Theists, some questions

[Esquilax]

Creating a morality isn't an issue. It's creating a morality that applies to others.

For example: A ruthless dictator is having your fingernails pulled out. You say "I'm having a negative pain reaction, therefore this is bad!" To which he says, "Odd, I don't feel a thing."

You get around this by speaking as "we" like all humans are on the some big team. But I think history shows that's quite the stretch.

What I mean is, we all experience pain the same way; we don't want it to happen to us, and therefore we tend to band into groups to form social contracts about that sort of thing.

Besides, just because someone can do a thing, doesn't mean the morality of it doesn't apply to them; I'd suggest that, in your analogy above, the vast majority of people would still find the dictator's actions to be immoral. All you're really saying is that people can break social contracts and do immoral things; yes, and that would be true no matter how our morals are derived.

[Lion IRC]

...For example: A ruthless dictator is having your fingernails pulled out. You say "I'm having a negative pain reaction, therefore this is bad!" To which he says, "Odd, I don't feel a thing."

You get around this by speaking as "we" like all humans are on the some big team. But I think history shows that's quite the stretch.

Indeed.
The ruthless dictator, or benevolent dictator or democratically elected president, might all say...."it's for the greater good".

[Bad Wolf]

Indeed.
The ruthless dictator, or benevolent dictator or democratically elected president, might all say...."it's for the greater good".

And you would be satisfied with that answer?

[Lion IRC]

Common sense makes sense to me.

[Doubting Thomas]

The ruthless dictator, or benevolent dictator or democratically elected president, might all say...."it's for the greater good".

You mean like how people say "I'm sure God has his reasons?"

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Common sense makes sense to me.

In my experience, there's no such thing as common sense.

[henryp]

What I mean is, we all experience pain the same way; we don't want it to happen to us, and therefore we tend to band into groups to form social contracts about that sort of thing.

Besides, just because someone can do a thing, doesn't mean the morality of it doesn't apply to them; I'd suggest that, in your analogy above, the vast majority of people would still find the dictator's actions to be immoral. All you're really saying is that people can break social contracts and do immoral things; yes, and that would be true no matter how our morals are derived.

Again, you are speaking in we and us. We are all in the same social contract, but 'we' do not feel pain the same. I only feel pain that hurts me. You only feel pain that hurts you. Neither of us want that to happen to ourselves individually, so we make a deal not to hurt eachother.

But there is no onus on anyone to join the club. What you're trying to do is say, you and I made a deal, and decided everybody else in the world has to join it too because...um...I don't know why. Majority rules I guess?

But there is no impetus to respect the majority. A dictator is not worried about receiving pain, so he has no reason to enter in the social contract. The people inside the social contract can be mad about it, but getting from "This sucks" to "He's immoral" is quite a leap. The ONLY reason to be in the social contract is your own best interests. So when it is no longer in your best interests, you are free to do what you want.

Now, religion doesn't keep him from being a douch, and pulling out our fingernails. But we'd be right in saying that he's behaving immorally because God's rule would make us we, rather than individuals. And the reason to buy into it would universally apply to everyone.

[TheBeardedDude]

What I mean is, we all experience pain the same way; we don't want it to happen to us, and therefore we tend to band into groups to form social contracts about that sort of thing.

Besides, just because someone can do a thing, doesn't mean the morality of it doesn't apply to them; I'd suggest that, in your analogy above, the vast majority of people would still find the dictator's actions to be immoral. All you're really saying is that people can break social contracts and do immoral things; yes, and that would be true no matter how our morals are derived.

Again, you are speaking in we and us. We are all in the same social contract, but 'we' do not feel pain the same. I only feel pain that hurts me. You only feel pain that hurts you. Neither of us want that to happen to ourselves individually, so we make a deal not to hurt eachother.

But there is no onus on anyone to join the club. What you're trying to do is say, you and I made a deal, and decided everybody else in the world has to join it too because...um...I don't know why. Majority rules I guess?

But there is no impetus to respect the majority. A dictator is not worried about receiving pain, so he has no reason to enter in the social contract. The people inside the social contract can be mad about it, but getting from "This sucks" to "He's immoral" is quite a leap. The ONLY reason to be in the social contract is your own best interests. So when it is no longer in your best interests, you are free to do what you want.

Now, religion doesn't keep him from being a douch, and pulling out our fingernails. But we'd be right in saying that he's behaving immorally because God's rule would make us we, rather than individuals. And the reason to buy into it would universally apply to everyone.

The dictator doesn't feel the pain of what he/she inflicts, unless those kept in subordination turn the tables on them and then they do. It isn't just pain that invokes some sense of morality, nor even the fear of pain from something previously experienced, but it is the innate understanding that no one person is immune to harm (physical or mental) from others (even outside of their own species).

It is the reason we feel a sense of morality towards other animals too. It isn't just other humans who can impact us. In that sense, there are some animals that we probably feel far less moral obligation towards, I'd bet they are the ones that pose little to no threat to us. It still doesn't make it a moral action to kill them at will for no reason at all. But clearly I have no problem swatting a mosquito, but that is because it does pose a potential threat to me because it could be carrying a pathogen.

[Tonus]

We cannot judge God's actions as immoral because He has understanding that we do not. He acts for the greatest good, the big picture, past-present-future from before you were ever born and long after you have died and faced Him.

He has a little more insight than us.

I think that you are giving him and extraordinary amount of leeway. God can do no wrong, for reasons we cannot comprehend. It provides cover for all of the things god does that strike us as very "un-god-like." God is good, and if he does something that doesn't seem good, it's because we're too limited to figure out how it was actually good. It also means that god is capable of anything, and we have no option but to accept that it's good/just/moral.

You're comfortable with that?

[henryp]

it is the innate understanding that no one person is immune to harm (physical or mental) from others (even outside of their own species).

Yes, people recognize that nobody is immune. That is why if killing a threat is an option, it's been a go to move for humans and animals alike throughout the history.

We've been domesticated in large part by the abundance of comfort we happen to be enjoying in first world countries, but it's tenuous, and I'd say as a comparison with the rest of nature throughout the history of earth an anomaly.