Argument from Conscience

[robvalue]

Not just that, but a really shit human too. One that can't even be as reasonable as your average guy on the street. Serious jealousy issues, egotistical, grudge holding, mind bendingly petty, easy to anger over unimportant things, deceptive, manipulative, violent... this is about the worst set of attributes a human could have. And it's all somehow passed off as "love".

[Kingpin]

I say that if the conscience has no moral authority that presents a serious problem for anyone trying to defend their right to make any kind of moral judgement.

Chad, Yes!  That is exactly the point!  If there is no transcendent point of moral authority, then morals are completely relative then there is no "evil" and everyone loses their right to pass judgment on anything.  They may have an opinion, but that cannot logically condemn it without assuming moral superiority.

[robvalue]

I'll quote myself as I feel I addressed this pretty comprehensively already.

You're still dealing with a matter of opinion, except it's now god's opinion.

Slippery use of the word "moral". If an outside agency is just handing out instructions about what is and isn't moral, then the distinction is arbitrary from our point of view unless we have some way to evaluate the items on the lists. It may as well be "apple" actions and "banana" actions. The agent could reverse the lists, or mix them up, and they would still be "moral" and "immoral", because it says so. If we have no way to measure "morality" ourselves, then we can't possibly know what these lists mean and are just mindlessly taking orders.

Of course, the implication is that these lists also just happen to coincide with what are helpful and harmful actions from our point of view; in other words, the morality of consequences. That's the slippery part. There is no way to deduce such a correlation without analysing the lists ourselves and confirming the actions are actually in the right list. To just announce the lists must be right because the outside agent is always right because it says it's always right is circular reasoning. I don't give a fuck if outside agent X tells me that biting everyone I see in the street is "moral". Unless I can have it explained to me why I should do this, I'm not going to do it, because I know it is harmful.

"God" morality has it all backwards. It's simply observing the common ground we tend to find in our own morality, declaring this to be amazing and labelling it magic. It's not amazing at all, or even surprising, if you study evolution. It's no use announcing that there "must be a correct moral standard", because that doesn't mean there actually is one; and even if there was, it becomes "apples" and "oranges" again if we can't assess it ourselves. That's if we had had any way to find out what it is, which we don't. We have millions of people all with their own interpretation of "objective religious morality" and no way to show who is "right" without looking at the consequences of actions. Assessing consequences is going to vary from person to person. That is the reality, whether people accept it or not. Morality is not a simple matter of good and evil actions as religion would like to have us believe. We live forever in the grey area.

[Kingpin]

Not just that, but a really shit human too. One that can't even be as reasonable as your average guy on the street. Serious jealousy issues, egotistical, grudge holding, mind bendingly petty, easy to anger over unimportant things, deceptive, manipulative, violent... this is about the worst set of attributes a human could have. And it's all somehow passed off as "love".

Interesting observations Rob.  Just one quick question.  Do you believe that "love" exists apart from "judgment"?

[Whateverist]

("Psychological explanations ... Alternatively, conscience arises from the sub-conscious and we confabulate a moral justification. That accounts for the negative feelings for ignoring the conscience. To account for conscience by claiming "God did it" because there is "no other explanation" but without considering the subconscious is an argument from ignorance.")

And recognizing such to be the case, as I do, that can only mean that "God did it" must be a formulation, acceptable to Chad, where reconciling that the voice of conscience arises in the sub-conscious is not efficacious for him. Some, a certain new member for one, say the purpose of god believe and religious activity is precisely to still the ever restless conscious mind from weighing alternatives ceaselessly. God is the evolutionary antidote for excessive reliance on the conscious mind. It is how you reap the benefits of a contingencies calculating mind without driving yourself bonkers. Could be.

[Mister Agenda]

I say that if the conscience has no moral authority that presents a serious problem for anyone trying to defend their right to make any kind of moral judgement.

Chad, Yes!  That is exactly the point!  If there is no transcendent point of moral authority, then morals are completely relative then there is no "evil" and everyone loses their right to pass judgment on anything.  They may have an opinion, but that cannot logically condemn it without assuming moral superiority.

We don't have an absolute standard for height, and we don't need one to say which of two people is taller. Not having an absolute standard absolutely does not mean you can't compare the morality of two things, relative to each other.

[Mister Agenda]

Not just that, but a really shit human too. One that can't even be as reasonable as your average guy on the street. Serious jealousy issues, egotistical, grudge holding, mind bendingly petty, easy to anger over unimportant things, deceptive, manipulative, violent... this is about the worst set of attributes a human could have. And it's all somehow passed off as "love".

Interesting observations Rob.  Just one quick question.  Do you believe that "love" exists apart from "judgment"?

Just chiming in. From the example of mothers and babies, I would have to say 'yes'. However, most of the time our love is attached to our perception that the object of our love is worthy of it.

[Whateverist]

I say that if the conscience has no moral authority that presents a serious problem for anyone trying to defend their right to make any kind of moral judgement.

Chad, Yes!  That is exactly the point!  If there is no transcendent point of moral authority, then morals are completely relative then there is no "evil" and everyone loses their right to pass judgment on anything.  They may have an opinion, but that cannot logically condemn it without assuming moral superiority.

Clarification please.  Are you really agreeing with Chad and/or are you being a little facetious?

I can read this as saying, there is transcendence involved but it rests with God, not in us.  Therefore, while we all are entitled to our opinion (and know what the moral import of an action would be if we did it), we can't any of us logically condemn another because the transcendence rests with God alone.  In essence, if the person performing the act you find reprehensible isn't responding to God's inner guidance, why on earth would he respond to your's?

[robvalue]

Not just that, but a really shit human too. One that can't even be as reasonable as your average guy on the street. Serious jealousy issues, egotistical, grudge holding, mind bendingly petty, easy to anger over unimportant things, deceptive, manipulative, violent... this is about the worst set of attributes a human could have. And it's all somehow passed off as "love".

Interesting observations Rob.  Just one quick question.  Do you believe that "love" exists apart from "judgment"?

Hmm, well these are vague terms. "Love" is just a description of emotions, or perhaps actions. It is not well defined, unless you set actual physical parameters for a certain person and were examining their brain.

Judgement? I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. The ability to judge things...? I suppose that in a brain that receives information and is capable of moving into a state of "love" regarding a certain person, then it is by definition using some sort of judgement; judging that this person is nearby, and comparing them to the emotions held about them in the brain.

But these are very hazy terms, and I think I'm entirely missing the point of the question.

With regard to morality, this is what I am sensing from you but feel free to correct me: you are uncomfortable with the idea that there is no absolute to compare things to, because the consequences of that are no one can be ultimately "right" or "wrong" about morality.

[Kingpin]

Chad, Yes!  That is exactly the point!  If there is no transcendent point of moral authority, then morals are completely relative then there is no "evil" and everyone loses their right to pass judgment on anything.  They may have an opinion, but that cannot logically condemn it without assuming moral superiority.

We don't have an absolute standard for height, and we don't need one to say which of two people is taller. Not having an absolute standard absolutely does not mean you can't compare the morality of two things, relative to each other.

How is height in the same category as morality?  height is merely a mathematical measurement (which I hope you believe is absolute).

On what basis do you compare the morality of two things.  How do you define one as good and one as bad?  There must be a standard higher than other for which to compare them to.  Simply comparing them to each other will only get you to one act being closer to the standard than the other is, but you still need the standard