Moral argument my version - proof for God.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand.

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

No.

Stopping it would be part of the process imo actually.
A form of natural selection.

Natural selection is funny that way.

Don't confuse this with some "ethnic cleansing" style nonsense where people deliberatly set out to "whipe" certain gene sets out of the common genepool.

No.

I'm talking about a general response by the collective of society, (the group / the tribe) towards those with psychopathy to have them removed from society - which essentially prevents them from reproducing.

This aversion by the collective of society would be natural selection in the form of social dynamics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's not an intrusion in evolution.
It's part of it. It's a form of natural selection.

Empathy is a desirable trait.
Psychopathy (the lack of empathy), isn't.

The collective of society responds to this.

It means that in natural selection, empathic humans are favoured.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah. I do not know of the gaps.

 

[darkskies]

It's not an intrusion in evolution.
It's part of it. It's a form of natural selection.

Empathy is a desirable trait.
Psychopathy (the lack of empathy), isn't.

The collective of society responds to this.

It means that in natural selection, empathic humans are favoured.

Okay, I understood "intrusion in evolution" as being part of evolutionary process.

 

[MikeF]

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.

I would like to explore this a little further. So are you saying that rules are required for a species to live socially and cooperatively and therefore rules as a class are objectively necessary, that it is this class of rules we label 'Morals'? Since the rules that govern social behavior in a species can be either pre-wired inherited instinct or rules developed through intersubjective agreement between species members, would you put both sources of social rules under the category 'Morals'? Based on your statement that there is no morality without human beings, you seem to imply that only the social rules that are assigned through intersubjective agreement qualify being placed in the category 'Morals'. How do we detangle subjective rules influenced by instinct from purely subjective rules when trying to discern a rules objective status?

If category of social rules are an objective requirement, are the properties or requirements of any particular rule or set of rules objectively required, or are the rules themselves strictly relative or subjective?

Since you state that morals are dependent on the existence of human beings you seem to be stating clearly that there are no Morals external to human experience, that there are no universal or transcendent objective moral standards. Is this a correct assumption?

I'm trying to understand exactly what it means to say morality is objective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm trying to understand exactly what it means to say morality is objective.

Rules of a society. Many of these rules are common among various human societies. What is so difficult to understand?

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.

Enforcement of any law affects only a small percentage of humans. Evolution is based on other variables. Human laws cannot make any difference in it - perhaps only close cousin marriages in some societies. That may bring up anomalies. It seriously affected Egypt's pharaohs.

 

[F1fan]

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?

About 1 in every 24 people are sociopaths. This is a genetic fault in the brain where a person is incapable of empathy and compassion. These folks tend to learn how to behave within moral standards and that is because they understand there are consequences. There are many other mental disorders that prevent people from social conformity and cooperation. There are also learned traits. We can look at Michael Cohen's transformation from being unethical and serving trump's aims, to being quite apologetic and introspective. Many otherwise good people can learn they have opportunities to cheat and get away with it. There's a fine line between being a cooperative and fair tribe member to being in a position where greed and cheating can allow the individual huge advantages over others.

As far as murder being an objective moral that's not really the case. It's a matter of what is most beneficial for the tribe and the members that rely on each other to survive. If Jim is a tribe member and has a nasty habit of murdering arbitrary tribe members it won't be long until a few other members get together and express concern that Jim might kill any one of them next. They can all identify Jim as a bigger threat to the members than he a benefit and "take care of Jim" in a way that he no longer poses a threat.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
"I'm trying to understand exactly what it means to say morality is objective."

Rules of a society. Many of these rules are common among various human societies. What is so difficult to understand?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your comment as you don't reference objectivity.

You seem to be saying Morality = Rules of a Society, and that it is plainly obvious that the Rules of Society are objective.

If, for example, one society makes are rule prohibiting the use of contraception and a different society makes a rule that contraception shall be legal and provided for free to society members, how do we characterize this disparity. Is contraception objectively wrong or objectively right? Or is any matter on the subject purely subjective? If subjective, is the whole class labeled 'Rules of Society' subjective, and consequentially Morality subjective also?

This is the clarification I seek.

 

[F1fan]

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.

I think the mafia doing hits on other families or rival tribes illustrates how easy it is to justify killing. Whether it's one nation going to war with another or the mafia doing hits these acts are done because it 1) shows loyalty to the tribe, 2) benefits the goals and aims of the tribe. On one hand our governing authority hands out guns to members and says "go kill" and on the other it says to the mafia "killing is a crime".

