What is Morality?

[Crazy Anglican]

@Jamiet99uk

I would ask one other additional question. I apologize for having two questions about your response, but this is a long conversation and I have not looked at much of it.

The empathy that you referenced, do you believe that people are born with it, or do you think that it is something that is cultivated as one grows up?

[Jamiet99uk]

@Jamiet99uk

I would ask one other additional question. I apologize for having two questions about your response, but this is a long conversation and I have not looked at much of it.

The empathy that you referenced, do you believe that people are born with it, or do you think that it is something that is cultivated as one grows up?

Both.

I feel like an element of it is innate, but that it can be nurtured.

[mOctave]

Both.

I feel like an element of it is innate, but that it can be nurtured.

If empathy is innate, then it must have a genetic (or similar quality). That means that either a deity decided it was a good trait (God-given morality), or it was genetically advantageous to survival, which points to a might-makes-right or majority-makes-right morality.

If empathy is nurtured, then it is inherited by being around people with it. In that case, if you are mostly around people with empathy, you have a far greater chance of developing it than if you are around people without it. So it is the fact that most of us have empathy that passes it on to our offspring. That, too, is a majority-makes-right morality.

[Jamiet99uk]

Both.

I feel like an element of it is innate, but that it can be nurtured.

If empathy is innate, then it must have a genetic (or similar quality). That means that either a deity decided it was a good trait (God-given morality), or it was genetically advantageous to survival, which points to a might-makes-right or majority-makes-right morality.

If empathy is nurtured, then it is inherited by being around people with it. In that case, if you are mostly around people with empathy, you have a far greater chance of developing it than if you are around people without it. So it is the fact that most of us have empathy that passes it on to our offspring. That, too, is a majority-makes-right morality.

Could be.

[Hanging Rook]

As a Pragmatist I world agree that there is a certain advantage to individuals to apply to given moral standards and for to society to develop such, and to set up a legal framework that is more or less consistent with the moral views of a majority. Otherwise it usually ends in revolutions or civil wars.

But coming back to the initial question, I think more serious crimes have been committed by people who hold their own moral views as absolute and try to crusade others than by those who do accept that people can have different moral views and try to understand the other point of view.

[Jamiet99uk]

As a Pragmatist I world agree that there is a certain advantage to individuals to apply to given moral standards and for to society to develop such, and to set up a legal framework that is more or less consistent with the moral views of a majority. Otherwise it usually ends in revolutions or civil wars.

But coming back to the initial question, I think more serious crimes have been committed by people who hold their own moral views as absolute and try to crusade others than by those who do accept that people can have different moral views and try to understand the other point of view.

I am not sure who you are referring to on either side.

I believe it was Christians who initiated a series of violent religious crusades which led to many thousands of deaths.

[Hanging Rook]

I meant anyone who considers their own moral views as absolute and denies other views their legitimacy (crusaders, jihadists, fascists, communists etc.).

Maybe that the world would be a better place (I doubt it) if we all held the same moral code (Chritianity as proposed here). But this isn’t the case and so the question is how to respond to the others and I don’t think it is helpful there to only judge them by your own standard (if you are willing to take one) without trying to understand the other.

[Hanging Rook]

I understand that this can be seen as a moral doctrine per se - you shall not judge- but the point is it is mine and I really try not to judge others how are more ready to do so.

In a way I can find someone guilty in the sense of a law (which I consider legitimate if the overall framework work is useful to my own interests) but not in a moral sense.

[Jamiet99uk]

I meant anyone who considers their own moral views as absolute and denies other views their legitimacy (crusaders, jihadists, fascists, communists etc.).

Maybe that the world would be a better place (I doubt it) if we all held the same moral code (Chritianity as proposed here). But this isn’t the case and so the question is how to respond to the others and I don’t think it is helpful there to only judge them by your own standard (if you are willing to take one) without trying to understand the other.

