The moral law

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What you are describing is the natural

Oh look, that term again. It's easy to toss about undefined terms, when you can wriggle out from any interpretation of them. But, for sure, you will never define or delineate this meaningless term.

 

[GreatestIam]

Morals can be anything we want them to be.

Correct, they are. That is why they are best defined by reason and empirical knowledge, instead of gut feelings, old religious myths, and cultural trends.

Almost all moral tenets are subjective and can change given circumstances.

I am thinking here of the older times where some city states would have to kill newborns when their lack of resources to feed the workers and the newborn made them decide that workers were to be saved and new babies killed.

That did not happen as often as most think, but when it did, I doubt that the populations involved liked to do what had to be done.

Regards
DL

Even they could have (and probably did) reason out a better moral outcome, for example, to get more resources so that all would thrive.

I am sure they did, but they were subject to floods and other hardships, natural and man made, like wars.

Those conditions forced hard moral choices.

Regards
DL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those conditions forced hard moral choices.

Well, in a way, they became ethical choices (specifically: consequential ethics). They knew which was the best moral outcome, but, for whatever reasons, had to rule it out as possible.

Had they simply made the better moral choice (not to kill a newborn), regardless of any knowledge that they had, they would have endured undesirable consequences.

We have started down an excellent path, which is to show, unequivocally, that more knowledge can lead to better applied morality. For instance, had they had the empirical knowledge of agriculture and travel that we have today, they could have chosen a better moral outcome in their initial choice.

Of course,the corollary is that more ignorance (such as, that of terrified, superstitious iron aged peasants) leads to worse applied morality and a worse outcome for the moral landscape. In short, toss out the iron aged handbooks, they were our first and worst attempts at morality.

 

[GreatestIam]

Those conditions forced hard moral choices.

Well, in a way, they became ethical choices (specifically: consequential ethics). They knew which was the best moral outcome, but, for whatever reasons, had to rule it out as possible.

Had they simply made the better moral choice (not to kill a newborn), regardless of any knowledge that they had, they would have endured undesirable consequences.

We have started down an excellent path, which is to show, unequivocally, that more knowledge can lead to better applied morality. For instance, had they had the empirical knowledge of agriculture and travel that we have today, they could have chosen a better moral outcome in their initial choice.

Of course,the corollary is that more ignorance (such as, that of terrified, superstitious iron aged peasants) leads to worse applied morality and a worse outcome for the moral landscape. In short, toss out the iron aged handbooks, they were our first and worst attempts at morality.

If we scrap our mistakes, we take the chance of repeating them.

What we are talking about here is perhaps one of the only two objective moral tenet I know.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

That seems to work well for in groups but does not apply itself well when the many are in the out group.

That caveat is why I said perhaps above.

Regards
DL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

That's not always a good tenet, as stated. How much"good"? If I told you that, if you kill your neighbors kid, I will give every person on Earth a dollar...you would defer to this tenet?

It's too simple. It must be defined and examined in each case. Therefore, it is definitely not an objectively good addition to the moral landscape, at all times, as stated.

 

[GreatestIam]

Of course,the corollary is that more ignorance (such as, that of terrified, superstitious iron aged peasants) leads to worse applied morality and a worse outcome for the moral landscape.

I would stretch your corollary to more modern times and remind you of how many Republicans publicly held their noses while voting Trump.

The religious right is doing the same today. At least the ones bright enough to recognize the evil in Trump.

Regards
DL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The religious right is doing the same today. At least the ones bright enough to recognize the evil in Trump.

Definitely, but, somewhat ironically, it is for what they see as a better moral landscape: banning abortion.


If they start with the idea that elective abortion is immoral at all times, one cannot quibble with their valid logic, as Trump will not exist "at all times" as president, nor is it necessary to endorse or condone Trump's immoral behavior to focus on this one moral choice.

So, analysis of this will involve analyzing the first premises, namely, " Elective abortion is always immoral." Notice we have to then defer to a lot of empirical scientific knowledge as well as analyzing faith based beliefs (I. E., A zygote has a "soul").

But what we should not do is simply accept a premise dictated to us by an iron aged mythology, without analysis.

 

[GreatestIam]

The religious right is doing the same today. At least the ones bright enough to recognize the evil in Trump.

