We should take the Moral Highground

[Neo-Scholastic]

I really do not understand where you think morality comes from. Please help me with that.

[DeistPaladin]

I really do not understand where you think morality comes from. Please help me with that.

From our sense of empathy, fair play and the social contract.

Request #6: Answer this post.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Couldn't help but notice how you glossed over my criticism of a faith based system of morality and how it boils down to little more than "my imaginary friend tells me what's right which coincidentally is always whatever I want."

You and many other members continue to present a straw man of religious belief. Terms like ‘imaginary friend’ and ‘sky daddy’ do not accurately reflect most believers’ concept of a supreme being. This kind of willful misrepresentation of the others’ opinion does not help further your case. It just makes you sound like a jackass.

Couldn't Moving past that, you'll note how I discussed "innate sense". We are social animals that depend on one another for survival. The ability to form laws is an evolutionary strength as is developing a reputation for integrity that others may be comfortable in dealing with you.

You base your ‘innate moral sense’ on its evolutionary benefits. In my follow-up posts I sufficiently demonstrated that you do not understand evolutionary psychology or acknowledge that evolutionary mandates are not in themselves moral in any meaningful way.
By your definition religion could be considered a more powerful evolutionary benefit that some vague moral sense. Even if the beliefs of a religion are completely false, it still binds people into cohesive social units that can dominate over the less organized, thus ensuring their survival. It follows from this that idolaters and blasphemers undermine the cohesiveness of the social unit and are an evolutionary detriment and should be recognized as immoral.

You are free to believe that God gave us this conscience if you wish but doing so does nothing to validate your position. Either way, we still have that aforementioned innate sense and so we don't need religion.

But you do need to prove that the ‘innate moral sense’ is accurate and provide a standard for determining so. Otherwise your claim to the high moral ground is hollow.

One of the things that makes secular values superior is we eliminate the clutter and can zero in on the heart of the matter. Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentients. It is where our actions impact the wellbeing of our fellow sentient beings that questions of morality apply. Religion, by contrast, obsesses over distractions like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy… peruse the 10 Commandments listed in Exodus 20. A few deal with real moral issues, like the prohibitions against murder, theft and adultery, but most are about being an obedient believer.

Morality is more than about interpersonal relationships. Morality also includes how we treat ourselves by cultivating virtues, like courage, temperance, and wisdom. From a theistic perspective the cultivation of virtue occurs hand-in-hand with establishing a right relationship with God. And as I showed above, if you assert that evolutionary benefit is the basis of morality then prohibitions against idolatry and blasphemy become moral issues, since these undermine the cohesiveness of the social unit.

By [its] nature, religion will be more concerned with its own interests rather than real moral issues.

Likewise each species is concerned only with its own survival, not real moral issues.

In sum, religion has a conflict of interest. Secular values don't. Ergo, we win.

You have proved nothing. Instead, you seem intent on winning and proving your superiority over others. You do this as opposed to seeking areas of agreement and mutual understanding. Your ‘innate moral sense’ should inform you that a hostile attitude is both rude and unproductive.

[Tempus]

I really do not understand where you think morality comes from. Please help me with that.

I kudos'd your first question in this thread because it was a good one. I'm not going to try and speak for anyone but myself here, so without further ado:

Morality, to me, is short hand for a complex set of behaviours and feelings that humans (and other animals) have developed over a very long period of time. When I speak of morality I'm referring to this behaviour and feeling set, I am not referring to grand notions of right or wrong (which, by the way, I don't believe in), rather I'm referring to the sense of what's right or wrong. This sense of right and wrong guides morality, but the idea of what constitutes a right or wrong is itself determined by biology and what is most beneficial for the organism.

Now, you mentioned earlier what's stopping person X from stealing / killing / etc to benefit themselves if our sense of morality is purely one of utility? I would answer that our sense of morality (as defined above) makes us feel killing is wrong, giving is good, etc precisely because it's function is one of utility. Consider a society where everyone acted as a parasite and stole / killed / etc. How long is that society going to last? Clearly over a period of time (if the organism survives) only the ones who were predisposed to do things beneficial to their survival (which usually includes their society unless they're powerful enough to live individually) will remain.

But what makes that good? If there's no ultimate good or bad then how do you distinguish what you ought to do from what you ought not do? Well, again in my opinion, these aren't particularly big problems. Let's say there's no god and no right or wrong. Initially, at least, your options boil down to:

1. Doing nothing and wandering aimlessly.
   
2. Developing another system to help you decide what to do / what not to do.

If you're option #1, I'm not interested in talking to you. Option #2, however is feasible. Firstly recognise that ALL worldviews are based on assumptions. For example, you might feel you know that you just ate an orange, but in actuality this is an assumption in disguise. You're assuming your senses were not deceiving you, you're assuming you were not hallucinating or dreaming, you're assuming you didn't misremember, etc. These might seem like silly games I'm playing, but they're all real assumptions which we can't possibly know in any definitive sense. But we all make these assumptions every day otherwise we'd cease to function. I'm sure you're capable of applying this example to any worldview. If you accept that all worldviews are based on assumptions you'll notice how arbitrary ALL of them are from the adherents point of view even if they're true.

The system I've developed (and I'm not claiming to be entirely original) for what I ought and ought not do makes the following assumption:

• Happiness is worth pursuing.
  

