Are Humans Born Good?

[ADigitalArtist]

Not really, no. We might well be worse.

We are better at making technologies and consolidating power, but I'm not sure our track record of building 'sound social paradigms' is all that great. Our ability of making technologies and consolidating power is often the cause of this.

Even if I were to agree that humans have equally successful societies as chimpanzees (and I emphatically do not, our language alone provides a deeper, richer, more complex social structure than any other extant primate could hope to have, let alone psychological connections such as advanced theory of mind), I'm talking about how moral judgement works without the need for religious thinking. And that involves analyzing data and drawing conclusions and communicating conclusions, all of which we can do better than any extant terrestrial animal. Which is not to say we are intrinsically better than animals in some cosmic way, but that we have higher analytical and communication thus socialization capabilities.

 

[Fool]

What are humans at birth? Are humans naturally good? Naturally evil? Naturally, a mix of good and evil? Or, neither naturally good nor evil?

Note: I'm placing this thread in religious debates because, as I understand the terms, "good" and "evil" are religious concepts.

self-preservation is an innate quality. self-worth is innate. so self love is apparent

 

[Onyx]

What are humans at birth? Are humans naturally good? Naturally evil? Naturally, a mix of good and evil? Or, neither naturally good nor evil?

I don't think there is a clear answer, except perhaps that humans are advanced individuals - able to work with a multitude of concepts (such as good, evil, bacon, thongs, etc) and make rational choices.

I think the terms "good" and "evil" are relative to the individual and their environment. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

 

[1robin]

The philosopher Phillipa Foot used to say that to consider goodness, you need to start with plants. She could have said we need to start with books and knives.

Plants do not have a will and so are amoral. Good is a moral value, objective moral values and duties only exist if God does.

A good object is one that fulfills it's function: a good knife cuts, a good book informs or entertains. A good plant is much the same: it can survive and reproduce. A good animal, however, needs not just the right bodily structure, but the right behaviour: it needs to know what to eat and how to attract a mate. If it's a social animal, that means more behavioural requirements.

Sorry, you are an intelligent poster but what you said here is incorrect. If God does not exist (or maybe even if he does) then the effectiveness of a design or adaptation is not a moral issue. Natural laws can only tell us what is, they cannot possibly tell anyone the way things should be. If you do not have a God then you cannot have any objective moral goal posts for anything. Without God the well being of any particular species (especially when it's flourishing mean something else can't flourish) flourishing, or whether anything was evolutionarily advantageous, and your inventing goals that things should meet out of thin air.

Humans are social animals, and so can only have a good life if they have the ability to thrive in society. They are also rational animals. As Aquinas said, animals go for what they need, humans for what they think they need. This means that to be good humans we need what Aristotle called practical wisdom; we all know how the best intentions may fail or even make things worse. A good person is thus one who has the abilities to lead a flourishing life in all respects.

Humans have maximized their own flourishing at the expensive of everything else's flourishing. Without God this is merely speciesm which is far worse than racism. However if God exist and he did grant us sovereignty over all other life forms then our eating them, experimenting on them, or keeping them as pets is perfectly rational and justified.

How do we fail?
> Lack of practical wisdom, causing us to pursue false goals or the wrong means (Aristotle)
> Lack of opportunities to develop moral sensibility (Mencius)
> By concentrating on our individuality and becoming unfeeling to others (Wang Yangming)

In other words, the capacity for virtue is like that for speech: all normal people have it, but we still need to learn to exercise it. On that basis, I'd say we are born good in the sense that goodness is a natural development.

What you seem to be calling good is not a moral good, it is an amoral good which is so arbitrary that it seems to be your opinion as to whether a things is good or bad.

Moral good and moral evil do not even exist without God. As for your arbitrary amoral goals you refer to as good or bad, in the context of this thread is irrelevant.

