(March 11, 2014 at 2:15 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Can the origin of morality be other people? Viewed on a small scale, if I were to get my morality from you and you get your morality from Fred and Fred gets his from John and John gets his from me, then have we answered the question? It's somewhat circular. If things are passed from person to person we eventually run out of people. When explored this way there are two solutions: 1. Someone outside the human race gave it to the human race, or 2. Morality is ultimately determined by each individual person. If morality is ultimately determined by the individual then we would never have a valid reason to bring an accusation against anyone other than ourselves. Each of us would judge what is right in our own eyes.

Other people and personal experience is the only place we can get our morality. Even if you want to get yours from a book, you're still assuming the people that wrote the book are correct about being inspired by a higher being. A higher being we have yet to prove exists 3,000 years or more after people started writing about him.

Morality isn't perfect. All we can do is what we think is good for society, and finding ways that demonstrably help more than harm is a good way to know what's right. That means that considering women equal to men is good, despite what it says in the bible. Owning people as property is wrong, despite what it says in the bible. Going to another town and killing everything in it because people have different beliefs from you is wrong, despite what it says in the bible.

Morality is a fluid thing. That's why people have big problems with the old testament. It's the first impression of what your god is like, and it takes up 2/3 of the bible. Having passages later about being nice to people isn't going to override that. Saying do unto others as you would have them do unto you doesn't make us forget the part in the old testament about slaughtering entire villages and enslaving people from other cultures.

(March 11, 2014 at 2:29 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, what you're saying is that god made a commandment and then arranged physical reality so that obeying that commandment results in a positive physical effect? So then there's no reason that one would need god for morality, since they could see the physical effects anyway.

To address the first question, I don't know if God arranged physical reality in the way you are proposing or not or had some other purpose in mind. To address the second question: no, given the premise that God gave the commandment, if you take away the cause you take away the effect.

(March 11, 2014 at 2:29 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:You take for granted that we can already 'reason right from wrong'. You would have to presuppose morality to be able to 'reason out the merit...'

You aren't listening, and more importantly, you're putting quotation marks around words that never even appeared in my post, hinting that you either don't know what quotations marks are for, or more likely, you have a script that you're following regardless of what is actually said to you.

Sorry about that I was using quotes in the first part of the statement to emphasize a concept and the second set of quotes was quoting you. I'll be more clear in the future.

(March 11, 2014 at 2:29 am)Esquilax Wrote: Second question: by observing the effects of actions in reality- not the morality of them but the actual, physical effects- and determining the harm or benefit of those actions.
What I said was that we can reason from the objective effects of an action, and this is a really trivial claim: if I shoot you in the leg for no reason, are you claiming that the only way we could figure out that this is a less than desirable outcome is by presupposing divine morality? Or could we simply observe that you are now in an unnecessary state of pain and injury, and that most likely you would prefer not to be, and work backwards from there?

I'd say yes, we wouldn't be able to determine this is a less than desirable outcome without a God given morality. To illustrate: Why do we already assume that causing pain to someone else is inherently bad? After all it could benefit the individual inflicting the pain? How do we know that the joy you get from shooting me in the leg for no reason doesn't outweigh the pain I feel? If shooting me made you happy then I wouldn't be in an unnecessary state of pain and injury, it would serve a purpose. If your joy exceeds my pain, according to your standard, you shooting me in the leg would be moral.

You proposed we can reason from the objective effects. While the effects may be observable objectively they are measured subjectively (your joy, my pain). Secondly, you and I don't operate in a closed system. You shooting me would have effects, both harmful and beneficial, on other people (Ex: paramedics, doctors, 911 operator, etc) Some of these people would benefit from you shooting me; or perhaps not, given their mood on that particular day. Given an unknowable number of variables and subjectivity, it is not reasonable for a person to objectively measure the effects of an event in terms of overall benefit vs. overall harm and thus determine morality.

To my original question.
An evolutionary model.

Assume the prophet as a species.
Assume the people as a species.
Assume the prophet can communicate with animals.
Assume that animals obey the prophet's command.
Assume that the people eaten by the animals cannot communicate with animals.

