There have been many threads on morality, over the years.. some i have started! But the interrelationships between these 3 parts of human motivation are not always delineated. They are often blurred together, so they all seem the same, and the nuances of each element are missed. I propose a deeper look into each element, parsing them as different, for better understanding of ourselves and the peculiarities of the human animal. First, definitions: Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence, *We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights* Merriam's: conformity to ideals of right human conduct Morality is a 'self evident' standard that humans in every region, time, and culture have appealed to. It is equivalent to 'natural law', from reformation and Enlightenment philosophers. It is something internal, embedded, and universal in humanity. Instinct is an animal quality, where certain responses are programmed internally, apart from a learned response. Migration of birds. Self preservation. Maternal care. It differs from morality in that is involuntary, not a rational choice. From Merriam's: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason* Law is a codefied rule, enforced by a human agenct. Merriam's: *a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority* Law can be a moral imperative, or even an instinct. Or, it can be something arbitrary, contrary to a moral sense or instinct. Power to enforce a law is the determining factor. Morals can be observed with or without the force of law. Law can be immoral, or counter instinctive. The relationships between these human elements are fascinating, and are rooted in a fundamental belief about the universe. The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force. A person's worldview shapes the way they see law, instinct, and morality. Any thoughts, differences, additions, examples, or corrections on these concepts?
'Morality', as defined in this thread, is different from instinct and law. It is an inner, 'felt sense' of right and wrong that transcends instinct or law. Its only philosophical basis is from a Creator, or some kind of embedding Agent. It is a Standard of behavior EXPECTED from this Creator or Agent, and is not a human construct or animal instinct. In a godless universe, no morality like this is possible. It is a delusion or manipulation, to control people. There is only animal instinct, or declared Law, in a godless universe, with no absolutes to appeal to. IF... there is a God, or Something, that embedded a moral 'sense' in humanity, THEN that is the philosophical basis for 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.
That is only true of God based this moral code in something, such as human flourishing. If God did not base this moral code in something, then there is no philosophical basis. There is an arbitrary basis. "Philosophical basis" means based in philosophy. God isn't a philosophy. He'd have to be appealing to some kind of philosophy in order to base morality in philosophy, in which case he isn't so much the source of morality but a middleman. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Then you need, for that latter, to show how the premise leads to that conclusion. Otherwise the conclusion isn't "logical."
Do you think that to claim God as an influencer He must first be shown to exist? Anyway, morality is a human concept, it's agreed by humans so we can get along with each other.
I like your presentation. When I've asked atheists if they are moral, they always respond, "yes." But, as you point out, morality is based on something other than instinct or lawful. It is rooted in an outside force gifting the rights of people. Therefore, atheists are neither moral or immoral. They move solely on instinct of survival of the fittest. Your thoughts?
No, as telling the truth per se imposes no such obligation on the truth teller. If it were... ...this would be impossible, as that "concept" would become the property of the local bully, and its interpretation subject to his whim. That's the consequence of their reasoning, but I daresay damn few of them live accordingly.
it takes religious faith to believe in objective morality and religious faith in a religion too. It takes faith to believe what your "moral" emotions like compassion and guilty and what you read in your holy book are somehow objective moral facts. There is no evidence that just because you have an emotion, or that every single human has an emotion, that this emotion is objectively right and part of an objective morality coded by a creator who is currently in hiding from his creation. I believe that the only objective truth is happiness and well being. Accomplishments don't matter if they have no positive emotional impact, and things that give us pleasure make us feel good and feeling good is awesome and worth living for. If all you felt was nothing, or just felt bad all the time, then you might has well be dead and unfeeling, there is no point to living without happiness. So it makes sense that you should live life to make yourself happy and fulfilled. Goals like career, charity, and relationships should be pursued and measured by how they impact your emotional well being. No need to make up a bunch of philosophical nonsense that don't prove anything. I believe that accepting blind faith in any religion or morality is absolutely dangerous. The only difference between a peaceful person of faith and a dangerous one is what they have faith in and there is no evidence-based difference that distinguishes them. Good normal people can believe horrible things if they were raised to have faith in them and this is very dangerous. There is way to convince someone of deep faith out of it, and that is dangerous when we are talking about religious radicals.
Yet babies can tell moral from immoral. Go figure. In one experiment babies between six and ten months old were repeatedly shown a puppet show featuring wooden shapes with eyes. A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square. After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure. Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.” https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Just because babies have an instinctive opinion doesn't make them moral philosophy experts. Babies also feel anger when they don't get what they want, and we know they aren't necessarily right just because they have those emotions.