Definitely, but, somewhat ironically, it is for what they see as a better moral landscape: banning abortion.


If they start with the idea that elective abortion is immoral at all times, one cannot quibble with their valid logic, as Trump will not exist "at all times" as president, nor is it necessary to endorse or condone Trump's immoral behavior to focus on this one moral choice.

So, analysis of this will involve analyzing the first premises, namely, " Elective abortion is always immoral." Notice we have to then defer to a lot of empirical scientific knowledge as well as analyzing faith based beliefs (I. E., A zygote has a "soul").

But what we should not do is simply accept a premise dictated to us by an iron aged mythology, without analysis.

Analysis is where the devil is in the detail.

I dislike the idea of killing any potential human.

I dislike even more the removal of the sanctity of the person, male or female, away from men and especially women, in the case of abortion.

The potential human, the baby, if we were to outlaw abortions, would have to be assured that he or she would not just live in some ghetto, where his best possible end could not be fought for.

Statistically, those babies fare a lot worse than the average middle class baby.

Most people, be they for life or for freedom of choice, want to save the baby, but they do not want to put up the funds that would give the baby his best possible chance at life.

If we had some kind of minimum income law, most women, I believe, would never abort except for medical or psychological reasons.

I agree that to say that abortions are always immoral is religious simplicity at it's worse.

Their simplistic thinking is having them forget that their god is responsible, in their myth, for not only destroying many babies in the wombs of women with his genocides, but even ordering that many babies have their heads smashed against stone to kill them.

They should get the log out of their eye before looking at the splinter in ours.

Regards
DL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The potential human, the baby, if we were to outlaw abortions, would have to be assured that he or she would not just live in some ghetto, where his best possible end could not be fought for.

But that is an example of consequential ethics. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are not making a pure moral choice. You have made an ethical choice, based on knowledge you find important. And there is nothing strictly wrong with that. Discussing the entire, moral landscape is the path to a better set of morals.

They should get the log out of their eye before looking at the splinter in ours.

Okay, but that is a tu quoque. If I murder 100 people, then say murder is wrong, my past transgressions have no bearing on the truth (or, better put, the body of argument for) my statement.

 

[Gdjjr]

The definition of required was not my question.

I offered a definition to validate what I said. That it's not an answer you want is your problem, not mine.

 

[GreatestIam]

The potential human, the baby, if we were to outlaw abortions, would have to be assured that he or she would not just live in some ghetto, where his best possible end could not be fought for.

But that is an example of consequential ethics. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are not making a pure moral choice. You have made an ethical choice, based on knowledge you find important. And there is nothing strictly wrong with that. Discussing the entire, moral landscape is the path to a better set of morals.

They should get the log out of their eye before looking at the splinter in ours.

Okay, but that is a tu quoque. If I murder 100 people, then say murder is wrong, my past transgressions have no bearing on the truth (or, better put, the body of argument for) my statement.

Morals are the thinking part and ethics are the action part of whatever tenet under discussion. I don't think you can separate them as one is trying to dither out if a moral position can be applied realistically to reality. A pure moral choice, IOW includes the ethics.

I do not like your prasing on your 100 murders and will abstain from a comment. I also have to end for today.

Thanks for the chat buddy.

Regards
DL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Morals are the thinking part and ethics are the action part of whatever tenet under discussion.

I.e, laws. But even with ethical choices, you have to measure morality of the options.

They can be separated in practice, as poor moral measures may arise from ignorance. So, sometimes targeting a better ethical choice will point us toward better moral assessment of the first moral premises involved . Such as, in my example of a promise to give Evey person on Earth a dollar, if you murder your neighbor's child. If one only adheres to the ethical tenet that the good of many outweighs the good of one, without any analysis or deference to a different, possibly superior ethical tenet, what I would consider an immoral and unethical outcome results.

So, you analyze the two moral concepts involved -- the good of your neighbor's child, and the good of the many -- due to the understanding that the outcome of this murder and ethical choice seems unethical and immoral.

 

[Gdjjr]

One or many, they all count or none count.

 

[Meriweather]

I offered a definition to validate what I said. That it's not an answer you want is your problem, not mine.

