Why it's important to know there is an objective morality.

[Brian37]

There may be something to a common shared morality... but it need not be handed down by a god...
The god bit is your own indoctrination talking... not your abstract thinking self.



It seems to me you're looking at it from the point of view of the individual...
Evolution operates on populations.
It's good, because the population has learned what harms its health and labelled that as bad.... and what actively avoids such bad things is labelled good.

It's important to remind ourselves, once in a while, that words are labels for concepts.... and sometimes the concepts are not what they seem. Nowadays, many concepts have evolved to become strange things, heavily imbued by the religious thoughts of the past.

Think about what it means to be "a healthy population" and you'll find the concept of good and bad and, if you so wish, an absolute kind of moral code that each individual within that population should adhere to.

You may also find that there are several ways to achieve a healthy population and, as such, several "absolute moral codes"... and that is what is commonly called non-absolute morality, right?
And that is how evolution works.... finding ways to make things work, not necessarily always finding the same ways... nor at the same time...

Evolution is a guided system. It is guided by the will of life to continue. To say it is random or not at least both a cause and an effect is being closed minded due to bias for whatever reason, and has absolutely no evidence to back it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The last line of your post is flat out false. "Faith" is the problem, not the solution. If life worked like that there would be no conflict in the world at all. There is no such thing as a perfect religion that is 100% unifying. Even in the same labels there are sub sects that compete as to how to interpret that religion and it's holy writings. There is NOT one religion in the world that escapes this problem.

The natural explanation for what humans call "good" is our species ability for empathy and compassion. Once you start using very subjective words like "faith" people start fighting over what that means. NO you cant get rid of religion, but "faith" is not a virtue, and NOTHING, not a religion not a political party not a business model, should be blindly valued and that is what "faith" is, the idea that all you have to do is follow without question.

I hate that word, it is a cliche. I say "value" and yes, I do value you the positive side of my fellow humans in their ability to be compassionate and have empathy for others. But that does not mean because I value that, "faith" is something you protect from scrutiny or blasphemy. 

I wish more humans would value reason over the fear of being wrong. I wish more people would value non violence and not loaded words like "faith" that are so ambiguous and subject to countless interpretations. Our species is all we have in the end. While "faith" will not go away, it still does not deserve taboos.

[popsthebuilder]

I am tired of mental masturbation really. Nobody needs a religion to know it is wrong to physically harm others or steal from them. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution. Unfortunately BOTH work, so our collective morality is simple, seek to avoid harm to others as much as possible and and seek cooperation as much as possible. Everything outside that is politics, and when I say politics, that is every ideology that gets political, including religion and economic views, and no, sorry those ideas are HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

To view morality as set in stone is sick. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. It isn't that anyone is or should claim there is no right or wrong, that is not what anyone is arguing. But every action humans take have to be in the context of the individual and case by case.

But no, you don't need to believe in old books and myths to understand nobody likes being physically harmed and nobody likes living in fear of others. But unfortunately our species also evolved to be selfish and narcissistic and while that can lead to survival, it also leads ideas to get political, both religion and economic views, and that may help one group survive, it also pits one group against another.

No, it is NOT a call to end any religion or disagreements, that is impossible on a planet of 7 billion. But no, this argument of "objective" morality and "moral relativism" is not going to work. Harm is harm and pain is pain and nobody owns a patient on that but nobody should be able to hide behind it either to justify doing harm to others.

Being selfish and narcissistic can only help an individual to attain some false placement in life temporarily, and in no way extend or better the possibility or quality of extended existence(real life).

On a side note this is the benefit of objectivity; the benefit of all life and the continuation there of, rather than ones own prideful, disingenuous, selfish, prejudiced, temporary placement.

Lastly, life is beneficial to itself, going beyond universally equitable means proves to be detrimental to the very advancement of life in general.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[robvalue]

You can not be selfish or narcissistic, or any other undesirable trait without having to subscribe to a list of objective rules. How does that help?

What if the rules include being selfish? No one knows what the rules are, they just make it up.

If we have to first agree with the rules, then they may as well not exist.

[popsthebuilder]

You are right Rob. And I agree with you. I guess I was trying to figure it all out and the only way I could cite an example was to take a page from an IEP but yes, two totally and completely different things.