A mutation occurs in the people species. This mutation changes the genetic make-up of the people species, producing a trait that allows communication with animals. People bearing this trait are now classified as the prophet species. As the process of natural selection occurs the more adapted species survives (prophet) and the less adapted species (people) do not survive (and this could reasonably occur through the prohpet species killing the people species). What does this have to do with morality? It's just evolution.

(March 11, 2014 at 3:00 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So is it your understanding that people don't have to forgive others now because Jesus forgave everyone 2,000 years ago?

No, not at all. I was addressing your statement that God never forgave anyone. Yes God has forgiven us and yes we are to forgive others. For example: Colossians 3:13: "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye", and Ephesians 4:32 " And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." See also the parable of the unforgiving servant: Matthew 18:21-35.

Have you ever noticed that when people are arguing that evolution cannot be responsible for morality, they never, ever use a symbiotic relationship as an example?

(March 13, 2014 at 1:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: I'd say yes, we wouldn't be able to determine this is a less than desirable outcome without a God given morality. To illustrate: Why do we already assume that causing pain to someone else is inherently bad? After all it could benefit the individual inflicting the pain?

If this occurs in a vacuum then yes, you could wind up with a viewpoint that hurting others for your own enjoyment is moral. The survival of larger communities and societies was almost certainly contingent on determining a code of conduct that strengthened the group.

(March 13, 2014 at 1:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: To address the first question, I don't know if God arranged physical reality in the way you are proposing or not or had some other purpose in mind. To address the second question: no, given the premise that God gave the commandment, if you take away the cause you take away the effect.

What you're proposing is inherently contradictory, then. Let's be clear: you believe that god's moral commandments, if followed, would result in a world that is objectively better than one where they aren't, right?

Given this, then those objectively beneficial effects can be observed without believing in a god. You seem to be saying that if I don't believe in god then the beneficial effects of his commandments would somehow be invisible to me, but you haven't given any reason why. Is that what you're saying? If so, why is that? If not, then regardless of the cause, one can observe the effects and intuit a moral system based upon learning those.

Besides, you're making a fundamental mistake with your answer to my second question anyway; the "cause" of the effects on the real world wouldn't be god, they would be adherence to his commandments, which are actions that don't suddenly become impossible the moment one becomes an atheist. Surely you'd agree that an atheist isn't physically unable to obey the commandment "thou shalt not steal"?

Relinquish your grip on the idea that these commandments are the strict domain of god, and examine the commandments themselves; do they have a positive effect on the world, or do they not? Disregard heaven, disregard hell for the moment; our world, here and now. Is it better for obeying god's commandments?

Quote:I'd say yes, we wouldn't be able to determine this is a less than desirable outcome without a God given morality. To illustrate: Why do we already assume that causing pain to someone else is inherently bad?

That's super easy: our body has a pain reaction to notify us of physical damage that we incur, so that we can rectify it. Given that pain, in general, isn't good to us, we can extrapolate and say that it isn't good to others either. We are a social species, we rely on one another to survive, and so now that we understand that pain is bad, through simple biological necessity, we can come to a simple question: would a society in which people are allowed to harm one another indiscriminately be better for us, or worse?

I think the answer to that question is very easy to come to. Therefore, pain is bad.

Quote:After all it could benefit the individual inflicting the pain? How do we know that the joy you get from shooting me in the leg for no reason doesn't outweigh the pain I feel?

It's not just about me, it's about formulating a consistently applied set of values that lead to a more cohesive society. It's entirely possible that I'd really, really get off on shooting you in the leg (I wouldn't, by the way, but it's possible that my enjoyment could outweigh your pain.) But a world in which I'm not punished for that, and neither is anyone else, is a world of violence and distrust that could not function the way we need it to.

Quote:You proposed we can reason from the objective effects. While the effects may be observable objectively they are measured subjectively (your joy, my pain). Secondly, you and I don't operate in a closed system. You shooting me would have effects, both harmful and beneficial, on other people (Ex: paramedics, doctors, 911 operator, etc) Some of these people would benefit from you shooting me; or perhaps not, given their mood on that particular day. Given an unknowable number of variables and subjectivity, it is not reasonable for a person to objectively measure the effects of an event in terms of overall benefit vs. overall harm and thus determine morality.

