Zone1 Without God Who Or What Decides What Moral Law Is?

[Blues Man]

there are children who aren't 'molded' yet that have committed evils acts not due to be merely 'of a juvenile mind'.




i am.



if there is a god, then there is evil as well. sociopathic people are devoid of a conscience & human emotion. they didn't lose it, they never had it.

Evil is subjective.

 

[Blues Man]

granted that humanity matures and becomes clearer, but the morality stays the same. It is wrong to murder, to steal, to lie about others. The details have to change but the standard is the same.

Actually the standards have changed.

When humans were few in number and living in nomadic tribes it was most likely standard practice to kill strangers because extreme xenophobia is what kept the tribe secure and other people were competitors for resources that might mean life or death to the tribe.

So that type of murder carried out could have and probably was seen as perfectly acceptable. For the same reason the raiding and stealing of another tribe's food when your tribe was starving would be seen as acceptable.

It is when people started to live in large numbers in permanent settlements that these once accepted behaviors became a hindrance to the success of the new society.

Obviously the killing of strangers became unacceptable because once a society is large enough most people will be strangers

It is society that imposes the standards of acceptable and un acceptable behaviors. As societies evolve they all tend to normalize in what is considered acceptable or unacceptable which gives the appearance of some greater authority or some innate moral code put there by a god but the truth is these acceptable and unacceptable behaviors just work better to for the success of a society

 

[alang1216]

Christians believe that God's law is written on the hearts of mankind. My point is in that case, what has some generations/societies upholding the moral high ground, while others eschew it. I see money as the common denominator in the efforts of the wealthy and powerful to persuade society to reject the higher moral ground.

Certainly greed makes people do terrible things but there are other causes too, even for Christians, even Christianity itself. I'm thinking of the Reformation, probably because I'm current reading about it, where devout Christians did some horrendous things to other devout Christians. Both sides were sincere in their beliefs and wanted to preserve the Faith from those they saw as heretics. Took them 30 to decide it wasn't the right thing to do.

While I see God as the author of morality and wealthy/powerful humans rejecting that morality and persuading the rest of society to go along with it, you seem to see society agreeing on what is moral. I don't see it your way because I see the clear division in society as it relates to slavery and to abortion.

The morality of God is on display in the OT where he sanctions genocide, deception, and punishment of the innocent. I believe that view of God was a reflection of the Bronze Age society that produced those stories. Slavery was never seen as immoral in the Bible and there were rules for it as for every other aspect of life.

 

[GreatestIam]

NO. Human nature prohibits mankind from being able to codify Right and Wrong on our own.

What do these tell you about who should be using their minds to judge things?

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I do see why you would ignore the bible though.

Regards
DL

 

[Crick]

I think that it's a very good question actually. She brings up a very good point.

Humans establish morals in an effort to make human society possible.

 

[ding]

Humans establish morals in an effort to make human society possible.

Incorrect. There absolutely is a natural standard that exists within nature. Nature constantly provides us feedback on our behaviors. We are free to establish any morals we want but we are not free from suffering the consequences from choosing poorly. 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 logical reasons. 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.

 

[Crick]

Incorrect. There absolutely is a natural standard that exists within nature.

Created by what?

Nature constantly provides us feedback on our behaviors.

The feedbacks provided by nature are centered almost entirely around survival and reproduction. Both of these areas do quite well with behaviors sorely at odds with traditional moral human behavior.

We are free to establish any morals we want but we are not free from suffering the consequences from choosing poorly.

I would argue that morals are results-based choices. Not everyone is looking for the same results and even identical results can require different behaviors under different circumstances.

Morals are effectively standards.

Wow, that's deep.

For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard.

You have not yet provided any reason to think so. This is simply unsupported speculation.

This standard exists independent of anything else.

And now, still without any logical or evidentiary support, you move on from your unsupported speculation.

It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for logical reasons.

