Where do moral laws come from?

[ding]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Not at all but you were talking about this everlasting moral law that man has evolved into... but man hasn't. In fact, you can present me with a list of upstanding morals you believe in, which you think comprise this collection of moral law that has always existed, waiting for man to discover.... and I bet I can find a substantial number of people who don't believe your ideals are moral enough as well as a substantial number who think your ideals are over the top.

This tells me that moral values, unlike the laws of nature, are quite subjective. The parameters of morality change with culture and times. They are influenced by traditions, religions, teachings, cultural environments.

Man is subjective. Morals laws are not. Just because not everyone discovers them or accepts them does not negate them. You are literally arguing for moral relativity. For instance, regardless of what societies have deemed acceptable, it was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right?

 

[ding]

My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

I actually agree with this... to a degree.

I'm a libertarian, so I embrace individual liberty. I think people should basically be free to do as they please as long as it isn't harming others or society. Certain immoral behaviors harm society and others, so I have a problem with them and can't support an individual's liberty in those cases. I have the right to express my opinions based on my own moral criteria as do you and everyone else. ALL of our laws are the manifestation of someone's idea of morality. That's their entire purpose! To impose a certain "moralistic" standard on the collective society in which we live. We see this in virtually EVERY law on the books. You'll find it difficult to pinpoint a law that isn't fundamentally rooted in some idea of a moral standard.

Where I break this down is between the powers of FEDERAL government as opposed to State governments. I believe the duty of the Federal government is to basically protect our natural rights which are inalienable. Nothing else. Any societal or cultural "morality" issue should be handled in the order of hierarchy with regard to the maximum individual liberty.... What does THAT mean, Boss?

Here is the hierarchy of individual liberty... 1) Self- the individual has 100% freedom to do as they please. 2) Home- the individual has limitations on freedom pursuant to rules of the house. 3) Community- the individual has limitations on freedom pursuant to rules of the community. 4) State- the individual is limited based on collective views of their state. Wherever the lines can be drawn by the "will of the people" and collectively established, that's where it should happen. But it should always attempt to follow this hierarchy of individual liberty.

So you believe in amorality? That leads to anarchy, then to socialism and finally to communism.

 

[ding]

So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Go study the first 85 years of US history man! The government condoned it, the congress condoned it, presidents condoned it, courts condoned it, the general public condoned it. They didn't do that on the basis it was immoral. They justified the morality of it by distorting how we define "people" or "humans" or "citizens."

Again, contradictory to your OP, the parameters of morality CHANGE.

I understand the history, brother. I am asking you if YOU believe that was moral of them to do so. Do you?

 

[ding]

You can not legislate morality!

Of course you can

Murder is not moral. We have laws against it
Stealing the property of others is not moral......We have laws against it
Assault and rape is not moral...We have laws against it

I agree, but that still does not make the people behave morally. I believe that is what he meant by you can't legislate morality. And you can't. The best you can do is write laws and punish people for breaking those laws. But that won't make them moral. They have to choose to do that. Conversely, you could write bad laws and people could choose to violate them because they are moral.

 

[ding]

You can not legislate morality!

Of course you can

Murder is not moral. We have laws against it
Stealing the property of others is not moral......We have laws against it
Assault and rape is not moral...We have laws against it

But that's not why they are illegal. These acts are illegal because they violate the rights of others.

Sure, but not all laws are just laws. Take China's forced abortion laws for instance or our past laws on slavery.

 

[ding]

When humans were primarily small family tribes of hunter gatherers they would routinely attempt kill anyone not known to them.

as we became more socialized that type of xenophobic violence actually would hurt the community rather than protect it so it slowly stopped and the attitude that killing for no reason was undesirable became prevalent

Except you're wrong about some things. There was no "community" just the tribe and the laws of nature. What intervened at some point to change the game was human spirituality. Once man became spiritually connected, he was able to conceptualize empathy and compassion. This enabled trust relationships rooted in the universal understanding of powers greater than self. THEN you had communities and civilizations.