Ah I see, thank you for clarifying. I think I broadly agree with you.

[Johnny Big Horse]

Humans corrupt things. Governments corrupt things even faster. If it were just up l
to that I would say you might be right.

...

That said, here is my rationale to the contrary:
If the God of the Old Testament is the same God as of the New, then there are two things to be considered:

1) God works often through providence. He also is a God who reveals himself to humanity, through the Bible. Therefore, what is there to say that God could not have orchestrated the councils and events of determining canon such that the correct Gospel is given to us? We have thus far ignored the omnipotence of God, and I think it wise to return to the fact that God has all power, and is capable of such a thing. There is a spiritual aspect to this that cannot be overlooked.

The God of the Old Testament is nothing like the God of the New Testament. One was jealous, bloodthirsty, a destroyer. One was loving, forgiving and humble. Night and day. For this reason many in the ancient world believed that the god of the Old Testament was Satan, and the god of the New was "God." These were the dualists. They believed that everything of the material world was evil, everything of the spiritual world, beautiful and godly. Therefore they hated material things, including their bodies. Many of the gnostic sects of Northern Africa in the 200s and 300s believed in this. As did the Cathars of southern France before they were exterminated in a horrible genocide, I think in the 13th century.

1) God works often through providence. He also is a God who reveals himself to humanity, through the Bible. Therefore, what is there to say that God could not have orchestrated the councils and events of determining canon such that the correct Gospel is given to us? We have thus far ignored the omnipotence of God, and I think it wise to return to the fact that God has all power, and is capable of such a thing. There is a spiritual aspect to this that cannot be overlooked.

So you are assuming God is an independent entity, some outsider, foreign to you. I don't.

I believe that we are all part of God. God is the whole. I guess I am with Hegel, in thinking that we are the consciousness of the universe, and as we mature spiritually, the universe starts to know itself. God is the universe and we are part of it. We are God. Everything is God. History is the story of God. Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, these were special people, who were able to experience God directly, and they tried to explain it to us, but we could not understand it. Language could not convey their reality they experienced. The religions we have are humanity's imperfect attempts to systematize the ineffable, the experience of God.

[Johnny Big Horse]

Do you not realize that all you are saying is that murder being wrong is a part of an ultimate moral standard? You are saying that it will always be true that murder is evil, no matter what. I agree, because the Bible agrees. You agree, because you say so. You are simply placing yourself as your ultimate moral standard. Where that logic fails is when someone disagrees with you. Why is you being right any more morally good than someone else being right and you being wrong?

You don't need the Bible to tell you that murder is wrong either. It would be rather disturbing if you needed the Bible to make such a basic value judgement. It has long saddened me to hear questions like 'how do you know right from wrong if you don't believe in god?' And I don't say that because I find it sad that religious people can't figure out right from wrong without the threat of eternal torture, et cetera. I think that you're perfectly capable of independently figuring out what is just and what is unjust. I find it very sad that people like you can't comprehend how atheists know right from wrong.

I don't find much value in humanism since its theses appear self-evident to me, but it occurs to me that you might find these resources informative:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/
https://centerforinquiry.org/definitions/what-is-secular-humanism/

For my own values, it isn't an ultimate moral standard, but this probably covers most of it:
https://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/declaration-of-principles/

But JECE, what about when you are in a society where murder of the enemies is considered heroic? These people may or may not be religious, but they know in their hearts that murder is right. What about the revolutionaries who knew in their hearts that murder of the oppressors was right?

Also, I think you should give religious people a break, and perhaps look at it a different way. If you consider that every human quality across all humans is distributed in a bell curve, some people are more adept at some things, the majority is in the middle, and some less adept. In terms of moral questions, or how to orient one's life, there are the prophets, people who make their own way, and there are those at the other end of the curve who need to be told what to do. And the great middle, who also need guidance. If you are blessed enough to be at the superlative end of the morality spectrum, good for you, but you need not look down on the rest of us. It is just the way it is. Have compassion for us.