 

[MikeF]

About 1 in every 24 people are sociopaths. This is a genetic fault in the brain where a person is incapable of empathy and compassion. These folks tend to learn how to behave within moral standards and that is because they understand there are consequences. There are many other mental disorders that prevent people from social conformity and cooperation. There are also learned traits. We can look at Michael Cohen's transformation from being unethical and serving trump's aims, to being quite apologetic and introspective. Many otherwise good people can learn they have opportunities to cheat and get away with it. There's a fine line between being a cooperative and fair tribe member to being in a position where greed and cheating can allow the individual huge advantages over others.

As far as murder being an objective moral that's not really the case. It's a matter of what is most beneficial for the tribe and the members that rely on each other to survive. If Jim is a tribe member and has a nasty habit of murdering arbitrary tribe members it won't be long until a few other members get together and express concern that Jim might kill any one of them next. They can all identify Jim as a bigger threat to the members than he a benefit and "take care of Jim" in a way that he no longer poses a threat.

I think some clarity is lost when using the term murder in this discussion. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone. It is not a prohibition on killing in general. The instinct of group identity plays a role and it can be quite easy to see how an instinct can arise that would discourage the killing of in-group, cooperative members. But this suppression to kill need not apply to those considered other, whether that be humans considered as other, or other species.
And as always, instinctual traits and behaviors can be expressed to varying degrees between individuals, and within an individual, different instincts can conflict depending on circumstances.
Individual organisms are complex and societies of complex organisms are all the more complex.

In summary, there seems to be no universal sanction on killing, just subjective, relative restrictions.

 

[F1fan]

No.

Stopping it would be part of the process imo actually.
A form of natural selection.

Natural selection is funny that way.

Don't confuse this with some "ethnic cleansing" style nonsense where people deliberatly set out to "whipe" certain gene sets out of the common genepool.

No.

I'm talking about a general response by the collective of society, (the group / the tribe) towards those with psychopathy to have them removed from society - which essentially prevents them from reproducing.

This aversion by the collective of society would be natural selection in the form of social dynamics.

I think the dilemma is that these expelled people would likely form tribes themselves and reproduce amongst themselves, and that would increase the prevalence of any genes that caused mental disorders. The only functional way to get rid of genes that cause disorders is to deliberately remove them and engineer new offspring. Our morals these days is to allow anyone the freedom to breed even if they might have offspring that have a chance of defects.

My best friend in high school developed serious mental health problems along with his two brothers because their dad had a genetic trait that he wasn't aware of. One brother committed suicide. The other two can manage life with heavy medication, but aren't quite "there". I ran into him over a decade ago and he could function but it was hard having a conversation because he had such a hard time processing language. Their father said he wouldn't have had kids if he knew of this gene and that the boys would be affected by it.

 

[F1fan]

I think some clarity is lost when using the term murder in this discussion. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone. It is not a prohibition on killing in general. The instinct of group identity plays a role and it can be quite easy to see how an instinct can arise that would discourage the killing of in-group, cooperative members. But this suppression to kill need not apply to those considered other, whether that be humans considered as other, or other species.
And as always, instinctual traits and behaviors can be expressed to varying degrees between individuals, and within an individual, different instincts can conflict depending on circumstances.
Individual organisms are complex and societies of complex organisms are all the more complex.

In summary, there seems to be no universal sanction on killing, just subjective, relative restrictions.

Right, I think killing is very ambiguous to many minds. Look at Derek Chauvin's attitude as he killing George Floyd. Or Zimmerman's killing Trevon Martin. Or the "stand your ground" laws that some take too far as an excuse to be violent. It's the question of "what is lawful killing" that is unclear to many people. It's unclear even to the justice system which is why there's a big movement for reform.

 

[MikeF]

Right, I think killing is very ambiguous to many minds. Look at Derek Chauvin's attitude as he killing George Floyd. Or Zimmerman's killing Trevon Martin. Or the "stand your ground" laws that some take too far as an excuse to be violent. It's the question of "what is lawful killing" that is unclear to many people. It's unclear even to the justice system which is why there's a big movement for reform.

And hence speaks directly to the question of whether the moral stance that killing another human being is an objective wrong, or is killing simply subjective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You seem to be saying Morality = Rules of a Society, and that it is plainly obvious that the Rules of Society are objective.

If, for example, one society makes are rule prohibiting the use of contraception and a different society makes a rule that contraception shall be legal and provided for free to society members, how do we characterize this disparity. Is contraception objectively wrong or objectively right? Or is any matter on the subject purely subjective? If subjective, is the whole class labeled 'Rules of Society' subjective, and consequentially Morality subjective also?