Unless we're measuring via the yardstick of another objective effect, namely the cohesive running of a society.

Quote:A mutation occurs in the people species. This mutation changes the genetic make-up of the people species, producing a trait that allows communication with animals. People bearing this trait are now classified as the prophet species. As the process of natural selection occurs the more adapted species survives (prophet) and the less adapted species (people) do not survive (and this could reasonably occur through the prohpet species killing the people species). What does this have to do with morality? It's just evolution.

It's also not enough to constitute a change in species, making your model... moot. Incidentally, since none of us are appealing to evolution as a dictator of morality, it's rather a non-sequitur to begin with.

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: What you're proposing is inherently contradictory, then. Let's be clear: you believe that god's moral commandments, if followed, would result in a world that is objectively better than one where they aren't, right?

Yes, but I would say, given human interpretation, the world is subjectively better not objectively better.

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: Given this, then those objectively beneficial effects can be observed without believing in a god.

Yes I agree (although again changing objectively to subjectively)

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: You seem to be saying that if I don't believe in god then the beneficial effects of his commandments would somehow be invisible to me,

No not at all, not belief in God, but rather existence. To reiterate: If morality is given by God's commands (cause) then we can observe the result (effect). If we remove God's commands (or His existence and thus His commands) then we would have to remove the result. If there is no cause then there is no effect. This is, and I agree with you, much different than belief in God. Belief in God is not the cause (His existence/command is) and so removing it would not remove the effect. You can certainly not believe in God and still observe the effects of His commands.

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: Besides, you're making a fundamental mistake with your answer to my second question anyway; the "cause" of the effects on the real world wouldn't be god, they would be adherence to his commandments, which are actions that don't suddenly become impossible the moment one becomes an atheist.

Without God's commands we would have no opportunity to be obedient to God's commands (they wouldn't exist). I would agree your statement could be explained as a series of causes and effects. Given God's command is the cause, our obedience is the effect which becomes the new cause, for the benefit of society (effect). In this line of thinking either the removal of God's command or the removal of our obedience to said command would remove the final effect (benefit of society). This again can all be accomplished independently of belief.

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: Surely you'd agree that an atheist isn't physically unable to obey the commandment "thou shalt not steal"?

Yes I certainly do agree. Belief in God is not a requirement to either feel the effects of God's commands or to be obedient to them.

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: Unless we're measuring via the yardstick of another objective effect, namely the cohesive running of a society.

How is 'the cohesive running of a society' objectively measured so as to be considered an objective effect?

(March 13, 2014 at 7:02 am)Esquilax Wrote:

---

Quote:A mutation occurs in the people species. This mutation changes the genetic make-up of the people species, producing a trait that allows communication with animals. People bearing this trait are now classified as the prophet species. As the process of natural selection occurs the more adapted species survives (prophet) and the less adapted species (people) do not survive (and this could reasonably occur through the prohpet species killing the people species). What does this have to do with morality? It's just evolution.

---

It's also not enough to constitute a change in species, making your model... moot.

I am being playful in my response here. For a person who in an earlier discussion stated that changes in eye color is evolution, I in no way believe that if we woke up tomorrow to a mutation that allowed some humans to communicate with animals, that you would deny it as a speciation event and not declare it proof of evolution!

you're searching for proof in evolution? look beyond that stupid fucking book... where every promise is a blatant lie.. where nothing adds up, unless you follow delusional pastors on youtube..then its right.

and that sounds like the genocidal maniac in the old testament.. Man:"they called me balded and i'm freshly repented." God: "To hell with them! I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!"

(March 13, 2014 at 1:40 am)Faith No More Wrote: Have you ever noticed that when people are arguing that evolution cannot be responsible for morality, they never, ever use a symbiotic relationship as an example?

Yes. Or empathy: like the example above your post, there's an assumption that there's "no way to know" inflicting pain on another person is wrong. This goes against The Golden Rule, and I can just picture a Christian torturing a non-believ--OH WAIT, that already happened in the Inquisition! I guess God should have told them torture was wrong.

