Why There Can be an Objective Morality Even Without a God

[TransmutingSoul]

Americans are amongst the most educated people in history.
But ask any "third world" nation what they think of "American
morals" and they might tell you the term is an oxymoron.

There is education and then there is virtues education.

The first thing to train children in is virtues, this is where the world has fallen short.

This is one attempt;

The Virtues Project

Regards Tony

 

[Mister Emu]

I've heard morality defined in terms of "the well-being of thinking agents," which doesn't necessarily require that we ought to care about well-being, but lays out principles to live with if I do.

Well yes, redefining the terms of morality is a moral non-realist/subjectivist position. The great failing of subjective morality is that is not compelling and that it amounts to personal preference; you admit you have no basis for calling someone else's morality wrong or bad. No one is evil, it's just a struggle over what views will be imposed.

But, I'll point out, as you note in the last bit, my statement holds. If you do accept the definition, there are moral imperatives such as "don't lower the well-being of sentient beings".

And I can't count the number of times I've heard many different sources say things that implied that "we ought to behave morally" was a meaningful statement... but if we use your definition, it becomes a useless tautology.

Yes, after a bit of consideration I think saying we ought to behave morally is a bit tautological. Something like a combination of saying, "there is a set of potential future universes that are properly ordered and we ought to behave in a manner to actualize them" and "we ought to behave as we ought to behave".

 

[ChristineM]

Christine, the evidence has been provided, it is all around you and passed by every minute if every day, you at any time can choose to consider the evidence of our spiritual reality.

If one waits for material senses to have a miraculous display for proof, than one will join the many that will always wait for such a sign.

The Bible put it in easy to understand language;

“The Pharisees came and began to argue with [Jesus], seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.’ And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side.” Mark 8:11–13

The miracle is the change of heart, a heart that longs not for this life, unless and until all can share in the joys this life has to offere, if but one person on this planet suffers, all should not rest until that person finds peace.

Regards Tony

No, that is not evidence of god magic but evidence of the second law of thermodynamics and i choose to consider reality, you are welcome to consider a bronze age myth if thats what makes you happy.

The bible (NT) was compiled by committee some 350 years after its heros death, since then has been edited, changed, is subject to translation mistakes and was recompiled in the 17th century. Not from original material but from 6 of the most popular edits available at the time. Since then there have developed several hundred different versions. Forgive me if i done take such a provenance with any seriousness.

Once again, ill stick with reality despite the 'mild' proselytising

 

[joe1776]

I prepared cases for juries throughout my career., there is no such thing as an unbiased one. Since this is hypothetical morality, we´ll have a hypothetical jury. WHY would this jury make the judgement you believe they would ?

If you won't grant the likelihood that a jury can be found lacking in a relevant bias on the bubblegum theft case, I doubt that I can persuade you of anything.

Nevertheless, I propose that the imaginary jury, unbiased on the specific case, will get the right answer when they have the true facts because we humans were gifted at birth with a conscience, an instinctive tool which emerges from the unconscious mind that enables us to discern moral right from wrong.

The majority's vote of an imaginary, unbiased jury, judging a specific case, is a useful device for thinking about moral issues because there's a ton of confusion on the topic of morality due to biases created by flawed reasoning..

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

 

[ChristineM]

I am not talking about God. I am talking simply about the concept of right and wrong. So, were the cannibals of Papua New Guinea instinctively right, or wrong ? What about the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children to ba´al. ? How about some Gypsy tribes who habitually steal ( I interviewed the leaders of one, they freely admitted it, and why) instinctive morality ?

You are making the mistake many make, you assume every ones morality is the same as your morality. It is not for the christian west to be arbiter of morals for a society thy know nothing about. Britain tried that during the empire days and look where that got them.

The cannibals were right by their own morality, it worked for them, it did good for the tribe.

The gypsies, theft is a way of life, a code they survive by for centuries? Why should they see it as a moral choice?

 

[ChristineM]

No, that is not evidence of god magic but evidence of the second law of thermodynamics and i choose to consider reality, you are welcome to consider a bronze age myth if thats what makes you happy.

The bible (NT) was compiled by committee some 350 years after its heros death, since then has been edited, changed, is subject to translation mistakes and was recompiled in the 17th century. Not from original material but from 6 of the most popular edits available at the time. Since then there have developed several hundred different versions. Forgive me if i done take such a provenance with any seriousness.

Once again, ill stick with reality despite the 'mild' proselytising

@Tony Bristow-Stagg

Could you please explain what you found even remotely funny in the above.(post #83)

If not then can i point you at staff advice on the abuse of the funny rating.

Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

 

[shmogie]

You are making the mistake many make, you assume every ones morality is the same as your morality. It is not for the christian west to be arbiter of morals for a society thy know nothing about. Britain tried that during the empire days and look where that got them.

The cannibals were right by their own morality, it worked for them, it did good for the tribe.

The gypsies, theft is a way of life, a code they survive by for centuries? Why should they see it as a moral choice?