Survival of the fittest is itself a moral ideology. Nature works that way, but that doesn't mean we should act that way out of some sense of nature-based morality. I think we should make choices that give us happy fulfilling lives. There is no evidence for objective morality, and blind faith in any ideology is dangerous because it can drive people to believe crazy irrational things.
Babies don't react on what they want, they can only act on what they need. Feeding, changing, medical care etc. But per the study, they could tell the good guy from the bad guy. Or a good feeling vs a bad feeling. And morality is all about feeling good about oneself without making others feel bad or infringing on others rights. Basically a do unto others as you'd want done unto you.
As with the OP, you are starting with Premise A and ending with Conclusion Z without showing your homework.
Babies do act on what they want and what they feel because what you want is largely influenced by what you feel. If you feel hungry, then you will want food. You say that babies can tell the "good" guy from the "bad" guy, but you are already coding this in your own moral words. Really, they can just tell an aggressor from the victim and in nature making that distinction is very important to survival. You can't prove that being an aggressor makes one objectively morally bad or that babies feeling bad about an aggressor makes that aggressor objectively morally bad. In fact the aggressor might be a policy officer tackling down a suspect and even if your own beliefs, babies can be very wrong.
You are correct. Morality only exists when a creator or society defines it. It is not an inherent trait in humans, it is adopted through either faith or fear.
my point exactly. God's moral code for humanity reflects HIS values. He embeds them in us, as an inner guide for behavior. A deeper explanation will follow, though it is very plainly evident. The quote you responded to is self evident: IF... there is no God, or no moral 'sense' embedded, THEN any moral 'sense' is a delusion. It is not there. Both premises lead to obvious conclusions. I will expand on that next. That is ONLY if you assume the 'godless universe' premise. It is a human construct for manipulation.
Morality is a human construct. What was immoral yesterday is moral today. It is made by man and changed by man. And it changes with every generation
The basis for morality, as defined in this thread, can ONLY come from an 'Embedder'. It is different from instinct or arbitrary Law. Here is the logical progression. We will assume both premises, and follow the implications and conclusions, as they relate to morality. IF... there is a Creator/moral Embedder.. AND IF... this Creator/moral embedder embedded moral standards in humans.. THEN... that is the source of embedded moral standards.. a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality. BUT.. IF.. there is no Creator/moral Embedder.. THEN... morality is a human construct. ..a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality is a delusion or manipulation of man. An example might help, though i find it hard to believe this simplest of logical reasoning cannot be followed. IF.. a Creator embedded, 'thou shalt not steal', into the inner conscience of man.. THEN.. any 'sense' of property rights are an inherent moral value. But in a godless universe, 'thou shalt not steal!', is a human construct. It is not even an instinct, as every animal species rewards stealing as a virtue. It can be (and is) codefied into Law, to deter theft by a human enforcer, but at its root, it is only a human construct, to control weak minded dupes. It is an imposed platitude, to control people. There is no overriding moral imperative to sting one's conscience, if they steal something. 'Conscience!' is also a human construct, in a godless universe. With no moral values embedded, but only human manipulation, any appeals to 'conscience!' are manipulations from human controllers.
Exactly. In the assumption of a godless universe, that is the only rational conclusion. So any moralizing you do is to control or manipulate me, and vice versa. Any 'sense' of 'morality!' is a delusion, constructed by manipulators for their own agenda. In reality, in a godless universe, there can be no morality, just human Law, imposed by force.
There is morality and each society defines and redefines it. There is no objective morality which is carved in stone and is unchanging
Atheists have a conundrum, when it comes to morality. They cannot accept the concept of an embedded moral code, as that implies an Embedder. So all morality must be defined as either animal instinct, or human Law. A 'sense' of morality is a delusion. The conundrum is that they seem to instinctively follow a 'conscience', or built in moral code. Most atheists i have known are as moral as theists. So they follow within themselves what can only be concluded as a delusion.. human platitudes constructed for manipulation. This is a rational conclusion, since they posit 'delusion' for theists. It is rational that they would be just as prone to delusion as the rest of humanity. I observe that 'universal, absolute morality' IS an inherent trait, and is not a man made construct. But that is the root difference in ideology. The belief in a 'God imposed morality' vs a 'human construct'.
This is, presumably, what you believe, based on the assumption of a godless universe. And, your conclusions are logical. There cannot be a 'universal, absolute morality', or really, ANY morality, in a godless universe. There is only animal instinct and human Law.
Theists have a conundrum (several actually, most of which were brought up around 500BC and haven't been adequately addressed since. Where did the "Embedder's" morality come from?
None of these are "progressions," logical or otherwise. They are simple if/then statements with no progression provided that leads from the if to the then. An if/then statement provided without any argument backing it up is just a premise. Your "conclusion" is just your premise restated different ways.
