(January 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 4:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: 100 million years ago, what was the moral code used by the inhabitants of this planet?

Um, I'm guessing this guy is a creationist. They can't comprehend numbers larger than 6000.

Nahhh, he's catholic and, last I heard, they were OK with evolution.

According to his reply to your comment, he's a bit distracted too.

(January 5, 2013 at 4:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Um, I'm guessing this guy is a creationist. They can't comprehend numbers larger than 6000.

Nahhh, he's catholic and, last I heard, they were OK with evolution.

According to his reply to your comment, he's a bit distracted too.

LOL i thought he was directing the big number comment to you but now you mention it maybe it was me, and yes i'm ok with evolution .

Mark 13:13 Wrote:Well why would the argument for morality being proof of God counter the argument that morality evolved like everything else in the universe, the only way a Theist might try push the point is say without God there cannot be a gold standard unchanging code as God is the only Unchanging Entity that exists ( MY WORDS I KNOW) so I would suspect the Athiest say well we can have morality without god and then the question would be asked how? and of we go into how morality exists within the Framework of the Athiest system and what is the definition of said morality and qualities of said morality. I'm not an expert but thats the way i would see it evolve; i'm sure there are vets in the forum can say if thats what tends to happen or if im partially right or even wrong.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Well, I did a moral ethics unit last semester at uni as an elective and what I learnt is that sometimes there's no clear answer when it comes to morality. For example, is it morally right to lie to save someone's life? This of course, is testing GOD's absolute moral code, because as a Christian you know it's not right to lie.

I'll wait and see what you would do in such a situation before I expand.

(January 6, 2013 at 3:13 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Mark 13:13 Wrote:Well why would the argument for morality being proof of God counter the argument that morality evolved like everything else in the universe, the only way a Theist might try push the point is say without God there cannot be a gold standard unchanging code as God is the only Unchanging Entity that exists ( MY WORDS I KNOW) so I would suspect the Athiest say well we can have morality without god and then the question would be asked how? and of we go into how morality exists within the Framework of the Athiest system and what is the definition of said morality and qualities of said morality. I'm not an expert but thats the way i would see it evolve; i'm sure there are vets in the forum can say if thats what tends to happen or if im partially right or even wrong.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Well, I did a moral ethics unit last semester at uni as an elective and what I learnt is that sometimes there's no clear answer when it comes to morality. For example, is it morally right to lie to save someone's life? This of course, is testing GOD's absolute moral code, because as a Christian you know it's not right to lie.

I'll wait and see what you would do in such a situation before I expand.

I have seen something similar explored somewhere where the question was asked is is ok to take and eat food that doesn't belong to you without asking, and although it doesn't answer your paradox it does clarify the Catholic and probably general Christian, a little the way to deal with the situation moraly, i will try to track it down

Related to the topic is Kohlburg's stages of moral development. Children respond to moral quandaries differently as they age, giving us some unique insight into moral development. Kohlburg asked the children if it's okay to steal cancer drugs for someone's dying spouse. Children of different ages/development answered differently bringing up different problems and points as they got older. The question and their answers can be found in this Wikipedia article, which outlines the rest of Kohlburg's theory. It's all very interesting stuff as well worth a browse.

(January 6, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Annik Wrote: Related to the topic is Kohlburg's stages of moral development. Children respond to moral quandaries differently as they age, giving us some unique insight into moral development. Kohlburg asked the children if it's okay to steal cancer drugs for someone's dying spouse. Children of different ages/development answered differently bringing up different problems and points as they got older. The question and their answers can be found in this Wikipedia article, which outlines the rest of Kohlburg's theory. It's all very interesting stuff as well worth a browse.

Some ways we intuitively know what he is formalising. It does provide a good platform for debate and further exploration and like the kids it will be developed further as different ideas and research comes to bear. It kind of mirrors all progression in any area of human interest. I think :-)

(January 6, 2013 at 4:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 6, 2013 at 3:13 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Yeah, I see what you're saying. Well, I did a moral ethics unit last semester at uni as an elective and what I learnt is that sometimes there's no clear answer when it comes to morality. For example, is it morally right to lie to save someone's life? This of course, is testing GOD's absolute moral code, because as a Christian you know it's not right to lie.

I'll wait and see what you would do in such a situation before I expand.

I have seen something similar explored somewhere where the question was asked is is ok to take and eat food that doesn't belong to you without asking, and although it doesn't answer your paradox it does clarify the Catholic and probably general Christian, a little the way to deal with the situation moraly, i will try to track it down

To me it's pretty obvious that morality doesn't come from the Christian god. Your lack of response to a fairly simple scenario tells me there's no loophole in the system. Actually, there has recently been a situation where this happened, so let's use that example.

Think back to the shootings at that school. There was a teacher who told her students to hide in the cupboards of the classroom and when the psychopath entered the room, he asked where the kids were. Her response was that they were at the gym -- a dirty, sinful lie. She of course got gunned down after that as the psychopath then presumably headed for the gym.

According to the Bible, was she meant to tell the truth?

(January 5, 2013 at 5:43 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Morality is not objective, if it was then all people all through history would have the same moral code.

Since they clearly don't, it is merely the subjective outcome of how people in different times and localities decide to treat each.

That's a nonsensical argument. It's like saying reality is not objective because if it was then all people through history would have the same philosophies and scientific principles. Since they clearly don't it is merely the subjective outcome of different places and times.

---

(January 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Well why would the argument for morality being proof of God counter the argument that morality evolved like everything else in the universe, the only way a Theist might try push the point is say without God there cannot be a gold standard unchanging code as God is the only Unchanging Entity that exists ( MY WORDS I KNOW) so I would suspect the Athiest say well we can have morality without god and then the question would be asked how? and of we go into how morality exists within the Framework of the Athiest system and what is the definition of said morality and qualities of said morality. I'm not an expert but thats the way i would see it evolve; i'm sure there are vets in the forum can say if thats what tends to happen or if im partially right or even wrong.

Your argument is correct but you are aiming it at the wrong group. If there is one thing we have established within this thread its that whether there is such a thing as objective morality or not, atheists agree that god is irrelevant to the question. The ones to bring god into it are the theists who trumpet the argument from morality as proof of his existence.

Objectively actions will either cause harm to others or they won't. There are grey areas that are subject to debate and opinion and at times human culture. And that's really all morality is there doesn't really need to be anything funny going on. Some atheists will come up with some kind of evolutionary or physiological basis for it but I think that's going a bit too far, any intelligent being can be altruistic because they simply decided to be nice there won't be any other underlying cause making them do it.

(January 8, 2013 at 10:29 am)Zone Wrote: Objectively actions will either cause harm to others or they won't. There are grey areas that are subject to debate and opinion and at times human culture. And that's really all morality is there doesn't really need to be anything funny going on. Some atheists will come up with some kind of evolutionary or physiological basis for it but I think that's going a bit too far, any intelligent being can be altruistic because they simply decided to be nice there won't be any other underlying cause making them do it.

What things are "nice"?