You seem fairly intelligent so I hope you can back up your claims with good philosophical argumentation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I haven't watched the video in page 1 but

I think that everybody wants a good result and therefore naturally has a good attitude that they apply. However, not everyone succeeds at helping humanity. That's what I've said before and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Humans are born neither good nor evil, nor are they born blank slates, nor with a fully developed set of instincts, either.

We are born plastic creatures, having first and foremost (like every creature) and instinct for survival, with evolved dispositions that make us both social and selfish, dependent on parental/societal training, and an ability to ignore any and all of that training when it suits our survival purpose.

There have been many books on human nature, but I confess a preference for David Hume (a little early, but still good), E.O Wilson (brilliant) and Professor Jacob Needleman ("Why Can't We Be Good?") Everybody who wants to know anything about what it is to be human could learn a very great deal by reading and comparing these 3 books.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

We are born as pure potential - we each have the potential 2 be loving & compassionate or angry & judgemental. We also have the potential to "rise above" our conditioning & circumstances.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First of all you are very wise to say that the moral categories of good and evil only exist if God exists. Natural law can only tell us what is, it can never tell us what should be. You would not believe how many of our most precious beliefs (racial equality, purpose, meaning, sanctity of life, value of life, objective moral values and duties, etc...) can not be justified if God does not exist.

On to your main point. It is my opinion that humans are born morally imperfect. However that is not really important. What is important is that all mortal humans have freewill. We can use it for only good, but we all fail to do so. That is why Christ's substitutionary atonement is the only hope for mankind. He was perfect and he paid the entire price to redeem a fallen human race which appears to be morally insane.

Regarding my previous post, you of all people could do with a little reading of those texts I mentioned. Your understanding of human nature is really quite childish, and misses just about all of what is real about us. "A Child's Garden of Versus" compared to the "Norton Anthology of English Literature."

 

[whirlingmerc]

In Psalm 51, the effects of the fall go back before birth to conception

 

[MonkeyFire]

Most are good, then the rest are evil.

 

[arthra]

There is a saying attributed to Abdul-Baha:

"No infant is ever born bad -- all infants are born alike good, but their education and surroundings and their individuality make them become what they afterwards are."

(Dated Collection, 1901 Feb-Mar, Ethel Rosenberg)

Baha'is do not accept the concept of "original sin" or "inherited depravity".

 

[Augustus]

Even if I were to agree that humans have equally successful societies as chimpanzees (and I emphatically do not, our language alone provides a deeper, richer, more complex social structure than any other extant primate could hope to have, let alone psychological connections such as advanced theory of mind), I'm talking about how moral judgement works without the need for religious thinking. And that involves analyzing data and drawing conclusions and communicating conclusions, all of which we can do better than any extant terrestrial animal. Which is not to say we are intrinsically better than animals in some cosmic way, but that we have higher analytical and communication thus socialization capabilities.

Of course we have a more complex society and higher analytical reasoning abilities, it's just that sometimes these lead us to work out ingenious ways to exterminate people of the wrong ethnicity, or define others as inhuman, etc.

I don't see our cognitive abilities as being so great they allow us to transcend our animalistic nature.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Plants do not have a will and so are amoral. Good is a moral value, objective moral values and duties only exist if God does. What you seem to be calling good is not a moral good, it is an amoral good which is so arbitrary that it seems to be your opinion as to whether a things is good or bad. Moral good and moral evil do not even exist without God. As for your arbitrary amoral goals you refer to as good or bad, in the context of this thread is irrelevant.

You seem fairly intelligent so I hope you can back up your claims with good philosophical argumentation.

I hope so too!

The first point is surely that either the word good is equivocal or not. I would contend (as have most philosophers) that it is not. If we use the term good for a book and an action, then there has to be some sort of connection or we just wouldn't do it. If some-one wishes to maintain that there are two quite different meanings of good, one moral and one amoral, then the onus is surely on them to prove it.