Which said logical reasons you have yet to even vaguely describe. So, for any given thing there exists, a priori, a universal standard. I assume that by "any given thing" you actually mean "any given behavior", since the discussion was about morals and morals concern behavior. So, by your declaration, there is a universal standard for relations with other people and one for how we treat animals and one for respecting the world around you and one for getting a splinter out of your toe and one for scratching your ass in public. Is that what you mean? And these standards, you tell us, are intrisic to nature and formed by the feedback nature gives us to behavioral choices. So, I have to wonder what feedback nature provides to the manner in which we might scratch our asses in public. What feedback does nature provide to our treatment of other people? Finally, what feedback does nature provide to humans who practice altruism, the core behavior of stable society.

Because altruism - the selfless concern for the well-being of others - is at the heart of all social moral systems. And by social moral systems I mean morals that have developed among people that choose to live in social environments as opposed to those who choose to live in isolation; without society. But, given the paucity of social systems in nature it is not a behavior typically rewarded in the wild.

When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered.

Does it have to be normalized before the reason is discovered? There are lots of universally condemned behaviors: murder, stealing, cruelty, that still take place after ten thousand years of human society. It seems that either we do not see the reason or that it is not pointed out to us with sufficient force. Interestingly, the consequences for committing such sins do not come from natural feedback but from the rule of law. Nature doesn't seem to really care if we murder or steal. Such actions are irrelevant to the rest of the universe. It is human society that suffers and human society that provides that "feedback".

The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

That would make me think that the world must be a nearly perfect place. But, of course, it's not. Errors get revealed but then get forgotten. Or people take the wrong lesson from an error. The value of such a system seems more than a little dubious. Why would there be such feedbacks if they accomplish nothing? The process of evolution itself evolved. A process of moral feedback to help life avoid moral errors must also be an evolutionary process. Of course, that doesn't jibe with your a priori universal standards. Those could not have evolved. So you need a creator.

Thus proving

Proving? You haven't proven diddly here friend. You haven't even presented a shred of evidence, logic or reason to support your claims.

that morals cannot be anything we want them to be

Morals can be anything we want them to be because we have free will. But as you say, there are consequences but the consequences come from human society, not nature.

but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... I really hope you're kidding us here. Have you ever read stories on astronomy or cosmology that talk about galactic collisions or super novas or black holes eating up stars and wonder to yourself if there were any living things involved in those events. Given the numbers, it's almost guaranteed that there were. On a smaller scale we have earthquakes and volcanos and tsunamis and forest firest and asteroid strikes and a great deal of suffering that takes place with no universal consideration at all. As Stephen Crane noted, human existence has not created any sense of obligation in the universe. There is no universal code of common decency independent of man. And morals never were about decency. They are about altering the behavior of individual humans so as to allow the function of human society.

 

[playtime]

 

[playtime]

Evil is subjective.

hitler or jeffery dahmer not being 'evil' in some people's mind are welcome to be wrong.

 

[ding]

Created by what?