---

(March 13, 2014 at 6:25 am)Tonus Wrote:

(March 13, 2014 at 1:33 am)orangebox21 Wrote: I'd say yes, we wouldn't be able to determine this is a less than desirable outcome without a God given morality. To illustrate: Why do we already assume that causing pain to someone else is inherently bad? After all it could benefit the individual inflicting the pain?

If this occurs in a vacuum then yes, you could wind up with a viewpoint that hurting others for your own enjoyment is moral. The survival of larger communities and societies was almost certainly contingent on determining a code of conduct that strengthened the group.

Why is this so hard for Orangebox to wrap his head around?

I'm telling you. . . People who honestly need a parental figure to tell them "murder is wrong" really scare me.

He said before that there's no way to conclude torture is wrong without God. Really, another person screaming in agony isn't enough to sway you? Wow.

(March 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Yes, but I would say, given human interpretation, the world is subjectively better not objectively better.

So your god- your giver of objective meaning- didn't intend to make things better with his moral commandments?

Quote:No not at all, not belief in God, but rather existence. To reiterate: If morality is given by God's commands (cause) then we can observe the result (effect). If we remove God's commands (or His existence and thus His commands) then we would have to remove the result. If there is no cause then there is no effect. This is, and I agree with you, much different than belief in God. Belief in God is not the cause (His existence/command is) and so removing it would not remove the effect. You can certainly not believe in God and still observe the effects of His commands.

More importantly, just taking his commands as discrete actions on their own, devoid of additional divine impetus, they'd still produce effects that are demonstrably beneficial or detrimental.

Quote:Yes I certainly do agree. Belief in God is not a requirement to either feel the effects of God's commands or to be obedient to them.

So an atheist could perform those actions, observe their effects, and extrapolate those effects through a simple "what if everyone behaved like this?" question, and hence formulate a moral system based upon the well being of people.

Quote:How is 'the cohesive running of a society' objectively measured so as to be considered an objective effect?

Well, when your society's murder rate skyrockets because suddenly everyone thinks it's okay to kill people, and thus the number of people around to operate the social infrastructure dips, I'd consider that a negative effect objectively, given our starting condition is keeping society cohesive, no? And hence any moral rule that restricts that action is beneficial in that it prevents a negative effect, yes?

This stuff isn't amazingly hard.

Quote:I am being playful in my response here. For a person who in an earlier discussion stated that changes in eye color is evolution, I in no way believe that if we woke up tomorrow to a mutation that allowed some humans to communicate with animals, that you would deny it as a speciation event and not declare it proof of evolution!

Not every mutation is a speciation event; changes in eye and hair color are mutations, but you don't consider redheads to be another species, right? Speciation events require large enough changes that, cladistically speaking, the two iterations of the species are quite starkly different from one another.

(March 17, 2014 at 2:21 pm)heathendegenerate Wrote: you're searching for proof in evolution? look beyond that stupid fucking book... where every promise is a blatant lie.. where nothing adds up, unless you follow delusional pastors on youtube..then its right. and that sounds like the genocidal maniac in the old testament.. Man:"they called me balded and i'm freshly repented." God: "To hell with them! I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!"

Yes I am searching for proof of morality in an evolutionary worldview.

(March 17, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Yes. Or empathy: like the example above your post, there's an assumption that there's "no way to know" inflicting pain on another person is wrong. This goes against The Golden Rule, and I can just picture a Christian torturing a non-believ--OH WAIT, that already happened in the Inquisition! I guess God should have told them torture was wrong.

Yes you are correct, the inquisition was in opposition to the 'golden rule' and so against the will of God.

(March 17, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Why is this so hard for Orangebox to wrap his head around?

I'm telling you. . . People who honestly need a parental figure to tell them "murder is wrong" really scare me.

They scare me too.

(March 17, 2014 at 2:36 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: He said before that there's no way to conclude torture is wrong without God. Really, another person screaming in agony isn't enough to sway you? Wow.

The question asked is 'Why?'. From an evolutionary perspective why is it immoral? The zebra screaming in pain doesn't make the lion immoral, nor sway him/her from killing the zebra.

(March 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

---

Quote:Yes, but I would say, given human interpretation, the world is subjectively better not objectively better.

So your god- your giver of objective meaning- didn't intend to make things better with his moral commandments?

---