The second point is that the goals I refer to are not arbitrary. I'm sure that we agree that there is an ideal life for humans and that people who commit evil actions do not lead it. Despite our different religions, we would also agree that we were intended to lead such a life. Leading a virtuous life cannot guarantee happiness, but the evil person can never be completely happy. A description of a virtuous life or person can be objective. A bee that did not tell other bees where the best nectar was would be a bad bee: a bad specimen of a bee. In the same way, a person who deceived others would be a bad specimen of a human being because they could not live a happy life in human society.

The idea that good is objective is not incompatible with Christianity; it was the standard view in the Middle Ages. According to Aquinas, things are not good because God commands them, but God commands them because they are good.

 

[1robin]

Regarding my previous post, you of all people could do with a little reading of those texts I mentioned. Your understanding of human nature is really quite childish, and misses just about all of what is real about us. "A Child's Garden of Versus" compared to the "Norton Anthology of English Literature."

Is it possible for you to make a post that isn't sarcastic, or that actually contains a meaningful argument? From the first post you ever made to me, your apparent dissatisfaction with life in general has seeped into every post of yours I have read. I had to go through the threads I was in and end every discussion I was having with people who could not make challenging counter arguments. I ended our debate in the homosexual thread and I was tempted to do so in this thread as well. However I will give you a few posts to see if you can make better arguments here than you have else where. I sure hope you stop the color commentary garbage and instead pick up your argumentation.

1. I have no idea what previous post in what thread you are referring back to.
2. I saw no links in this post you made to me.
3. You did mention a couple of books or the like. However you did not give links, you cannot really expect anyone to go out a read entire books for an informal debate can you, and if your going to source something you need to provide links and which part of what you sourced is it that you wish to put forward.
4. I almost always quote what it is I want others to concentrate on, I usually post why it is I want others to investigate what I source, and I supply a link to the entire article or paper in case others want to read more than I provided. Why do not you do the same.
5. My arguments concern the ontological nature of morality, not human behavior. Not that you showed any reason why I got human behavior wrong or why it is even relevant.
6. Since you are on a different and irrelevant playing than I am I will restate my points below.

A. I said the entire categories of objective moral truth with reference to evil and good only exist if God does.
B. I made the corollary claim that those categories of objective moral truth do not and cannot possibly exist if God does not exist.
C. Lastly I said that the person's argument (which was who and what I responded to) was concerned with an amoral concept of "good and evil". Since the subject of this thread is moral good and moral evil then the arbitrary and amoral concepts of good and evil are irrelevant (and probably do not even exist to begin with).

Now please stop pointing to posts you do not provide, stop mentioning books or papers without links, copy and paste what arguments it is you want me to consider, and state why it is what you posted is relevant. If you don't this discussion will not continue much longer.

I am not here to be agreed with (in fact I am here to not be agreed with. I ask either civility, or a challenging counter argument, and to have my arguments examined (not changed). If you cannot do any of the three then I cannot justify wasting time responding. Good luck, no subject is more absolute than the nature of morality given God or without God.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of course we have a more complex society and higher analytical reasoning abilities, it's just that sometimes these lead us to work out ingenious ways to exterminate people of the wrong ethnicity, or define others as inhuman, etc.

I don't see our cognitive abilities as being so great they allow us to transcend our animalistic nature.

I don't know what 'transcend our animalistic nature' means. I just know we are uniquely situated in the animal kingdom to make moral judgements based on reason rather than just instinct, which means we *can be* more reasonable and more moral than any other animal. I wouldn't argue that because we don't all have the same levels of empathy or will or motive that means the greater tools and capability for moral behavior isn't there. And I don't think that's what human exceptionalism as I understand it is about either though I'm not sure if my position counts as how you would define human exceptionalism.

My argument is that I would never hold an extant non-human animal morally accountable in the same way because they do not have the capacity to determine right and wrong from data and communicate to form greater social bonding and more productive social systems. (Similarly I wouldn't hold a human morally accountable who didn't have the same capacity, such as children or cognitively disabled.)