[Johnny Big Horse]

The trouble with your whole argument is that it is based on everyone agreeing with you. You are saying that each individual has their personal morals, but you have no method of determining what to do when personal morals come into conflict. What if someone disagrees with what you cited as a majority of your beliefs?

I ask that you answer a simple question, that is all that I ask:
How can we determine that your morals are any better than a Nazi's, that your version of the common good is any better than Stalin's, or that your belief that murder is wrong is any better than that of an atheist who believes that murder is right?

kick ass response.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The trouble with your whole argument is that it is based on everyone agreeing with you. You are saying that each individual has their personal morals, but you have no method of determining what to do when personal morals come into conflict. What if someone disagrees with what you cited as a majority of your beliefs?

I ask that you answer a simple question, that is all that I ask:
How can we determine that your morals are any better than a Nazi's, that your version of the common good is any better than Stalin's, or that your belief that murder is wrong is any better than that of an atheist who believes that murder is right?

kick ass response.

This was an extremely weak response lol

Non-religious folks can still commit themselves to objective moral codes. This has been explained to CF several times across multiple threads. I don't think the Christian God is real, but that doesn't mean I have no way to understand that wanton murder is wrong in all cases. Let's go through a few ways non-religious folks can know that murder is wrong:

- Universal Human Rights: The principle that murder violates the universal human right to life is globally recognized. This stance isn't just a matter of personal opinion but is grounded in an international consensus, reflecting a moral standard that transcends individual beliefs.

- Utilitarianism: This ethical framework objectively assesses actions based on their impact on overall well-being. Murder is universally condemned within this framework because it causes suffering and diminishes happiness, not just for the individual but for society as a whole.

- Social Contract Theory: This theory suggests that societal stability relies on mutual agreements, including the prohibition of murder. Such a norm is crucial for maintaining social order and is not based solely on personal moral views.

- Evolutionary Biology: The evolution of moral instincts, such as an aversion to killing, indicates an objective basis in human nature for condemning murder. These instincts have evolved not just for individual survival but for the well-being of the species.

- Empathy and Compassion: The universal human capacity for empathy and compassion leads to a collective rejection of murder. This isn’t merely about personal feelings but about recognizing and responding to the objective harm caused to others.

- Cultural and Societal Norms: The widespread societal consensus against murder, shaped by collective human experience, provides a moral standard that goes beyond individual subjectivity.

Moreover, Christian morality is not as objective as CF claims. Even if we grant CF's claim that the Bible contains within it an objective morality (a big, unverifiable claim), God still left it to individual Christians to interpret this complex, contradictory, and incomplete moral code. Although CF seems unshaken in his belief that he can tell when he's closer to True morality than other Christians, he hasn't given the rest of us any reasons to believe that his interpretation is truly best. And many contemporary and historical Christians who engaged in the same moral reasoning about the Bible that CF does came to wildly different conclusions about morality, including by giving scriptural justifications to moral tragedies such as slavery, colonialism, crusades, witch hunts, sex- and gender-based bigotry, etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

As a Pragmatist I world agree that there is a certain advantage to individuals to apply to given moral standards and for to society to develop such, and to set up a legal framework that is more or less consistent with the moral views of a majority. Otherwise it usually ends in revolutions or civil wars.

But coming back to the initial question, I think more serious crimes have been committed by people who hold their own moral views as absolute and try to crusade others than by those who do accept that people can have different moral views and try to understand the other point of view.

I am not sure who you are referring to on either side.

I believe it was Christians who initiated a series of violent religious crusades which led to many thousands of deaths.

A) Those were in response to the invasion of the Balkans, Spain, all of North Africa, and the threat of invasion of Europe, by the Ottomans. The tactic was that a good offence is the best defence. This was much more nuanced a war than you make it out to be.

