those who can cooperate survive. Unwavering and uncalculating concern for others makes right.
'Subjective' is the same as 'not objective'. If everyone has their own subjective 'morals', there is no 'moral standard,' or objective morality. It is whatever you want it to be. It is subjective. If i propose a different 'morality' than you, and both are accepted as subjective reality, then in essence, you have no morality.. just platitudes that only power can enforce, for manipulation and control. 'Believing!' that your moral values, or mine, are 'better!' than someone else's is a delusion, in a godless universe. Pick whatever values you like. There are no absolutes, in a godless universe. How can there be? So subjective morality = amorality, as both have no basis in objective reality. Both are human constructs, to manipulate people. There is no objective morality in either. The amoralist is rational, by recognizing no absolutes, in a godless universe, while the atheistic moralist deludes himself into believing something with no rational basis. That is the logical consequence of the beliefs, yet we do not see this in most atheists, but instead indignant insistence of their own moral virtuosity. Why is that?
No. No it is what society has created, whereas Objective morality is simply rules dictated by a creator. It is a delusion to believe your morals are superior to anyone else. Not just delusional but incredibly arrogant, to believe your creators morals are superior to anybody elses morals is the very height of arrogance. No subjective morality does not equal amorality, it is a ludicrous idea! Just could not resist having a dig at atheists could you! Christians have no basis for their morality since they cannot offer evidence that their creator exists let alone that he is the right creator or that his morals are not just ways to control his creations. Objective morality with reference to a creator is nothing more than kicking the can down the road to a something in a somewhere!
Not really, as what makes a dog trainable is its instinct to submit to the alpha dog/benefactor. It may reject one sort of food in favor of another, but it will not reject food to avoid being obligated to the provider.
Can you list an example? Morality is objective and absolute originally. It's supposed to be a set of laws embedded to humans when they are born. However humans have the ability to learn even when they are still in mother's wombs. One's morality thus can be overridden (from womb stage till grown up) by Satan as well as the culture of one's society. That's said. God's morality is set from the different baseline than that of humans. The baseline of humans' morality is set on "physical bodies", that is it's not moral if someone innocent is harmed. The baseline of God's morality is set on souls instead, that is if one is savable but not saved, then it's immoral. The end result is thus, in a sense, If a human is immoral then another human is usually harmed. If God is immoral, then a human will be in an eternal hell where he shouldn't! To me, what should be questioned is rather human intelligence instead of "subjective morality". Because we humans don't seem to have the intelligence to correctly define what morality is (of both humans and God). You don't query your own intelligence, you query God instead. That's how humans winding up in hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or, there is, indeed, a moral 'sense' embedded in each person, by their Creator. The difference between animal instinct, an involuntary response to biological programming, and human morality, is huge. In animals, there are often conflicting instincts. Survival vs maternal, for example. Sometimes a mother dies to protect it's offspring, sometimes she runs away, leaving the offspring to the predator. A male lion can kill his own cubs, with no consequence, or a chimp another infant. Humans have a sense of justice, and a moral code within each person. A man killing his child, or another woman killing an infant is subject to collective justice, not indifference from the herd. It is a huge stretch of logic and observational science to equate human morality with animal instinct. Morality goes far beyond, and is often conflicted with the pure animal instincts that humans also possess. It is something internal.. tied to abstraction, that has no animal equivalent, or naturalistic explanation. It is a huge leap of faith, to equate them.
Exactly. In a godless universe, any moral platitudes are as good (or bad!) as the next. Even 'good & bad!' are meaningless platitudes, used only to manipulate people. ANY 'sense' of morality is a delusion, in a godless universe. That is exactly what i said, in the reply you answered: 'Believing!' that your moral values, or mine, are 'better!' than someone else's is a delusion, in a godless universe. Pick whatever values you like. There are no absolutes, in a godless universe. How can there be? so you assert, without reason. My arguments stand, unrefuted. The basis is philosophical, the same as with amoralists. IF... there is a God, Who embedded a moral 'sense' in humanity, THEN that is the philosophical basis for this morality. IF... there is no God, or no moral 'sense' embedded, THEN any moral 'sense' is a delusion. It is not there. Those are the logical conclusions of each premise.
Certainly, the post you commented on here is in itself not trying to disprove the objective morality, as much as it lays out how a subjective morality works, so that they later can be compared. You say there is a huge leap, but I'm not really getting what you think that difference is. I'm not sure what your examples of conflicts are supposed to show. Instincts can conflict with instincts, morality can conflict with instincts and morality can conflict with morality. That doesn't seem to me to suggest any particular difference between the two. I agree that there is a level of abstraction in human morality that there isn't in other animals, but I don't see that as a reason to believe that they are fundamentally different. It seems to me it's plausible that morality is simply what happens when you allow instincts and abstraction to meet. I would argue that the differences you observe between human morality and animal instinct are due to the differences in ability of abstraction, not differences between morality and instincts.
If morality is subjective, what would an objective ethical system look like and how would it work? Even written law has a foundational link to ethics that requires subjective interpretation of text. When I sense (sense perception, sense datum, or sense impression is the empiricist relation to the object, or thing--John Locke, David Hume) the color red, does this fact form a state of mind (seeing red) which is a subjective state? Locke uses the term “ideas” with three meanings: sensible qualities, sense-data, and concepts/universal ideas. Even to translate experience into language requires subjectivity just as it does to translate language back into experience. Empiricism is idealism. And when empiricism demands the universal categorical imperative that all judgments must be based on sense experience, then empiricism has become pure speculative idealism.
Of what? It isn't. It would look absolutely wonderful. It wouldn't, because humans were not created to take codified law as their guiding light. Sure, that's why the social experiment that began with Mosaic law ended up as a complete failure. Morality doesn't depend on physical perceptions, which is why society can justly make allowances for color blindness, total blindness or deafness; but a society that makes allowances for deafness to the voice of conscience can only end in despotism. Maybe it would be, were abstraction per se not every bit as useful as an instrument of evil as of good.
