Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[Peebothuhlu]

Thanks, all, for the responses. 

Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is: "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics").

Ruse is mistaken but consistent with his agnostic worldview. If there were no God, all ethics would be just "an aid to survival and reproduction". Someone should tell that to those who've given their lives for a just cause. Morality is not just an aid to survival or reproduction because people have gladly, and righteously, given up lives and families etc to die for such causes, as for e.g. soldiers in a Just War do, to save others. So much for just "surviving and reproducing" and that allegedly being all that morality is about. These are the kind of absurdities to which subjective morality leads, ergo it is incorrect.


Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals" might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."

There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".

God Bless.

Hello again.

What a single philosopher thinks is interesting but in no way conclusive or otherwise helpful.

You also simply dismiss his points while repeating yourself.

IF 'Morals' are an emergent property, then the whole 'Is/Ought' thing simply goes out the window. No need for it.

Morals become similar to chemistry. Morals 'Just are'.

Tell me, good Nishant Xavier, do you 'Choose' to be conscious?

Again, you're confusing the 'Thing' for its attributes.

A car is a 'Thing'. How fast it goes is an emergent property.

'Water' is a 'Thing'. How 'Wet' it is, is an emergent property.

Similarly, an/a Hominid is a 'Thing'. How moral it is is an emergent property.

Cheers.