No, I am not making a mistake, and you came to the conclusion, finally, that I was leading you toward. Actually, cannabalism always had a long term downside, a specific wasting disease that led to brain function collapse.

The point however, is that ¨morality¨ is a meaningless term when used as you use it. It simply means what groups of people decide they should be able to get away with. Murder, rape, child sexual exploitation. mayhem, the list is endless. Up means nothing if it can mean down.

So, if a huge group in Alaska decides female babyś are of no value, and should be left in the snow to die, what right do you have to judge them ?

 

[shmogie]

If you won't grant the likelihood that a jury can be found lacking in a relevant bias on the bubblegum theft case, I doubt that I can persuade you of anything.

Nevertheless, I propose that the imaginary jury, unbiased on the specific case, will get the right answer when they have the true facts because we humans were gifted at birth with a conscience, an instinctive tool which emerges from the unconscious mind that enables us to discern moral right from wrong.

The majority's vote of an imaginary, unbiased jury, judging a specific case, is a useful device for thinking about moral issues because there's a ton of confusion on the topic of morality due to biases created by flawed reasoning..

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

You are dancing around the issue. I am sure that all that you say is true. However, you use terms like good and bad, what makes something good or bad ? WHY is it good or bad ? WHY was taking a piece of bubblegum for which didn´t trade a disc of copper bad ?

 

[ChristineM]

No, I am not making a mistake, and you came to the conclusion, finally, that I was leading you toward. Actually, cannabalism always had a long term downside, a specific wasting disease that led to brain function collapse.

The point however, is that ¨morality¨ is a meaningless term when used as you use it. It simply means what groups of people decide they should be able to get away with. Murder, rape, child sexual exploitation. mayhem, the list is endless. Up means nothing if it can mean down.

So, if a huge group in Alaska decides female babyś are of no value, and should be left in the snow to die, what right do you have to judge them ?

And did the natives know this? No, they were doing what they considered right for their culture. And in actual fact i believe you are wrong. Eating brains caused cannibals to evolve resistance to certain brain diseases.

Correct, morality is seen for the common good, it is not your prerogative to decide what is and what isnt moral for another cultural group.

Nice example.. If a group decided to dump all females to die, that group will not be a group within 30 or 40 years.

 

[joe1776]

You are dancing around the issue. I am sure that all that you say is true. However, you use terms like good and bad, what makes something good or bad ? WHY is it good or bad ? WHY was taking a piece of bubblegum for which didn´t trade a disc of copper bad ?

I'm not dancing around anything. Our problem is that you don't read well.

This will be the third time I've explained my opinion on what makes something good or bad for you. So, I'll just quote the first two:

1. I think the good moral instincts are crucial to the survival of the species.

2. IMO, the human instincts we refer to as 'conscience' guide us to refrain from certain acts (wrong-bad) because they threaten the survival of our species. That leaves other acts as justifiable-good that enhance our chances of survival.

The bubblegum caper? Cooperation in a worthy cause is a key to survival. Theft is usually (not always) an uncooperative act. So, conscience will usually (not always) signal theft as wrongful.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Once again, ill stick with reality despite the 'mild' proselytising

Could you please explain what you found even remotely funny in the above.(post #83)

If not then can i point you at staff advice on the abuse of the funny rating.

Quite obvious I would say.

I offer a point of view from a Faith perspective, you come up with the all too anti God view safety net of proselytising, even if you added 'Mild', that was very funny. ROFLOL funny.

Wheras you could never been seen as being accused of this by offering anti God views such as 'god magic' or 'bronze age myth'. That becomes even funnier.

Take that humor out and I can give you an optimistic rating.

I am happy you have freedom of view to choose your path in life. Please feel free to report me at any time, you would not be the first, but in the end, if we see something we do not like, all we see is reflections of our own selves.

Peace be with you, Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Correct, morality is seen for the common good, it is not your prerogative to decide what is and what isnt moral for another cultural group.

I see with God and the revealed Faiths, this quandry can be avoided, even if history has shown it was only for a short period of time. I see a greater wisdom guides us towards what is a lasting morality and this has happened in every age where man has failed to set this for themselves.

In this age, I see a greater morality will be learnt and it will have a longer lasting influence.

In my opinion.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Quite obvious I would say.

I offer a point of view from a Faith perspective, you come up with the all too anti God view safety net of proselytising, even if you added 'Mild', that was very funny. ROFLOL funny.

Wheras you could never been seen as being accused of this by offering anti God views such as 'god magic' or 'bronze age myth'. That becomes even funnier.

Take that humor out and I can give you an optimistic rating.

I am happy you have freedom of view to choose your path in life. Please feel free to report me at any time, you would not be the first, but in the end, if we see something we do not like, all we see is reflections of our own selves.

Peace be with you, Regards Tony

Sorry f fact upsets you. I see no benefit from faith .

If you say so. I should think it takes a special kind of mind to think my post was funny.