 

[1robin]

I hope so too!

Me to, glad you responded. I have been on a dry spell as to getting meaningful counter arguments to my own.

The first point is surely that either the word good is equivocal or not. I would contend (as have most philosophers) that it is not. If we use the term good for a book and an action, then there has to be some sort of connection or we just wouldn't do it. If some-one wishes to maintain that there are two quite different meanings of good, one moral and one amoral, then the onus is surely on them to prove it.

Well I disagree. BTW I assumed you were not a theist, but below you mention something about a different religions. Can you tell me please what faith (if any) you have so I can tailor my future responses better.

1. The first issue is what you mean by good. The context of this thread is moral good and evil. My response pointed out that what you have been talking about is amoral not moral. Whether a car is well designed or not is not a moral issue, it is an amoral claim.
2. I do not agree that good even in the moral sense is objective without the existence of God. However since amoral labels are not relevant I will not spend much time on whether a well designed entity is objectively or subjectively good or evil.
3. I will keep our discussion focused on the moral concepts of good and evil.
4. As far as philosophers go it will depend on whether they are theist or not, what era your referring to, and whether you talking about moral values and duties or merely utilitarian concepts of good or evil.

So lets first agree to concentrate on the relevant moral concepts of good and evil. Then you can restate what you think about them and the philosophers conclusions about them. If you are instead going to concentrate on the trivial ideas concerning the optimality of a design then I will have to decide whether that debate is worth my investing time on.

The second point is that the goals I refer to are not arbitrary. I'm sure that we agree that there is an ideal life for humans and that people who commit evil actions do not lead it. Despite our different religions, we would also agree that we were intended to lead such a life. Leading a virtuous life cannot guarantee happiness, but the evil person can never be completely happy. A description of a virtuous life or person can be objective. A bee that did not tell other bees where the best nectar was would be a bad bee: a bad specimen of a bee. In the same way, a person who deceived others would be a bad specimen of a human being because they could not live a happy life in human society.

First let me make a blanket statement. Without God there are no objective goals for morality to correspond with. All we can possibly have without God are presences and opinions.

If you want to suggest what is the highest possible objective standard concerning an ideal life, then you must do all of the following.

1. Post specifically what that objective standard is. This requires you to find a source for that standard which transcends biological minds. If all you come up with is rooted in human thought then that means it is subjective (not objective). Think of subjective this way. Subjective means it is subjected to something. In this context that would be human opinions and preferences, or even human thought.

2. You must explain how you have a standard which transcends human thought without appealing to the transcendent because things that transcend minds transcends nature (and is by definition above nature or supernatural). However you have no God to refer to so you can't find a transcendent standard.

3. You must explain the epistemological method which enabled you to know what the ideal standard is (even if one actually exists)

4. You must explain in detail the ontological nature of that standard (even if it exists, and even if you can know what it is).

As for the rest of what you said:

A. Explain how happiness is the ultimate goal of anything (especially since our legal standards do not even attempt to maximize happiness). And if it is how do you know it is.
B. A virtuous life can only be the standard if it is grounded in an objective source. Humanity is out so what is left.
C. How do you know that a lack of virtue is not the actual goal of morality?
D. How do you know that a bee failing to fully benefit the rest of the hive is acting immorally?

Keep in mind that without God there exists no actual objective truth to any moral matter. IOW if you thought murder was wrong and I said it was good then there exists no objective standard by which to see which one of us is right, and even if there was you must also show how it is we could know it.

The idea that good is objective is not incompatible with Christianity; it was the standard view in the Middle Ages. According to Aquinas, things are not good because God commands them, but God commands them because they are good.

This is getting confusing. My faith is Christianity and it was my claim that good (if it exists) is objective. So I am confused by your bringing up my faith and the claim I made.