B) Are you really going to point to a crusade that killed some thousands of people that was a part of a war begun by Muslim invasion, carried out by the Catholic Church, to try and dissuade from the fact that Protestant Christianity has led the whole world to liberal democracy and saved countless lives?

C) If it's a numbers game, I'll point to the hundred million killed by Communism in the 20th century, which inherently relies on Atheism.

[CaptainFritz28]

I meant anyone who considers their own moral views as absolute and denies other views their legitimacy (crusaders, jihadists, fascists, communists etc.).

Maybe that the world would be a better place (I doubt it) if we all held the same moral code (Chritianity as proposed here). But this isn’t the case and so the question is how to respond to the others and I don’t think it is helpful there to only judge them by your own standard (if you are willing to take one) without trying to understand the other.

Which is why the Bible says to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. That is what a Christian response is to those who disagree with or wish to get rid of Christianity. Love.

[Johnny Big Horse]

- Utilitarianism: This ethical framework objectively assesses actions based on their impact on overall well-being. Murder is universally condemned within this framework because it causes suffering and diminishes happiness, not just for the individual but for society as a whole.

I am working, so can only look at snippets, but here, I disagree..

Utilitarianism says what provides the most good for the most people... you balance the good and the ill, and then make a decision. If one must die so that many thrive, you kill the one.

According to utilitarianism, you can kill Hitler as a baby to avoid the suffering of millions later. So then murder is good.

You can kill all resistance to your communist revolution in Russia, including all rich people and small businesspeople, because they stand in the way of happiness for all. So then, murder is good.

Geez, I guess you can easily stretch that argument to killing all of the opposing party in your democracies, because your party's vision will be well-being to all, and these nasty opponents will keep us all suffering.

You can sterilize undesirable populations to control population growth, so then the rest of us can thrive. So then sterilization is good.

Utilitarianism is a good justification for Nazism, Communism, and socially sanctioned mass murder.

[CaptainFritz28]

The trouble with your whole argument is that it is based on everyone agreeing with you. You are saying that each individual has their personal morals, but you have no method of determining what to do when personal morals come into conflict. What if someone disagrees with what you cited as a majority of your beliefs?

I ask that you answer a simple question, that is all that I ask:
How can we determine that your morals are any better than a Nazi's, that your version of the common good is any better than Stalin's, or that your belief that murder is wrong is any better than that of an atheist who believes that murder is right?

kick ass response.

This was an extremely weak response lol

Non-religious folks can still commit themselves to objective moral codes. This has been explained to CF several times across multiple threads. I don't think the Christian God is real, but that doesn't mean I have no way to understand that wanton murder is wrong in all cases. Let's go through a few ways non-religious folks can know that murder is wrong:

- Universal Human Rights: The principle that murder violates the universal human right to life is globally recognized. This stance isn't just a matter of personal opinion but is grounded in an international consensus, reflecting a moral standard that transcends individual beliefs.

- Utilitarianism: This ethical framework objectively assesses actions based on their impact on overall well-being. Murder is universally condemned within this framework because it causes suffering and diminishes happiness, not just for the individual but for society as a whole.

- Social Contract Theory: This theory suggests that societal stability relies on mutual agreements, including the prohibition of murder. Such a norm is crucial for maintaining social order and is not based solely on personal moral views.

- Evolutionary Biology: The evolution of moral instincts, such as an aversion to killing, indicates an objective basis in human nature for condemning murder. These instincts have evolved not just for individual survival but for the well-being of the species.

- Empathy and Compassion: The universal human capacity for empathy and compassion leads to a collective rejection of murder. This isn’t merely about personal feelings but about recognizing and responding to the objective harm caused to others.

- Cultural and Societal Norms: The widespread societal consensus against murder, shaped by collective human experience, provides a moral standard that goes beyond individual subjectivity.