I would argue that there are only the laws of nature and that eventually they are discovered because failure to adhere to them results in failed outcomes.

 

[ding]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

you started a logical discussion with unsubstanciated claims. ughh

What claim would you like for me to substantiate?

 

[ding]

When humans were primarily small family tribes of hunter gatherers they would routinely attempt kill anyone not known to them.

as we became more socialized that type of xenophobic violence actually would hurt the community rather than protect it so it slowly stopped and the attitude that killing for no reason was undesirable became prevalent

Except you're wrong about some things. There was no "community" just the tribe and the laws of nature. What intervened at some point to change the game was human spirituality. Once man became spiritually connected, he was able to conceptualize empathy and compassion. This enabled trust relationships rooted in the universal understanding of powers greater than self. THEN you had communities and civilizations.

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

Or another way to say that is that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and predictable surprises of lowering standards of conduct will eventually be realized. Only then can people see the value in adhering to the higher standard.

 

[ding]

You can not legislate morality!

Of course you can

Murder is not moral. We have laws against it
Stealing the property of others is not moral......We have laws against it
Assault and rape is not moral...We have laws against it

But that's not why they are illegal. These acts are illegal because they violate the rights of others.

Isn't that what morality is?

Your interaction with others

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

 

[Boss]

Man is subjective. Morals laws are not. Just because not everyone discovers them or accepts them does not negate them. You are literally arguing for moral relativity. For instance, regardless of what societies have deemed acceptable, it was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right?

We accept this as "moral" today, we didn't in 1861. So no, the history demonstrates it wasn't always unacceptable.

So you're trying to claim that morals are there and we've just not accepted them yet... but then, for years it was illegal and immoral to be a homosexual. Today, they are a protected class... is THAT the TRUE moral we have found? Twenty years ago, there were two genders... today there are over 100 purported gender identities... new moral discovery we stumbled upon?

I'm not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing morality is subjective and changes with culture and time. Back in the 1800s, young girls were married by age 14 or they were considered spinsters and ostracized. Today, that's sexual child abuse... but there are people out there lobbying for us to lower age of consent. Maybe 14 is the natural moral age when girls are able to consent? They are capable of reproduction, so mother nature doesn't seem to object... laws of nature aren't wrong about morals are they?

Now, I am sure you will make some argument about girls not being capable of consent at 14 but you don't know every 14 year old girl. That's an arbitrary standard you've set based on your sense of morals. How do we know that shouldn't be age 25? Maybe THAT is the TRUE natural moral standard? What makes age 16 or 18 the TRUE moral boundary? How do we KNOW this?

 

[ding]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Very simple...the golden rule which can be found in just about every culture thru-out history.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you is indeed a pretty high standard. The only flaw in that that I can see is that we don't always love ourselves so well.

 

[ding]

Man is subjective. Morals laws are not. Just because not everyone discovers them or accepts them does not negate them. You are literally arguing for moral relativity. For instance, regardless of what societies have deemed acceptable, it was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right?

We accept this as "moral" today, we didn't in 1861. So no, the history demonstrates it wasn't always unacceptable.

So you're trying to claim that morals are there and we've just not accepted them yet... but then, for years it was illegal and immoral to be a homosexual. Today, they are a protected class... is THAT the TRUE moral we have found? Twenty years ago, there were two genders... today there are over 100 purported gender identities... new moral discovery we stumbled upon?

I'm not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing morality is subjective and changes with culture and time. Back in the 1800s, young girls were married by age 14 or they were considered spinsters and ostracized. Today, that's sexual child abuse... but there are people out there lobbying for us to lower age of consent. Maybe 14 is the natural moral age when girls are able to consent? They are capable of reproduction, so mother nature doesn't seem to object... laws of nature aren't wrong about morals are they?

Now, I am sure you will make some argument about girls not being capable of consent at 14 but you don't know every 14 year old girl. That's an arbitrary standard you've set based on your sense of morals. How do we know that shouldn't be age 25? Maybe THAT is the TRUE natural moral standard? What makes age 16 or 18 the TRUE moral boundary? How do we KNOW this?