If one society has one type of rules and the other has a different set, then they are not objective. They are subjective to their environment. There is no objective rule of a society. Morality also is subjective.

And hence speaks directly to the question of whether the moral stance that killing another human being is an objective wrong, or is killing simply subjective.

Subjective. Think of wars between nations or religions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think the dilemma is that these expelled people would likely form tribes themselves and reproduce amongst themselves, and that would increase the prevalence of any genes that caused mental disorders. The only functional way to get rid of genes that cause disorders is to deliberately remove them and engineer new offspring. Our morals these days is to allow anyone the freedom to breed even if they might have offspring that have a chance of defects.

My best friend in high school developed serious mental health problems along with his two brothers because their dad had a genetic trait that he wasn't aware of. One brother committed suicide. The other two can manage life with heavy medication, but aren't quite "there". I ran into him over a decade ago and he could function but it was hard having a conversation because he had such a hard time processing language. Their father said he wouldn't have had kids if he knew of this gene and that the boys would be affected by it.

If that happens then the society and the family will face the consequences. There are millions of examples of this. You too have cited one.

 

[MikeF]

If one society has one type of rules and the other has a different set, then they are not objective. They are subjective to their environment. There is no objective rule of a society. Morality also is subjective.Subjective. Think of wars between nations or religions.

And I would certainly agree.

However, @TagliatelliMonster stated that morality was objective, and I was asking @TagliatelliMonster what exactly was meant by that.

 

[Rise]

(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)

#4 is merely a presumption on your part. You haven’t proven your presumption is true. How do you prove it’s immoral to start with?

The entire structure of your argument fails without that presumption being proven true.

We know it’s true. But you can’t prove it without presuming God exists first.

That’s why atheism has never been able to solve the dilemma of how they justify their sense of morality without God.


It is true that morality comes from God and is not arbitrary, but the way in which you try to argue that is illogical and doesn’t work.

Understanding why morality is not arbitrary requires understanding what morality even is.

The Bible tells us that morality is based on the character of God.
And that God is unchanging.
And good is defined as doing things consistent with His character. Bad is doing things inconsistent with His character.

Another way to look at this is to realize that morality requires purpose. Purpose requires design. Design requires a creator.

Something is bad if it violates it’s intended design. But you can’t have intention without a mind acting as the designer assigning purpose. You can’t have purpose without a mind acting as a designer.

We need a creator in order to both have purpose and an intended ideal way to function. Which are both required for there to be morality because immorality is an expression of saying something is violating it’s design, function, and purpose.


That is why Atheism can never justify any objective moral standard because they are lacking the prerequisite for morality by definition: intended purpose.
Intention requires a mind actively designing a purpose. Random materialistic processes don’t have intention. Random chance is not intention. Random chance is without purpose and intention. That is why there is no ultimate purpose to life for the atheist. Because they believe no one created them with an intention, purpose, and function in mind.

Atheism starts from a presupposition that makes arriving at objective morality impossible because morality by definition requires a creator/designer who assigns purpose and intention to creation.

But we all have an inner sense that objective morality truly does exist, and is real, not just an illusion of objectivity but is in actuality really truly objective.
The Bible tells us God gave us this inner witness to moral right and wrong. We are born with it. That’s why the Bible says no man is without excuse in the day of judgement for the responsibility of their sin.

That is the problem for atheists. They want objective morality because they understand it’s value and necessity. And they know it exists. But they can’t justify it.

Atheists therefore end up being forced to become their own decider of what they think is objective morality and what isn’t. Which just makes it subjective.
But the fact that they take their subjective morality and try to declare it to be objective is ultimately them making themselves out to be God by trying to replace Him.
They become the decider in their own mind of what their purpose in life is and therefore what morality is. It is the oldest sin in existence; wanting to replace God with yourself. It was the cause of satan being cast out of heaven, and the original sin the caused man to be cast out of the Garden of Eden.

 

[MikeF]

The reason we know morality can only come from God is because it is impossible to prove anything is immoral from an atheistic or materialistic perspective. The laws of morality cannot be established by logic or mathematics.

What you mean to say is that nothing can be proved to be immoral outside of the subjective opinion of human beings. We can still consider things to be immoral because we choose to. We do not require an imagined external entity to validate that choice.

Your argument is also faulty.

 

[Link]

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.

Divine command theory is proven false by philosophers because of similar premises in my argument. If there are no moral truths, this argument fails. 4 is a strong moral fact though, that I don't think anyone would really want to deny. Argument from evil also won't make sense without 4. So Atheists who argue by argument from evil and deny morality being objective are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

For example you stated hell is an unjust concept in another thread. How do you conclude that without moral facts being true?