Thank you for educating me about the morality part of it. I've always had trouble trying to understand exactly what it was.

You're welcome

I think it's a fascinating subject, and that I'm still learning about it. I didn't mean to belittle your example at all, objective standards have a very important role to play in many areas of life.

The important thing, for me, is whether the objective standard is useful. Measuring progress, based on what people have been learning, is very useful and can often be done using an objective standard. Agreeing exactly on what the standard is and how it's applied are very much up for discussion, but it makes sense to apply the current most meaningful standard to everyone equally. I agree that individuals making judgements about other individuals is going to be problematic, although in some situations in may be appropriate.

Morality is such a very strange and different beast, so much so that people end up talking past each other much of the time. People can mean any one of, or combination of:

1) Individual's morality
2) Societal norms
3) Scientific explanations for empathy
4) Measuring outcomes of actions
5) Assessing intent of actions
6) Allowing for beliefs held at the time
7) Allowing for state of mind
8) What God wants

And so on. There are so many possible facets of it that to try and describe the whole thing in one go is extremely hard. Making "moral progress" is not quite the same as progress towards a learning goal. For the latter, you have very clear and agreed things to achieve. For morality, every individual decides on their own goals, and there is no consensus. Nor should there be, except to try and agree to reasonable compromises within a society.

The problem with theists is agreeing goals in the first place. If they want "to please God", first and foremost, we're just not talking about the same thing anymore. That is generally the hardcore ones who will put that as their first goal, though. But having it in there at all is potentially poisonous, whatever weighting it has.

Not at all.

The direction of man under God is synonymous with the man being lead by the selfless conscience. The equivalent of utter morality and altruism.

Don't get me wrong; many, many religious folk will either refute this or acknowledge it yet not abide by it.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[robvalue]

Based on what?

And in that case, God is irrelevant. We already know how to be selfless etc.

[popsthebuilder]

No, they don't. Some people don't have empathy. To such people, killing someone isn't much different to opening a bag of crisps, in extreme cases.

Obviously I meant all of stable right mind at least in the sense of harm=bad

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

Evolution is a guided system. It is guided by the will of life to continue. To say it is random or not at least both a cause and an effect is being closed minded due to bias for whatever reason, and has absolutely no evidence to back it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Did anyone say evolution was random?

I did not mean to imply that any here did. I apologize.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[robvalue]

Right, well the post you replied to was all about people who aren't in such a position. But you said everyone is. So what is your point?

[popsthebuilder]

Evolution is a guided system. It is guided by the will of life to continue. To say it is random or not at least both a cause and an effect is being closed minded due to bias for whatever reason, and has absolutely no evidence to back it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The last line of your post is flat out false. "Faith" is the problem, not the solution. If life worked like that there would be no conflict in the world at all. There is no such thing as a perfect religion that is 100% unifying. Even in the same labels there are sub sects that compete as to how to interpret that religion and it's holy writings. There is NOT one religion in the world that escapes this problem.

The natural explanation for what humans call "good" is our species ability for empathy and compassion. Once you start using very subjective words like "faith" people start fighting over what that means. NO you cant get rid of religion, but "faith" is not a virtue, and NOTHING, not a religion not a political party not a business model, should be blindly valued and that is what "faith" is, the idea that all you have to do is follow without question.

I hate that word, it is a cliche. I say "value" and yes, I do value you the positive side of my fellow humans in their ability to be compassionate and have empathy for others. But that does not mean because I value that, "faith" is something you protect from scrutiny or blasphemy. 

I wish more humans would value reason over the fear of being wrong. I wish more people would value non violence and not loaded words like "faith" that are so ambiguous and subject to countless interpretations. Our species is all we have in the end. While "faith" will not go away, it still does not deserve taboos.

What? My sig?

Don't conflate Faith with blind obedience please. At least not when I'm using it.
It is based on what one knows on an innermost level, though it isn't a physical, readily, easily observable thing for many.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

You can not be selfish or narcissistic, or any other undesirable trait without having to subscribe to a list of objective rules. How does that help?

What if the rules include being selfish? No one knows what the rules are, they just make it up.

If we have to first agree with the rules, then they may as well not exist.

That just doesn't make sense.

And who mentioned rules placed on one man by another?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.