Moral argument my version - proof for God.

[darkskies]

Alright. So murder is a moral absolute that overlaps. Am I correct? The murderers don't have this morality? How come some people don't get this evolutionary trait that as you said come from an evolutionary trait like empathy and compassion? Is it an anomaly or a process in evolution by itself?

Not an "absolute" but yes.

Murderers may or may not have it. Murderers can recognise that what they do is immoral even according to their moral standards.

It is both an anamoly (such as a disability) and a product of evolution. Anamoly is w.r.t. where most moral systems overlap.

 

[firedragon]

Not an "absolute" but yes.

Murderers may or may not have it. Murderers can recognise that what they do is immoral even according to their moral standards.

It is both an anamoly (such as a disability) and a product of evolution. Anamoly is w.r.t. where most moral systems overlap.

I dont know why you said "not an absolute but yes". You have made the argument that its an absolute. But that fine. You can leave it.

Its both an anomaly and a product of evolution you say right? So how would you analyse and figure out what it was in a case of a murderer?

 

[darkskies]

I dont know why you said "not an absolute but yes". You have made the argument that its an absolute. But that fine. You can leave it.

I'm sorry maybe I didn't understand what absolute meant. Not everyone has to have morality.

Its both an anomaly and a product of evolution you say right? So how would you analyse and figure out what it was in a case of a murderer?

That's not required. Either way it is undesired in society(/ies).

 

[Meow Mix]

(1) If a hypothetical creator can create morality from nothing, he can make it whatever he wants.
(2) If he can make whatever he wants, it can be arbitrary.
(3) If it can be arbitrary, it can be deemed moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.
(4) It cannot be in any possible world that it's moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.
(5) Therefore morality can't be arbitrary. (combination (3)(4))
(6)Therefore a hypothetical creator can't make it whatever he wants.(combination (5)(2))
(7)Therefore a hypothetical creator can't create morality from nothing.(combination (6)(1))

(8) If a hypothetical creator can't bring in morality so can't evolution since a hypothetical creator can create everything evolution can (structure wise).
(9)Therefore morality exists eternally.(combination (8)(7))

(10)If morality exists eternally, it includes all levels of moral greatness and possible goodness.
(11) The only being that can see ultimate morality is God
Therefore God exists eternally. (combination 9, 10, 11)

Premise (4) is an assumption using your moral preferences. For instance according to Divine Command Theory, (4) would be false. According to moral noncognitivists like myself, (4) amounts to asserting there are moral truths, which noncognitivists reject.

 

[firedragon]

I'm sorry maybe I didn't understand what absolute meant. Not everyone has to have morality.

That's not required. Either way it is undesired in society(/ies).

I didn’t say it’s required. Try to think and respond to the question. But if you don’t wish to, it’s fine brother. All good.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Would you have flooded the earth?

Read Genesis 6:1-4 in the light of Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4, and you’ll begin to understand why it had to be global.

 

[HonestJoe]

(1) If a hypothetical creator can create morality from nothing, he can make it whatever he wants.
(2) If he can make whatever he wants, it can be arbitrary.
(3) If it can be arbitrary, it can be deemed moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.
(4) It cannot be in any possible world that it's moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.
(5) Therefore morality can't be arbitrary. (combination (3)(4))
(6)Therefore a hypothetical creator can't make it whatever he wants.(combination (5)(2))
(7)Therefore a hypothetical creator can't create morality from nothing.(combination (6)(1))

(8) If a hypothetical creator can't bring in morality so can't evolution since a hypothetical creator can create everything evolution can (structure wise).
(9)Therefore morality exists eternally.(combination (8)(7))

(10)If morality exists eternally, it includes all levels of moral greatness and possible goodness.
(11) The only being that can see ultimate morality is God
Therefore God exists eternally. (combination 9, 10, 11)

I don't think (1) follows. Just because something were capable of creating morality, that wouldn't automatically mean they could create anything they want.

I think (4) is an issue since it is based on our own morality and emotional reaction. It certainly is possible for that to happen in the context of a creator who can make anything it wants.

