Spirituality part of morality?

[Mystic]

I think the following argument has potential. I just thought of it today. So let's see how far it goes.

Morality is a code that we acknowledge. We all differ with morality, and hence it is relative. However for those who acknowledge it, they have to acknowledge some morality is superior to others which shows there is an objective morality and standard, even if majority if not all humans don't have it.

That said, if a soul exists and God exists, wouldn't it part of morality and goodness to be spiritual.

If that is the case, then morality encompasses spirituality. But how can spirituality be part of morality if there is no basis to it (ie. no God, no soul?).

It's somewhat of a fuzzy argument, but I hope people get what I'm trying to say.

Morality encompasses spirituality. Yet spirituality is suppose to be an delusion. If this is true, then some of morality would be a delusion. But if we acknowledge morality and acknowledge that it is good to spiritual if God exists, then this is highly problematic without acknowledging a basis to it which is God existing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Morality is a code that we acknowledge. We all differ with morality, and hence it is relative. However for those who acknowledge it, they have to acknowledge some morality is superior to others which shows there is an objective morality and standard, even if majority if not all humans don't have it.

Some moral codes being 'superior' to others in no wise indicates an objective moral standard. Some apples are superior to others, but that doesn't justify postulating some objectively perfect apple.

That said, if a soul exists and God exists, wouldn't it part of morality and goodness to be spiritual.

In the words of the Laconians: 'If'.

If that is the case, then morality encompasses spirituality. But how can spirituality be part of morality if there is no basis to it (ie. no God, no soul?).

You're repeating yourself, I think. You just said that IF souls and God exists, then morality is spiritual. Now you seem to be saying that spirituality can't be part of morality if God and souls DON'T exist. Well...duh.

Morality encompasses spirituality. Yet spirituality is suppose to be an delusion. If this is true, then some of morality would be a delusion. But if we acknowledge morality and acknowledge that it is good to spiritual if God exists, then this is highly problematic without acknowledging a basis to it which is God existing.

I fail to see where it is problematic, since morality can ONLY be spiritual IF God exists (you said so yourself). If God doesn't exist, then there is no problem whatsoever with morality being non-spiritual. QED.

Boru

[paulpablo]

I disagree with boru about some apples being superior to others, it all comes down to the subjective opinion of living things.

A blade of grass would probably like rotting apples placed nearby to the soil which it gets nutrients from, most humans like fresh apples ripened, to a tree the best apple will be the ones with the most pips in so they can reproduce more, to other plants they might hate apples and tree reproduction if they were capable of having an opinion.

Also I think morality is subjective, it can't ever be objective.

[Mystic]

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say Boru. The main point is that morality encompasses that what if situation. The what if situation shows it encompasses spirituality. The question is how can this be possible if spirituality has no basis? We would be saying morality encompasses spirituality as a part of it, but at the same time, spirituality is delusional and made up by society. This only makes sense if morality is delusional as well. But if we acknowledge morality, then this is highly problematic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I disagree with boru about some apples being superior to others, it all comes down to the subjective opinion of living things.

Sorry, I could have expressed that better - we're actually in agreement. Some people prefer sweet apples, so the sweeter the apple, the more 'superior' it is. Likewise, some prefer their apples more tart, etc. Thus, like morality, there can't be any objective standard for anything.

Sorry for the confusion.

Boru

---

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say Boru. The main point is that morality encompasses that what if situation. The what if situation shows it encompasses spirituality. The question is how can this be possible if spirituality has no basis? We would be saying morality encompasses spirituality as a part of it, but at the same time, spirituality is delusional and made up by society. This only makes sense if morality is delusional as well. But if we acknowledge morality, then this is highly problematic.

I may still not be grasping your point. Your 'what if' situation only hold true IF the what if situation IS true. Since it cannot be demonstrated to be true, then there's no real need to consider that morality either has a spiritual component or encompasses spirituality.

In other words, your 'what if' situation does NOT show that morality encompasses spirituality.

But I agree with you on at least one point. Your argument IS decidedly fuzzy. Any chance you could sharpen it up a bit?

