(August 31, 2012 at 8:06 am)genkaus Wrote: I'd disagree both with regards to mathematics and morality. I don't think that either the feeling of moral wrongness or the determination of mathematical answer could be achieved without the concepts being taught at some point in life. A person who has never attended a math class wouldn't know that 8x7= 56. Similarly, you wouldn't think that murder is wrong unless you have been explicitly or implicitly exposed to the idea of valuing human life while growing up. It is when we accept and internalize those concepts - whatever the reason for that acceptance may be - that we can experience those moral feelings seemingly intuitively. For example, if a person is taught from the beginning that the only morally correct sexual relations are between a man and a woman and he accepts it because either it comes from an authority he trusts or because it seems rational in his worldview where purpose of sex is to produce children or because of his own single-target sexual preference or simply because it doesn't contradict anything in his worldview - then, upon encountering the idea of homosexual relations, he genuinely would feel the "moral wrongness" of it.

The job of an ethicist would then be much more nuanced. He would be required to provide a template against which our automatic intuitions can be measured and corrected. He'd be required to not only explain why we feel what we feel, but also if we should feel that way. He'd be required to tell where moral judgment is inapplicable. For example, based on a personal preference of finding raw meat to be icky, I can easily use post-hoc justifications to translate it into a moral principle and declare sushi fans to be immoral. However, an ethicist would point put that since it is a matter of personal preference, moral judgment is inapplicable here. Further, based on Christian morals pounded into me since childhood, I may genuinely consider homosexual relations as immoral - even though my own personal preference may lie that way. Again, I'd require an ethicist to tell me that the basis, i.e. the learned concept, is wrong and therefore, my intuition in this case is unjustified.

Great point here. I would however wonder where the ethicist themself, bases their moral values on, and what justification they would have for doing so.

(August 31, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Great point here. I would however wonder where the ethicist themself, bases their moral values on, and what justification they would have for doing so.

Cue the multitude of philosophers giving out moral and ethical theories and justifications. I don't think any of them have gotten one that is completely free from personal bias and socio-cultural influence, but a lot of them got a lot of parts right.

(August 31, 2012 at 8:59 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Great point here. I would however wonder where the ethicist themself, bases their moral values on, and what justification they would have for doing so.

What are your moral objectives, stephen?

If you can identify that then you can measure the success of strategies toward those objectives using principles of utility and consequences, for example.

Meanwhile, where do you get your morality? From the bible? From god's commands?

If the bible, how do you determine what is true or literal, symbolic or false, or human error in the transcription?

If godly commands, by what means do you receive them?

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)genkaus Wrote: Cue the multitude of philosophers giving out moral and ethical theories and justifications. I don't think any of them have gotten one that is completely free from personal bias and socio-cultural influence, but a lot of them got a lot of parts right.

Agreed. Do you think there is any possibility an answer may come along that isnt arbitrary? Do you think one exists now? (Genuine questions, not meant to be rhetorical)

(August 31, 2012 at 8:13 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 5:40 am)greneknight Wrote: I don't think it's at all a mystery where atheists get their morality from. What's truly surprising is where do we Christians get our morality from? It's easier for atheists because they just do the right thing. For some of us, we have to distinguish the immorality taught in the Bible in order to do the right thing. So it's less spontaneous for us because we must get round the hideous immorality that the Bible teaches.

...Holy shit I never thought I would see this day. A Christian who admits the immoralities of the bible and the conundrums Christians must face in the realms of morality.

My mind. You just exploded it. And my day just got a little brighter. ...Though that might be the residual effects of the cranial detonation...

That's because I'm an honest Christians. Many Christians, I believe, are dishonest with themselves.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am)Boccaccio Wrote: What are your moral objectives, stephen?

If you can identify that then you can measure the success of strategies toward those objectives using principles of utility and consequences, for example.

Meanwhile, where do you get your morality? From the bible? From god's commands?

If the bible, how do you determine what is true or literal, symbolic or false, or human error in the transcription?

If godly commands, by what means do you receive them?

Morals do not have objectives, they only prescribe what ought to be, so it is incorrect to anthropormorphisize them like this. Only beings can have 'objectives.'

At any rate, my morals are based on God’s revelation in Scripture. I have good reason to believe that Scripture is a revelation from God, that God’s commands to us supply our moral duties. Moral duties are rooted in the divine commands; values are rooted in God’s nature, therefore objective because they are rooted in God’s commands and nature.

So, in the spirit of the OP, where do you get your morals from?

(August 31, 2012 at 9:13 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Agreed. Do you think there is any possibility an answer may come along that isnt arbitrary? Do you think one exists now? (Genuine questions, not meant to be rhetorical)

Yes and partially.

---

(August 31, 2012 at 9:41 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Morals do not have objectives, they only prescribe what ought to be, so it is incorrect to anthropormorphisize them like this. Only beings can have 'objectives.'

Prescription of what ought to be is what is known as having an objective.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:41 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: At any rate, my morals are based on God’s revelation in Scripture. I have good reason to believe that Scripture is a revelation from God, that God’s commands to us supply our moral duties. Moral duties are rooted in the divine commands; values are rooted in God’s nature, therefore objective because they are rooted in God’s commands and nature.

If they are rooted in anyone's command or nature, then they are dependent upon that entity and therefore are not objective.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:42 am)genkaus Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:41 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Morals do not have objectives, they only prescribe what ought to be, so it is incorrect to anthropormorphisize them like this. Only beings can have 'objectives.'

Prescription of what ought to be is what is known as having an objective.

That would be an attribute of the prescriber, the moral value in and of itself has no awareness of purpose.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:42 am)genkaus Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:41 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: At any rate, my morals are based on God’s revelation in Scripture. I have good reason to believe that Scripture is a revelation from God, that God’s commands to us supply our moral duties. Moral duties are rooted in the divine commands; values are rooted in God’s nature, therefore objective because they are rooted in God’s commands and nature.

If they are rooted in anyone's command or nature, then they are dependent upon that entity and therefore are not objective.

They are dependent upon that entity yes, but that entity is independent of me, therefore is by definition objective.