Moreover, Christian morality is not as objective as CF claims. Even if we grant CF's claim that the Bible contains within it an objective morality (a big, unverifiable claim), God still left it to individual Christians to interpret this complex, contradictory, and incomplete moral code. Although CF seems unshaken in his belief that he can tell when he's closer to True morality than other Christians, he hasn't given the rest of us any reasons to believe that his interpretation is truly best. And many contemporary and historical Christians who engaged in the same moral reasoning about the Bible that CF does came to wildly different conclusions about morality, including by giving scriptural justifications to moral tragedies such as slavery, colonialism, crusades, witch hunts, sex- and gender-based bigotry, etc.

All of those require the majority or power over the majority to accept them to be moral standards.
Are you arguing for majority rules or might-makes-right morality?

You still never answered my question presented in the post you responded to. No one has, even though I have repeated it multiple times. Each time, y'all just go down a rabbit trail.

People calling themselves Christians doing bad things a) does not mean they believe the Bible or actually are Christians, and b) does not disprove what the Bible directly says.

If a Christian does something which is not loving to others as themselves, or is contrary to the principle that all are created equally and should be treated as such, or is contrary to the principle of seeking peace with all whenever possible, or is contrary to the idea of loving even those who do evil to you, then they are not following the Bible's commands. Those are directly stated in the Bible (Mark 12:30-31, Genesis 1:27, Hebrews 12:14, Matthew 5:44) and do not require interpreting to know what they mean. All of the things listed by you as done by Christians are contrary to these principles, and any "Biblical justification" for them requires assumptions and interpretations that are little more than conjecture.

Christians not following the Bible's instruction does not prove the Bible false.

[Johnny Big Horse]

I meant anyone who considers their own moral views as absolute and denies other views their legitimacy (crusaders, jihadists, fascists, communists etc.).

Maybe that the world would be a better place (I doubt it) if we all held the same moral code (Chritianity as proposed here). But this isn’t the case and so the question is how to respond to the others and I don’t think it is helpful there to only judge them by your own standard (if you are willing to take one) without trying to understand the other.

Which is why the Bible says to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. That is what a Christian response is to those who disagree with or wish to get rid of Christianity. Love.

A lot of good that does when they will kill you as you love them. Many of the folks Hamas killed were Israeli peaceniks who opposed the Israeli government's harsh treatment of Palestinians.

I like the Jewish approach: "If you know your enemy is going to kill you tomorrow, kill them today." Your body is a gift from God, and it is your duty to protect it as it is sacred.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

kick ass response.

This was an extremely weak response lol

Non-religious folks can still commit themselves to objective moral codes. This has been explained to CF several times across multiple threads. I don't think the Christian God is real, but that doesn't mean I have no way to understand that wanton murder is wrong in all cases. Let's go through a few ways non-religious folks can know that murder is wrong:

- Universal Human Rights: The principle that murder violates the universal human right to life is globally recognized. This stance isn't just a matter of personal opinion but is grounded in an international consensus, reflecting a moral standard that transcends individual beliefs.

- Utilitarianism: This ethical framework objectively assesses actions based on their impact on overall well-being. Murder is universally condemned within this framework because it causes suffering and diminishes happiness, not just for the individual but for society as a whole.

- Social Contract Theory: This theory suggests that societal stability relies on mutual agreements, including the prohibition of murder. Such a norm is crucial for maintaining social order and is not based solely on personal moral views.

- Evolutionary Biology: The evolution of moral instincts, such as an aversion to killing, indicates an objective basis in human nature for condemning murder. These instincts have evolved not just for individual survival but for the well-being of the species.

- Empathy and Compassion: The universal human capacity for empathy and compassion leads to a collective rejection of murder. This isn’t merely about personal feelings but about recognizing and responding to the objective harm caused to others.

- Cultural and Societal Norms: The widespread societal consensus against murder, shaped by collective human experience, provides a moral standard that goes beyond individual subjectivity.