Boru

[Mystic]

I disagree with boru about some apples being superior to others, it all comes down to the subjective opinion of living things.

Sorry, I could have expressed that better - we're actually in agreement. Some people prefer sweet apples, so the sweeter the apple, the more 'superior' it is. Likewise, some prefer their apples more tart, etc. Thus, like morality, there can't be any objective standard for anything.

Sorry for the confusion.

Boru

---

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say Boru. The main point is that morality encompasses that what if situation. The what if situation shows it encompasses spirituality. The question is how can this be possible if spirituality has no basis? We would be saying morality encompasses spirituality as a part of it, but at the same time, spirituality is delusional and made up by society. This only makes sense if morality is delusional as well. But if we acknowledge morality, then this is highly problematic.

I may still not be grasping your point. Your 'what if' situation only hold true IF the what if situation IS true. Since it cannot be demonstrated to be true, then there's no real need to consider that morality either has a spiritual component or encompasses spirituality.

In other words, your 'what if' situation does NOT show that morality encompasses spirituality.

But I agree with you on at least one point. Your argument IS decidedly fuzzy. Any chance you could sharpen it up a bit?

Boru

It is part of morality either way, but in one way, it would be that morality is partially delusional or encompasses a delusional thought.

The what if scenario shows it encompasses it, just like morality encompasses fictional events like in Batman. In the case of Batman though, it would be an instance of a great human. But in the case of spirituality, it's a dimension of morality that would be without basis if spirituality has no basis.

[CapnAwesome]

People have different individual morality, in terms of what they think is right and wrong, but that doesn't mean there isn't a type of absolute morality. There are actions that we could do that would increase total human happiness. Imagine that you are faced with a choice between feeding yourself and hungry people and just being an over-gluten. One choice increases the overall happiness of people and one just makes everyone miserable. So there is a type of absolute morality that is totally secular and independent of spirituality (which never seems to be that well defined.)

[Angrboda]

The question is how can this be possible if spirituality has no basis?

It's possible if the brain treats the spiritual truth as real, even if it isn't. There could be an illusion that the spiritual provides the moral, as, for example, if one accepts that God's nature results in objectively moral commands, then one will perceive the commands of one's god as being moral and act "as if" they are moral.

This dovetails nicely with some recent thinking of mine. My basic idea is that morality concerns subconscious judgements about behavior. The fundamental moral impulses are subconscious and non-rational, but we use various strategies to mold these unconscious "feelings" about various behaviors into useful information for constructing a "moral worldview." So we can use consequentialism to try to reason about why specific acts morally repulse us, leading to behavioral regulation based on consequences. But we can also use virtue as a means of regulating our behavior; we attempt to mold our character in line with moral impulses, which ultimately results in moral behavior shaped by character traits, which themselves were developed by application of virtue ethics.

So, in my (fledgling) view, consequentialist ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics, are all just roads to the same goal, the regulation of behavior in "moral" terms. In other words, evolution molds our brains to attract or repel, toward or away, from specific behaviors and behavior types; the various kinds of moral systems exist to "format" general rules of conduct to achieve moral ends. Consequentialism appears to lean heavily on empathy to "format" moral outcomes. Deontological ethics appears to rely on reason and social conformity to achieve similar ends. And virtue ethics relies on change of personal character traits to achieve the same end. In this view, spirituality and the religious worldview might form just another road to the same goal of behavioral regulation.

[Mystic]

I like your answer Rasetsu. It's also possible our brain evolved with religion being introduced and morality encompassed it after. So the question is, is it really moral to be spiritual if we know God exists? How do we know either way?

[StealthySkeptic]

My theist girlfriend has tried to tell me that she feels that because I'm a good person that she feels that she likes my spirituality. But I've told her pretty flatly that spirituality either means believing in the "supernatural" (as in, the actual definition of what the words mean) or it is a useless term (as it seems to be since it is vaguely applied in New Age terms to almost everything). I just try to follow the Golden Rule. That's it. No more, unnecessarily complicated, "divinely originated" rules required.