So how do you explain what you believe god did? If it were some person in he street who made something from nothing you would say it were magic would you not? And of course the history of the tanakh (and hence he OT) was laid down in the bronze age. Any other epic of the period you are happy to call myth. What is different about the OT?

FYI, i have never reported anyone posting on a thread, it is interesting that you would believe that of me, it is quite insulting but i suppose guilt would make you defensive.

 

[ChristineM]

I see with God and the revealed Faiths, this quandry can be avoided, even if history has shown it was only for a short period of time. I see a greater wisdom guides us towards what is a lasting morality and this has happened in every age where man has failed to set this for themselves.

In this age, I see a greater morality will be learnt and it will have a longer lasting influence.

In my opinion.

Regards Tony

So you assume belief if god somehow makes you morally superior?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry f fact upsets you. I see no benefit from faith .

If you say so. I should think it takes a special kind of mind to think my post was funny.

So how do you explain what you believe god did? If it were some person in he street who made something from nothing you would say it were magic would you not? And of course the history of the tanakh (and hence he OT) was laid down in the bronze age. Any other epic of the period you are happy to call myth. What is different about the OT?

FYI, i have never reported anyone posting on a thread, it is interesting that you would believe that of me, it is quite insulting but i suppose guilt would make you defensive.

I appreciate you see no benefit and I am happy for you to have that view, but consider, Faith is my life and I can assure you in my case, it has been of a great benefit.

From a Baha'i perspective, which is what I offer on RF, Baha'u'llah has given the lattest Message and set the law and what is Moral for this age. All that was only in the mid to late 1800's, then on and into the mid 1900's. So it is not a Bronze age view that is being offered, though aspects of morality are timeless and do not change.

Baha'u'llah has confirmed the Messengers and Prophets that have come before Him and also proved them in a book called the Kitabi-i-iqan. He has stated what man has got right from those messages and what man has got terribly wrong from those same messages.

Always happy to discuss, but if you never wish to hear a Faith based view please just say so and we can talk about the weather.

We had a storm last night, wet season approaching!

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So you assume belief if god somehow makes you morally superior?

Not at all, as in some cases Faith can make people worse, they use Faith as a base for their detructive ways.

With Faith, I am acknowledging that I see is the source of the virtues we can all bring to light. All of us have them latent within us.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Not at all, as in some cases Faith can make people worse, they use Faith as a base for their detructive ways.

With Faith, I am acknowledging that I see is the source of the virtues we can all bring to light. All of us have them latent within us.

Regards Tony

Oh, thats how it came across.
I see with God and the revealed Faiths, this quandry can be avoided,
What has god to do with morality? If you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong then there is something terribly wrong

You belief is just that, belief. It may work for you but not for me. My faith is in reality, my morality is if i wouldnt like someone to do it to me then i wont do it to them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh, thats how it came across.
I see with God and the revealed Faiths, this quandry can be avoided,
What has god to do with morality? If you need a god to tell you what is right and wrong then there is something terribly wrong

You belief is just that, belief. It may work for you but not for me. My faith is in reality, my morality is if i wouldnt like someone to do it to me then i wont do it to them.

You live the golden rule, that is great.

The Quandry is what is motivated by the good for all, or what is motivated by men for power and dominance over others.

I see God shows us the bigger pictue, a picture that can show us some cultural practices are not based in morality or cleanliness.

What does happen, is man usually implements this wisdom knowingly or unknowingly.

Stay well and happy, catch you around, thanks for the chat.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

I appreciate you see no benefit and I am happy for you to have that view, but consider, Faith is my life and I can assure you in my case, it has been of a great benefit.

From a Baha'i perspective, which is what I offer on RF, Baha'u'llah has given the lattest Message and set the law and what is Moral for this age. All that was only in the mid to late 1800's, then on and into the mid 1900's. So it is not a Bronze age view that is being offered, though aspects of morality are timeless and do not change.

Baha'u'llah has confirmed the Messengers and Prophets that have come before Him and also proved them in a book called the Kitabi-i-iqan. He has stated what man has got right from those messages and what man has got terribly wrong from those same messages.

Always happy to discuss, but if you never wish to hear a Faith based view please just say so and we can talk about the weather.

We had a storm last night, wet season approaching!

Regards Tony

As i said, if it works for you.

I am not getting into the Baha'i circular argument again, it is a futile waste of time. Facts dont seem to mean much in that discussion.

If you are interested in reviewing a science based view with open eyes you are welcome

 

[ChristineM]

You live the golden rule, that is great.

The Quandry is what is motivated by the good for all, or what is motivated by men for power and dominance over others.

I see God shows us the bigger pictue, a picture that can show us some cultural practices are not based in morality or cleanliness.

What does happen, is man usually implements this wisdom knowingly or unknowingly.

Stay well and happy, catch you around, thanks for the chat.

Regards Tony

My morality includes all, other peoples is not my problem unless they make it my problem.

Again, it is not your prerogative to judge other cultures unless it has a negative effect.