Moreover, Christian morality is not as objective as CF claims. Even if we grant CF's claim that the Bible contains within it an objective morality (a big, unverifiable claim), God still left it to individual Christians to interpret this complex, contradictory, and incomplete moral code. Although CF seems unshaken in his belief that he can tell when he's closer to True morality than other Christians, he hasn't given the rest of us any reasons to believe that his interpretation is truly best. And many contemporary and historical Christians who engaged in the same moral reasoning about the Bible that CF does came to wildly different conclusions about morality, including by giving scriptural justifications to moral tragedies such as slavery, colonialism, crusades, witch hunts, sex- and gender-based bigotry, etc.

All of those require the majority or power over the majority to accept them to be moral standards.
Are you arguing for majority rules or might-makes-right morality?

You still never answered my question presented in the post you responded to. No one has, even though I have repeated it multiple times. Each time, y'all just go down a rabbit trail.

People calling themselves Christians doing bad things a) does not mean they believe the Bible or actually are Christians, and b) does not disprove what the Bible directly says.

If a Christian does something which is not loving to others as themselves, or is contrary to the principle that all are created equally and should be treated as such, or is contrary to the principle of seeking peace with all whenever possible, or is contrary to the idea of loving even those who do evil to you, then they are not following the Bible's commands. Those are directly stated in the Bible (Mark 12:30-31, Genesis 1:27, Hebrews 12:14, Matthew 5:44) and do not require interpreting to know what they mean. All of the things listed by you as done by Christians are contrary to these principles, and any "Biblical justification" for them requires assumptions and interpretations that are little more than conjecture.

Christians not following the Bible's instruction does not prove the Bible false.

CF you're being evasive and not engaging with the points here.

Your claim that secular morality is subject to majority rule or might-makes-right oversimplifies and misrepresents the nature of ethical theories like Universal Human Rights, Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory. These frameworks are not arbitrary; they are grounded in rational thought, empathy, and a collective understanding of human well-being. These aren't whims of the majority; they are the culmination of centuries of philosophical debate, rooted in logic, empathy, and a collective aspiration for human flourishing. They are no more "might-makes-right" than Christian moral philosophy.

Claiming that your interpretation of the Bible is the most objective overlooks the fact that Christians worldwide have interpreted the Bible in many different ways. This diversity in understanding has led to justifications for things like slavery and colonialism using the same text. Pointing out the divergence of Christians from biblical teachings doesn't invalidate the scripture. However, it does spotlight a critical issue: If the Bible's instructions are so readily misinterpreted or ignored by those who profess to follow them, doesn't this point to an inherent ambiguity or, dare I say, subjectivity in its moral instructions?

I know I keep harping on this point, but it seems to me quite obvious that there is more to morality (including Christian moral codes) than just "love one another". How much, and to which charity, should I give to? How do I know which charitable decision maximizes "love". Can I beat a child who fails to act lovingly towards their sibling if I genuinely believe that doing so will increase the total amount of "love" at some future date (the Bible even says a little kid whipping is okay once in a while). This seems to me, at best, to be just another version of consequentialism, whereby "utility" or "human flourishing" is replaced by "love".

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I meant anyone who considers their own moral views as absolute and denies other views their legitimacy (crusaders, jihadists, fascists, communists etc.).

Maybe that the world would be a better place (I doubt it) if we all held the same moral code (Chritianity as proposed here). But this isn’t the case and so the question is how to respond to the others and I don’t think it is helpful there to only judge them by your own standard (if you are willing to take one) without trying to understand the other.

Which is why the Bible says to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. That is what a Christian response is to those who disagree with or wish to get rid of Christianity. Love.

A lot of good that does when they will kill you as you love them. Many of the folks Hamas killed were Israeli peaceniks who opposed the Israeli government's harsh treatment of Palestinians.

I like the Jewish approach: "If you know your enemy is going to kill you tomorrow, kill them today." Your body is a gift from God, and it is your duty to protect it as it is sacred.

A perfect example of how the Bible provides nothing like objective moral guidance :)