I don't think (8) follows. Any limitations of a hypothetical creator doesn't automatically apply to evolution (or whatever natural process that could lead to morality).

(9) is the key point. If morality can't be created, morality always existing isn't the only possible conclusion. It could equally mean that morality never exists. It is worth clarifying at this point that what you're talking about here is absolute morality, distinct from relative morality so all you really have here is an argument that all morality is relative.

(11) doesn't follow anyway. We could conceive of anything that is capable of "seeing ultimate morality" that isn't "God" and anyway, the existence of same eternal morality wouldn't require the existence of anything capable of seeing it.

 

[darkskies]

I didn’t say it’s required. Try to think and respond to the question. But if you don’t wish to, it’s fine brother. All good.

Thanks.
Well there's a spectrum here.
- A murderer might feel empathy and still be able to murder.
- Or they might feel empathy to a lesser degree, such that it doesn't affect them for long.
- Or they might not feel it at all.
These are broad categories.
All products of evolution, but only the last two would be anamolies.
Obviously empathy is realized in different way for different people- that would require some specialization.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks.
Well there's a spectrum here.
- A murderer might feel empathy and still be able to murder.
- Or they might feel empathy to a lesser degree, such that it doesn't affect them for long.
- Or they might not feel it at all.
These are broad categories.
All products of evolution, but only the last two would be anamolies.
Obviously empathy is realized in different way for different people- that would require some specialization.

I understand.

Lets say this is a product of evolution. Is it not intrusion in the process if we stop it?

 

[darkskies]

I understand.

Lets say this is a product of evolution. Is it not intrusion in the process if we stop it?

Yes it is. We don't control how people are born, though.

 

[firedragon]

Yes it is. We don't control how people are born, though.

So you think that enforcing the law would intrude the process of evolution! By that, we are in fact probably denting the survival of species by enforcing law in manners we have no clue of.

 

[darkskies]

So you think that enforcing the law would intrude the process of evolution! By that, we are in fact probably denting the survival of species by enforcing law in manners we have no clue of.

That's true. But we do want to thrive in societies and, well, do what we want to.
We can still try our best to ensure that nothing more than "required" is affected in that way.
In quotations because boundaries are blurry.

 

[darkskies]

So you think that enforcing the law would intrude the process of evolution!

Just to be clear, I think these intrusions are extremely minor and inevitable. But of course, consequences.

 

[McBell]

How come the majority have the most overlap and the others dont?

I do not know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

billions of big bangs leading to humans, can't contain morality.

This statement is only true for people who have no clue what morality actually is.

 

[firedragon]

Just to be clear, I think these intrusions are extremely minor and inevitable. But of course, consequences.

See, with all due respect, when you say "I think" something is minor, it is not valid for me. I understand your stand point and you are probably right in my opinion, but that's not a valid statement to make for something with such profound grounding.

Worldwide we are suppressing murder with law enforcement. This is a worldwide phenomena. It's not something so simple. If all of this is intruding into the evolutionary process we maybe in grave jeopardy and if that is the case, we are being absolutely immoral trying to stop murder by enforcing law.

peace.

 

[firedragon]

I do not know.

Ah. I do not know of the gaps.

Good good.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(1) If a hypothetical creator can create morality from nothing, he can make it whatever he wants.

Doesn't follow. Also, the very idea of "creating morality from nothing" makes no sense to me at all.

(2) If he can make whatever he wants, it can be arbitrary.

Sure, but you're building on an assumption that doesn't follow.

(3) If it can be arbitrary, it can be deemed moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.

No, it can't. People can "claim" such a thing is moral, sure. But when asked to present their argument that underpins that statement, it will very quickly fall apart in a thousand pieces.

(4) It cannot be in any possible world that it's moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.

Well, we only have this world to evaluate and we don't know what is "possible".
But I can certainly imagine a world where it would be moral to do so when it gets presented as the "lesser of two evils", where the alternative to torturing innocent babies is even worse.

In *this* world however, the one we live in, indeed, I can not imagine a context where that would ever be moral. Or not immoral.