Regardless, I have never read Aquinas concerning moral ontology but if that is what he said or believed he is wrong. What you stated is the very old and the completely inapplicable concept called Euthyphro's dilemma. I am sure you know what that is so I will only state what the mainstream Christian doctrine actually is.

1. We do not believe an action becomes right or wrong because God allows or forbids it.
2. We do not believe there is an external objective moral realm which God merely choses from or obeys.
3. We believe that God's eternal nature is what makes things wrong or right, and that his commands simply source morality in his nature and flows from or reflects that nature.

It is not merely that his nature is objective and eternal, it is that it is impossible to even theorize a source that is more morally objective than God's nature.

Let's try to keep this debate about moral ontology instead of functional optimality, and please clarify your position on your own faith. Thanks....

 

[1robin]

There is a saying attributed to Abdul-Baha:

"No infant is ever born bad -- all infants are born alike good, but their education and surroundings and their individuality make them become what they afterwards are."

(Dated Collection, 1901 Feb-Mar, Ethel Rosenberg)

Baha'is do not accept the concept of "original sin" or "inherited depravity".

Another Baha'i self contradiction. Every Baha'i I have ever met claimed that all religions are true (including the ones that contain original sin). This is done by torturing everyone else's faith until it no longer resembles the original. Next they jam together the religions they mangled into unrecognizability, and then throw away all the pieces left over.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is it possible for you to make a post that isn't sarcastic, or that actually contains a meaningful argument? From the first post you ever made to me, your apparent dissatisfaction with life in general has seeped into every post of yours I have read. I had to go through the threads I was in and end every discussion I was having with people who could not make challenging counter arguments. I ended our debate in the homosexual thread and I was tempted to do so in this thread as well. However I will give you a few posts to see if you can make better arguments here than you have else where. I sure hope you stop the color commentary garbage and instead pick up your argumentation.

1. I have no idea what previous post in what thread you are referring back to.
2. I saw no links in this post you made to me.
3. You did mention a couple of books or the like. However you did not give links, you cannot really expect anyone to go out a read entire books for an informal debate can you, and if your going to source something you need to provide links and which part of what you sourced is it that you wish to put forward.

The post you quoted is #29, the post I referred to as "immediately before" is #27, and I mentioned it ONLY because it contained the names and authors of 3 books I didn't feel like typing out again.

4. I almost always quote what it is I want others to concentrate on, I usually post why it is I want others to investigate what I source, and I supply a link to the entire article or paper in case others want to read more than I provided. Why do not you do the same.

When I mean to refer to the entire content of an actual book, it is hardly necessary to provide a link -- and in fact generally useless, since they can't be read online. The authors, for some reason, seem to wish to be paid. I have read all 3 books in question, and will read more on the subject, because human nature is a very complex subject, and often something of a moving target. I do not believe it can be objectified in the way that you attempt.

5. My arguments concern the ontological nature of morality, not human behavior. Not that you showed any reason why I got human behavior wrong or why it is even relevant.

Well, for reasons that you would understand if you had studied human nature, I cannot accept the notion of moral ontology. Morals are, in my view, epistemic, not ontological. We can know what is moral only if we know what it is to be human, including both our (inherently conflicting) social and selfish natures.

6. Since you are on a different and irrelevant playing than I am I will restate my points below.

Not "irrelevant." Just different than yours.

A. I said the entire categories of objective moral truth with reference to evil and good only exist if God does.

And I have said that, as I do not believe in the existence of God, I do not accept that. That is why I treat morals as epistemological, rather than ontological. We have to learn who and what we are before we can be truly moral in the face of every human situation.

B. I made the corollary claim that those categories of objective moral truth do not and cannot possibly exist if God does not exist.

And I agree, and therefore I can ignore them.