The feedbacks provided by nature are centered almost entirely around survival and reproduction. Both of these areas do quite well with behaviors sorely at odds with traditional moral human behavior. I would argue that morals are results-based choices. Not everyone is looking for the same results and even identical results can require different behaviors under different circumstances. Wow, that's deep. You have not yet provided any reason to think so. This is simply unsupported speculation. And now, still without any logical or evidentiary support, you move on from your unsupported speculation. Which said logical reasons you have yet to even vaguely describe. So, for any given thing there exists, a priori, a universal standard. I assume that by "any given thing" you actually mean "any given behavior", since the discussion was about morals and morals concern behavior. So, by your declaration, there is a universal standard for relations with other people and one for how we treat animals and one for respecting the world around you and one for getting a splinter out of your toe and one for scratching your ass in public. Is that what you mean? And these standards, you tell us, are intrisic to nature and formed by the feedback nature gives us to behavioral choices. So, I have to wonder what feedback nature provides to the manner in which we might scratch our asses in public. What feedback does nature provide to our treatment of other people? Finally, what feedback does nature provide to humans who practice altruism, the core behavior of stable society. Because altruism - the selfless concern for the well-being of others - is at the heart of all social moral systems. And by social moral systems I mean morals that have developed among people that choose to live in social environments as opposed to those who choose to live in isolation; without society. But, given the paucity of social systems in nature it is not a behavior typically rewarded in the wild. Does it have to be normalized before the reason is discovered? There are lots of universally condemned behaviors: murder, stealing, cruelty, that still take place after ten thousand years of human society. It seems that either we do not see the reason or that it is not pointed out to us with sufficient force. Interestingly, the consequences for committing such sins do not come from natural feedback but from the rule of law. Nature doesn't seem to really care if we murder or steal. Such actions are irrelevant to the rest of the universe. It is human society that suffers and human society that provides that "feedback". That would make me think that the world must be a nearly perfect place. But, of course, it's not. Errors get revealed but then get forgotten. Or people take the wrong lesson from an error. The value of such a system seems more than a little dubious. Why would there be such feedbacks if they accomplish nothing? The process of evolution itself evolved. A process of moral feedback to help life avoid moral errors must also be an evolutionary process. Of course, that doesn't jibe with your a priori universal standards. Those could not have evolved. So you need a creator. Proving? You haven't proven diddly here friend. You haven't even presented a shred of evidence, logic or reason to support your claims. Morals can be anything we want them to be because we have free will. But as you say, there are consequences but the consequences come from human society, not nature. Ha ha ha ha ha.... I really hope you're kidding us here. Have you ever read stories on astronomy or cosmology that talk about galactic collisions or super novas or black holes eating up stars and wonder to yourself if there were any living things involved in those events. Given the numbers, it's almost guaranteed that there were. On a smaller scale we have earthquakes and volcanos and tsunamis and forest firest and asteroid strikes and a great deal of suffering that takes place with no universal consideration at all. As Stephen Crane noted, human existence has not created any sense of obligation in the universe. There is no universal code of common decency independent of man. And morals never were about decency. They are about altering the behavior of individual humans so as to allow the function of human society.

The concept of fairness is so deeply embedded within you you can't abandon it even when you violate it. Instead you rationalize you didn't violate it. Man can't call a line crooked unless he knows what straight is.

 

[ding]

Moral relativity is a product of subjectivity.

 

[ding]

The turn from good to evil is an incremental process; a gradual process.

 

[BS Filter]

Aren’t people capable of determining right or wrong on their own?

Nope. That's why government makes laws.

 

[Crick]

The concept of fairness is so deeply embedded within you you can't abandon it even when you violate it. Instead you rationalize you didn't violate it. Man can't call a line crooked unless he knows what straight is.

You failed to address a single word I said.

 

[Crick]

Moral relativity is a product of subjectivity.

I agree, but I'm not certain you understand what you just said. For starters, your last opus is still short a substantial amount of foundational work. You need to present us some reason to believe your claims other than that you said so. So, before I defend my points, you need to at least establish some logical backing for yours.

 

[ding]

You failed to address a single word I said.

That’s because you can’t make a positive case for your beliefs. There’s nothing that needs to be addressed.

 

[ding]

I agree, but I'm not certain you understand what you just said. For starters, your last opus is still short a substantial amount of foundational work. You need to present us some reason to believe your claims other than that you said so. So, before I defend my points, you need to at least establish some logical backing for yours.

Of course I understand what I have written.

 

[BreezeWood]

Of course I understand what I have written.

- they're just saying there's nothing to understand in what you have written whether you understand it or not ...

 

[Blues Man]

hitler or jeffery dahmer not being 'evil' in some people's mind are welcome to be wrong.

Regardless it is still subjective.

 

[Crick]

That’s because you can’t make a positive case for your beliefs. There’s nothing that needs to be addressed.

First, you need to define what you mean by "a positive case".
Second, you need to show us why that makes any difference.
Third, I made more than five different points supporting my contentions. You made none at the time and now you'veve refused to address any of the points I made.

Let's start over. Please describe for us some of the feedbacks from nature that result from violating the a priori universal laws you tell us are embedded there.