That's the only assumption (in regards to what I 'should' do) I make. There are other assumptions in my worldview but they're not relevant here. If I do not make this assumption I'm paralysed in option #1 above. From this assumption I can extrapolate other goals which then form a more comprehensive and specific motivational hierarchy or 'morality'. I personally dislike describing it as morality since that word carries a lot of baggage such as grand notions of right and wrong. It's probably also worth noting my motivation for doing what I do doesn't appeal to evolution in anyway.

Oh, and needless to say; I don't think there is any moral high ground.

[DeistPaladin]

You and many other members continue to present a straw man of religious belief.

To be a strawman, I must quote you. My phrase was "boils down to little more than...".

This is a stance I can justify, since very often if not always, "God" always seems to want what the believer wants. It is not Jesus who declares a crusade or Allah who commands a Jihad but whoever occupies the pulpit at the time. Similarly, with social or political issues, people on both sides will always claim that the same God is on their side. For example, when the slavery issue was hotly debated in our country, both slave owners and abolitionists claimed to be doing the will of Jesus.

Terms like ‘imaginary friend’ and ‘sky daddy’ do not accurately reflect most believers’ concept of a supreme being.

"Sky daddy" is a mockery of "heavenly father". Heaven = sky in the ancient Hebrew language. Genesis 1:8 can be faithfully translated as "God called the dome sky" or "God called the firmament Heaven". It's not a nice term but I'm not under any obligation to be nice and cruel mockery is a way of exposing the absurd.

It just makes you sound like a jackass.

Don't ask me to be nice while you advocate the absurd.

You base your ‘innate moral sense’ on its evolutionary benefits.

You continue to confuse "why" with "should". Evolution is the reason WHY we have empathy. Evolution is NOT the reason we SHOULD use our empathy. Clear?

It follows from this that idolaters and blasphemers undermine the cohesiveness of the social unit and are an evolutionary detriment and should be recognized as immoral.

Again, you confuse the "why" with the "should".

And given how ripping down absurd traditions allow a society to move forward are good for society, I think you're assertion is on shaky ground but that's beside the point.

Morality is more than about interpersonal relationships. Morality also includes how we treat ourselves by cultivating virtues, like courage, temperance, and wisdom.

And you continue to confuse personally beneficial with morality. Such things may be virtues and admirable but they are not moral issues. Morality is a function of how we treat others, full stop.

From a theistic perspective the cultivation of virtue occurs hand-in-hand with establishing a right relationship with God.

So how's that working? Hint: not well.

Instead, you seem intent on winning and proving your superiority over others.

I'm not superior. I'm simply lucky enough to not be indoctrinated. My intent on "winning" is simply to help others to avoid indoctrination or break out of it.

You do this as opposed to seeking areas of agreement and mutual understanding.

I have no interest in coexistence with a religion that has no interest in coexistence with me. You'll note I spend no time ranting against Buddhism or other more benign faiths. I do not agree with them but I have no Buddhists seeking to rob my tax dollars or kick down my bedroom door.

Let me be blunt here: Islamo-Christianity doesn't want respect, coexistence or mutual understanding. It wants everyone on their knees or in the ground. Nothing less will fully satisfy this beast. Though you may be a moderate, you do the bidding of a monster that will stop at nothing less than total domination.

Your ‘innate moral sense’ should inform you that a hostile attitude is both rude and unproductive.

Your whining is so unbecoming.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The system I've developed (and I'm not claiming to be entirely original) for what I ought and ought not do makes the following assumption: Happiness is worth pursuing.

Then you are in agreement with Aristotle. That’s not a bad place to be.

Oh, and needless to say; I don't think there is any moral high ground.

You have an intellectually honest position.

[DeistPaladin]

P.S. Thank you for finally addressing my arguments (more or less). It only took 6 requests.

[Neo-Scholastic]

DP, you are correct in your assessment that a why is not a should. In my examples I have only been restating what I understand to be your position. You want the moral high ground, or ‘should’, and your justification, or why is the innate moral sense that comes from evolutionary benefit. While you have tirelessly accused me of dodging your ‘demands’ (which I did not), you yourself have repeatedly failed to provide any rational basis for determining the superiority of your moral system, the one that allows you to claim the moral high ground.

[DeistPaladin]

you yourself have repeatedly failed to provide any rational basis for determining the superiority of your moral system, the one that allows you to claim the moral high ground.

What was wrong with "religion has a conflict of interest, secularism does not"?

[Neo-Scholastic]

One of the things that makes secular values superior is we eliminate the clutter and can zero in on the heart of the matter…Religion…obsesses over distractions like blasphemy…. By nature, religion will be more concerned with its own interests rather than real moral issues…In sum, religion has a conflict of interest. Secular values don't. Ergo, we win.

The ‘heart of the matter’ on which all your assumptions rest is that ‘real moral issues’ are only about species survival. I have demonstrated that evolutionary mandates, the why as you put it, does not provide a rational basis for the should. I have also shown that religious demands for obedience, to which you object, could (in the flawed understanding of evolutionary psychology you use) be seen as an evolutionary advantage. Meanwhile, you have repeatedly and hypocritically avoided providing an alternative to evolutionary psychology as the basis for understanding ‘real moral issues.’