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

 

[ding]

But that's not why they are illegal. These acts are illegal because they violate the rights of others.

Isn't that what morality is?

Your interaction with others

No.

What is the moral code of an individual by himself other than survival?

I dunno. What are you implying? You asked "Isn't that what morality is?" in response to my statement that the acts in question were illegal because they violated rights, not because they were immoral. To which I answer no, morality is different than rights. You threw in "Your interaction with others" for some reason, but that's not morality either.

I'm not following you

What is an example of morality that does not involve your interaction with others?

Prostitution, drug addiction, sex addiction, etc.

 

[ding]

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Outcomes. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure while successful behaviors naturally lead to success. There is a law of compensation at work that helps us tell the difference between doing good and rationalizing that we are doing good. Doing the right thing the right way for the right reason will naturally lead to positive outcomes.

 

[ding]

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

 

[ding]

No. We are constantly evolving towards it. Find the highest standard possible for any behavior, one that man doesn't really want to follow, and you will have most likely discovered it.

Oh really? Well then, the Bible must be wrong about men laying with men and it must be perfectly okay for men to suck dick? Isn't that where we've evolved?

All true, but since error cannot stand it is only a matter of time for our conscience and consciousness to evolve just like every other stage in the evolution of matter evolved before it. Truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to that process.

Again, our societal consciousness has evolved into one that glorifies homosexuality and women objectifying themselves. Women dress as vaginas and demand abortions on demand and societal consciousness celebrates them and books them on TV talk shows.

I think your theories about evolving toward a higher morality are problematic.

Hmmm well the Bible advocated stoning people for adultery- and that it was immoral for women to wear pants.

And that slavery was not only to be tolerated, but that slaves were to obey their masters.

I realize that many people think that we haven't evolved and yearn for the good old days- but yes we have evolved.

You should read up on this history to understand the context.

 

[ding]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

So is speeding or parking in a fire lane. EVERY law is rooted in a principle of morality at some level. It's virtually impossible to give me an example of a law that isn't.

Sure, but they all don't adhere to the moral law of nature.

 

[ding]

So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Go study the first 85 years of US history man! The government condoned it, the congress condoned it, presidents condoned it, courts condoned it, the general public condoned it. They didn't do that on the basis it was immoral. They justified the morality of it by distorting how we define "people" or "humans" or "citizens."

Again, contradictory to your OP, the parameters of morality CHANGE.

You misunderstood the OP.

 

[Boss]

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

Well I disagree that I believe in "moral relativism" as an absolute. I do not. I do believe there are certain things (though very few) that the overwhelming majority of humans agree upon morally regardless of culture or time. Often times, what this breaks down around is definitions.

You ask if I believe it is moral to own another human being. I do not. I wouldn't have believed that in 1861 and I don't believe most people would have. The difference is in definition of what a "human being" was... a slave was a piece of property, not a human being. Society justified the morality of owning slaves by distinguishing them as property and not human beings. The same thing happens today with regard to unborn fetuses.

We can look at the radical Islamic teachings... these people justify what they do as "moral" because they think it's justified to rid the planet of infidels and Jews. I hope you don't agree with them, I certainly don't agree with them, but they religiously believe they are being moral. They want to impose brutal Sharia Law on society, they think and religiously believe that is moral. We don't agree with them but that's the morality they've justified. Why hasn't your ethereal and universally eternal morality permeated their thoughts? Why don't they realize naturally that what they are doing is immoral?

 

[Boss]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

So is speeding or parking in a fire lane. EVERY law is rooted in a principle of morality at some level. It's virtually impossible to give me an example of a law that isn't.

Sure, but they all don't adhere to the moral law of nature.

Again... and I hate to sound like some sort of pervert... but a female reaches natural sexual maturity at around age 13~14 years. Yet we establish "age of consent" laws much higher and it's based on a morality judgement. Are we contradicting NATURAL morality?