(5) Therefore morality can't be arbitrary. (combination (3)(4))

I agree morality isn't arbitrary. But not for the ludicrous reasons you laid out here.
Rather, because of what morality is. Morality is about human behavior, about how we treat each other. Morality is also undetachably linked to well-being and suffering.
So yes, there absolutely are right and wrong moral answers to moral questions.

But not for any crazy extra-ordinary magical reasons. Instead, simply because of what morality is all about...

(6)Therefore a hypothetical creator can't make it whatever he wants.(combination (5)(2))

So this hypothetical creator is bound by what morality is, just like any other moral agent.
The age old idea of "Is X moral because god says it is, or does god say that X is moral, because it simply IS moral for reasons other them him saying so?"

In other words, morality does not come from such a hypothetical god.

(7)Therefore a hypothetical creator can't create morality from nothing.(combination (6)(1))
(8) If a hypothetical creator can't bring in morality so can't evolution since a hypothetical creator can create everything evolution can (structure wise).
(9)Therefore morality exists eternally.(combination (8)(7))

This is false.
Morality is something that is inherent to social species. It's an inevitable consequence of being a social species. You can't have prospering, thriving social cooperative societies UNLESS there are at least some ground rules on how to organize such a society and how to regulate behavior in that society.

So morality is not a thing that requires "creating". Nor is it a thing that exists independently of social species (like humans).

Morality as such is an aspect / property of the human condition.
If you remove all humans from existence, or all humans except 1, then morality no longer is a thing.

(10)If morality exists eternally, it includes all levels of moral greatness and possible goodness.

This makes no sense to me at all. It's meaningless.

(11) The only being that can see ultimate morality is God
Therefore God exists eternally. (combination 9, 10, 11)

Doesn't follow.
Bare declaration.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If morality is objective, it's eternal.

False.
Morality is objective (pseudo-objective, actually if you wish to be super-precise, but "objective" works for me) but is nevertheless dependend on humans existing since it deals with human behavior and traits.
No humans = no morality.

And since humans aren't eternal, neither is morality.

Eternal morality in all it's possible levels and pieces can only be seen/exist by God.

Bare declaration; not in evidence.

Also: assumed conclusion.

Morality is objective.
Therefore God exists.

Doesn't follow.

The longer argument shows more why this is the case, but that's the short version.

Both are fallacious nonsense filled with assumed conclusions, false premises and bare declaration.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Alright. So murder is a moral absolute that overlaps. Am I correct? The murderers don't have this morality? How come some people don't get this evolutionary trait that as you said come from an evolutionary trait like empathy and compassion? Is it an anomaly or a process in evolution by itself?

You assume that people who engage in immoral acts aren't ware that they are engaging in immoral acts.
While that certainly is the case for some, it certainly is not the case for all.

For example, I follow Sammy The Bull Gravano on youtube. This guy is close to 80 years old and was the underboss of the Gambino family in New York under John Gotti. The dude was a hardcore "gangsta" in the Italian mafia. A hitman who took part / organized at least 19 murders (one of them being the killing of Castellano after which John and him and their crew took over the family), a robber, a racketeer.

While he sure loved "the life" (you can literally see the twinkle in his eye as he tells his "war stories" on his youtube channel), he is very well aware of the suffering and pain he and his fellow gangsters caused. He is very well aware of how murder, robbing, racketeering is immoral.

So it's three-fold, really...

1. there are people who know what they do is immoral yet do it anyway (perhaps their greed is more powerful then their consciousness; or their anger in the moment is overshadowing their proper moral judgement which follows later in the form of deep remorse)

2. there are people who believe that what they do is moral while it is reprehensible, because their moral compass is completely screwed or they outsourced it to a perceived authority (like Mohammed Atta when he flew a plane into the WTC - he sure believed he was fighting the good fight)

3. then there are the psychopaths, who by virtue of not having the trait of empathy and alike, simply are incapable of moral reasoning. They would recognize a moral or immoral act if it came up and hit them upside the head.