But in any case, even if what you believe is true, then moving from the "ontological" moral truth -- which does nobody any good -- to an epistemological one (we do what we know) would be an impossibility without a complete window into the mind of God. And that does not exist. (And certainly, if you say that "window" is the Bible, then every Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain and so forth -- or the majority of all the world, will disagree with you, and then what are we left with?)

C. Lastly I said that the person's argument (which was who and what I responded to) was concerned with an amoral concept of "good and evil". Since the subject of this thread is moral good and moral evil then the arbitrary and amoral concepts of good and evil are irrelevant (and probably do not even exist to begin with).

You said that humans are born "morally imperfect," and this is incorrect, I think, as do Hume, Wilson, Needleman (who I cited) and many, many other philosophers. We are born with a human nature, which is as it has evolved to be, and is neither perfect nor imperfect, but simply a brute fact to be reckoned with.

Now please stop pointing to posts you do not provide, stop mentioning books or papers without links, copy and paste what arguments it is you want me to consider, and state why it is what you posted is relevant. If you don't this discussion will not continue much longer.

As I said, I am not going to paste entire books -- that would be illegal and in any case the forum wouldn't allow it. I do think, however, that anybody who wishes to engage in deeply philosophical arguments such as this one ought to be willing to do a little reading on the subject.

I am not here to be agreed with (in fact I am here to not be agreed with. I ask either civility, or a challenging counter argument, and to have my arguments examined (not changed). If you cannot do any of the three then I cannot justify wasting time responding. Good luck, no subject is more absolute than the nature of morality given God or without God.

I am not here to be agreed with either. And in my view, no subject is less absolute than the nature of morality without an understanding of human nature. Because lacking that understanding, we humans have contrived ways to feel good about an astonishing array of very real evil.

 

[1robin]

The post you quoted is #29, the post I referred to as "immediately before" is #27, and I mentioned it ONLY because it contained the names and authors of 3 books I didn't feel like typing out again.

Well, you needed to do more than one thing and at least two could be done by one action.

If you refer to external information then just copy and paste the primary points you want to me to consider and source them. I have figured how to do both at once in most cases. So even though you have now given me the post of yours to look up I still need the exact parts you wish me to consider and why. If I went a read every paper or book anyone mentioned that would be all I ever did.

When I mean to refer to the entire content of an actual book, it is hardly necessary to provide a link -- and in fact generally useless, since they can't be read online. The authors, for some reason, seem to wish to be paid. I have read all 3 books in question, and will read more on the subject, because human nature is a very complex subject, and often something of a moving target. I do not believe it can be objectified in the way that you attempt.

You should only refer to that which another person can actually spend the time to read. Again this is very easy and I try and do it in almost every case.

1. Copy and paste the argument, data, or passage that you wish another person to consider.
2. State why it is relevant.
3. Then source the paper, book, or whatever it is you copied and pasted from in case others want to investigate further.

It is a recipe for futility to simply mention something, or even worse to refer to another post without giving the post's number and which part to read. If you remember even after any hope I was going to get a meaningful argument in defense of homosexuality I still supplied specific data, why it was relevant, and gave a link to my source material. Then if no one cares you can give up on them as I finally did.

Anyway, I hope it remains the case for this entire post but so far you are being much more civil so keep it up and I will help out when I can or maybe invest additional time examining what your claiming.

Well, for reasons that you would understand if you had studied human nature, I cannot accept the notion of moral ontology. Morals are, in my view, epistemic, not ontological. We can know what is moral only if we know what it is to be human, including both our (inherently conflicting) social and selfish natures.

There is no way that even if I was ignorant about Human behavior you would even know it. I have not made a statement about human behavior in this thread.

You do not accept or deny the ontology of morality. Morality without any exception always has and always must have an ontology. Ontology of X simply means the nature of X. All X's have a nature. We can only debate what moralities' ontology is. Let me state my claims again.

1. If God exist moralities' Ontology can be and probably is objective.
2. If God does not exist then moralities' Ontology is subjective.