The reason I was curious in pursuing your thoughts is...at least since the days of the Puritans...no one is required to go to church. Church is an option, it has never been a requirement. So, when you said it should not be 'required' I was wondering what you meant. Let's take Catholicism for example. There are practicing Catholics (those who go to church) and non-practicing Catholics--those who do not. There are even practicing Catholics who sometimes do and sometimes do not. I am within walking distances of three faiths and at least a half-dozen places of worship. No one requires me to show up at any of them.

Since attending religious services is clearly not required, I was wondering why you reiterated they should not be required, and if you had more on your mind. It was simply a passing thought on my part, so no worries.

 

[ding]

As an atheist, I think you're engaging in some wishful thinking. Morals can be anything we want them to be, unfortunate but true. The 'we' being society not individuals. Some of the most brutal and immoral societies, at least IMHO, have been the most successful. Premier in my mind is the Roman Empire but I'd guess that most successful, pre-modern societies acted in a similar manner.

You are wrong. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man.

If that is true you should be able to provide plenty of examples from history and they should come from everywhere.

You don’t believe it can be solved by inspection using your own experiences as a proxy?

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

As an atheist, I think you're engaging in some wishful thinking. Morals can be anything we want them to be, unfortunate but true. The 'we' being society not individuals. Some of the most brutal and immoral societies, at least IMHO, have been the most successful. Premier in my mind is the Roman Empire but I'd guess that most successful, pre-modern societies acted in a similar manner.

I believe you and I have a different understanding of what successful means. But putting that aside, do you believe that comparing how one nation treats other nations is the correct way of looking at things?

let’s use the USSR as an example. They did not treat their own people with virtue. Do you define them as being successful?

 

[ding]

And the natural law is given to us by the Creator for no other reason than we are his creatures with the condition that we fulfill our duties to the creator.

Creator, creator- which one disowns us if we don't believe you and fulfill duties you don't approve of.

Nature's law is survival of the fittest- respecting others is what affords humans the capacity to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". No assembly required. No tithes asked for or demanded. No building to commemorate. No idols wanted. One Simple Rule. Respect others inherent/natural rights.

The creator told you that? Or are you taking on the word of others or are you misinterpreting the word of others?

putting that aside though, my point stands. You were literally quoting a belief that comes from natural law.

 

[ding]

nature does have a preference for an outcome.

Which is what? Survival of the life perhaps, or just of the fittest life in the tribe and screw the least fit?

Let's see if we can get a couple of posts in before you start insulting and I put you back on ignore.

I often try to get Christians to chat on morals but they always run away. This aside.

Nature and your god are not communicating with us in any kind of direct way so let's go man to man to KIS.

What is your first or highest moral tenet?

Mine is generally labelled by moral philosophers as Harm/Care followed by a reciprocity rule of the Jesus type. Do unto others etc., but I tend to slide that into Harm/Care.

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Regards
DL

Mine is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I stand for good and oppose evil. Your deception is evil. I oppose the evil you do.

Ditto, but I do it by having other see you run from moral discussions, like you just did.

I didn't think you could get us past two posts without you starting to accuse instead of debate of discuss.

What evil do you see me promulgating?

The fact that it is evil for you to promote a genocidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religion?

Show the evil in that or be seen for the liar you are.

Regards
DL

You are a subversive. That’s the evil you do.

 

[ding]

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

THE universal Truth is ALL men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- taking that to heart and taught that by example can lead to virtuous men.

Fair and fairness are ambiguous as one ma's trash is another man's treasure.
Expectation of another puts an undue burden on the other which disrespects the others rights.

That you say "we expect" reduces, IMO, the thought to what you desire, again that is disrespectful of those who don't desire what you do.

What you are describing is the natural law. And the natural law is given to us by the Creator for no other reason than we are his creatures with the condition that we fulfill our duties to the creator.

We are his??

That is slave owner talk.

Are you promoting slavery now?

Regards
DL

And that’s the talk of a subversive.

 

[ding]

Mine is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

Does your god live by that?

If so, explain his purposeless torture and death for the vast majority of us that scriptures say will end in hell.

Regards
DL

You claim to be a Gnostic Christian, right?

how many Gods do you believe exist?