You cannot argue that morality has no ontology, in fact you only have the two choices above to chose from. Additionally human behavior has no effect on the ontology of morality in either case.

Not "irrelevant." Just different than yours.

This thread's stated context is the objective moral issues of good and evil. Human behavior is irrelevant as is the amoral aspects of good and evil.

And I have said that, as I do not believe in the existence of God, I do not accept that. That is why I treat morals as epistemological, rather than ontological. We have to learn who and what we are before we can be truly moral in the face of every human situation.

Your a priori or preferential assumption that there is no God does not mean morality has no ontology. However it does mean that since moralities ontology without God is subjective (in reality it actually does not even exist) then we no longer have any frame work to resolve moral issues.

Maybe it would help if I define some terms.

1. Ontology - the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2. Epistemology - The mechanism or process by which a person comes to know a thing.
3. Objective morality - Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
4. Subjective morality - Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se. This is better labeled as ethics, not morality.
Google
Malum in se - Wikipedia

You see? I gave you the necessary terms needed by copying and pasting all but one. I added some clarification for this context and I went on to give you links so you can check what I posted.

And I agree, and therefore I can ignore them.

Not too fast. You agree what the "then" is but you simply deny the "if". We can agree what the nature of morality is if God exist or if he does not exist, but we do not agree whether God exists or not. So you can't ignore anything. I can ignore what is true if God does not exist because actual morality does not exist if that is the case and we no longer have any common ground to decide anything in this context. However lets roll on for now.

But in any case, even if what you believe is true, then moving from the "ontological" moral truth -- which does nobody any good -- to an epistemological one (we do what we know) would be an impossibility without a complete window into the mind of God. And that does not exist. (And certainly, if you say that "window" is the Bible, then every Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain and so forth -- or the majority of all the world, will disagree with you, and then what are we left with?)

Does no good???? With God there exists an absolute truth by which our moral preferences either align with or are complete wrong. All our cherished values like racial equality, the sanctity of human life, the dignity of human life, the meaning to existence, the purpose of everything, etc..... ad infinitum, lose all their foundations without God. Nothing can be more important.

Anyway, Ontology means what a thing actually is (including even abstract concepts), where as epistemology does not mean we do what we know. It means how do we come to know about any certain thing.

You said that humans are born "morally imperfect," and this is incorrect, I think, as do Hume, Wilson, Needleman (who I cited) and many, many other philosophers. We are born with a human nature, which is as it has evolved to be, and is neither perfect nor imperfect, but simply a brute fact to be reckoned with.

Have you ever seen anything as self interested as a baby? Regardless, being morally perfect requires a person to act perfectly in accord with an objective moral standard. That is why God does not claim babies are perfect, and instead claims they are unaccountable. Anyway you can not prove or show that we are born morally perfect, but feel free to try.

As I said, I am not going to paste entire books -- that would be illegal and in any case the forum wouldn't allow it. I do think, however, that anybody who wishes to engage in deeply philosophical arguments such as this one ought to be willing to do a little reading on the subject.

I never suggested you post entire books. Let me restate it again.

1. Copy and paste the relevant part of what your referring to.
2. Then supply a link to the whole book in case the other person wants to read further.

Simple.

I am not here to be agreed with either. And in my view, no subject is less absolute than the nature of morality without an understanding of human nature. Because lacking that understanding, we humans have contrived ways to feel good about an astonishing array of very real evil.

Ok then. Show how you can have objective moral truths without God or probably much easier show how morality is merely subjective if a personal God exists.

I will make it even easier. Show that any action what so ever is actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

 

[Kirran]

Humans have maximized their own flourishing at the expensive of everything else's flourishing. Without God this is merely speciesm which is far worse than racism. However if God exist and he did grant us sovereignty over all other life forms then our eating them, experimenting on them, or keeping them as pets is perfectly rational and justified.

Presumably people would have been making similar arguments in favour of slavery not so long ago.