A Levite and his concubine

[Lek]

Oh, come on, I've answered this question a while back. I believe that there is an objective framework which applies to everyone, and that framework is reality, which we all share and can reliably predict the outcomes thereof. In reality, we are all the same species, and we are all the same kind of thing; evolved beings with a tendency toward social grouping and cooperation. We need certain things, our pain response developed to signal that negative things are happening to us, when we're sick we suffer... these are the facts which apply to every single person without exception, and they are sufficient from which to derive general moral rules, which cover most any moral context.

Basically, you've said the same thing that I said--"I believe". That's because you have no objective evidence to support your claim. Many get along just fine trampling other people down; in fact they prosper by worldly standards. Others lead moral lives and live in misery. The framework of reality shows that people can prosper by living immoral lives. Prosperous societies are full of immoral people. Actually, I agree that if everyone followed the obvious moral standards, it would be better for society as a whole, but I don't believe that you can derive that from the natural reality of who we are as a species. In fact, it goes against our natural tendencies as human beings. We're born with selfish natures and are all fighting the natural desire to do what is best for ourselves. When someone is struggling against stealing some money, he's not thinking to himself how he would destroy the framework of society if he does, but he has something inside him telling him that it is wrong. Our morality comes from outside of ourselves and it's not inherent to our nature.

[Esquilax]

Basically, you've said the same thing that I said--"I believe".

Don't mistake my unwillingness to be rude and speak for everyone, for an admission that my position is some subjective fantasy.

That's because you have no objective evidence to support your claim.

Are you kidding me? I have no objective evidence to show that human beings are biological entities? That they work from roughly the same physical set up? That pain signals injury, and that sickness causes us to suffer? That reality is a thing?

Are you seriously telling me that we have no objective evidence that demonstrates these things to be true? And if not, then you're just factually wrong here.

Many get along just fine trampling other people down; in fact they prosper by worldly standards.

Yes, I know; people violate moral rules. But morality isn't a question of single examples, is it? It's not "Oh, someone can commit murder and get away with it, I guess murder is moral then." Morality concerns the whole of humanity, not individual members of it. If it was acceptable for everyone to commit immoral acts and benefit from the suffering of others, would the world be objectively better, or worse?

I can't see any possible argument for the claim that promoting suffering causes society to improve. Single exceptions do not render general rules unworkable. We can fly in planes, it doesn't mean gravity ceases to exist.

Others lead moral lives and live in misery. The framework of reality shows that people can prosper by living immoral lives.

Sure, individuals can. It's an unfortunate consequence of being alive. But if everyone led immoral lives, if it was morally acceptable to do so, the world would be demonstrably worse off, and in fact society itself may become untenable.

Prosperous societies are full of immoral people. Actually, I agree that if everyone followed the obvious moral standards, it would be better for society as a whole, but I don't believe that you can derive that from the natural reality of who we are as a species.

Why not? Don't just say it, justify it. Because I bet you I could come up with a naturalistic justification for any moral or immoral act you care to mention. Why can't you?

In fact, it goes against our natural tendencies as human beings. We're born with selfish natures and are all fighting the natural desire to do what is best for ourselves.

Not entirely true: altruism, relationship building and charity are also central parts of our natural behavior. You can even see it in other animals.

In fact, your claim is fairly baselessly misanthropic, here. It would take me but a moment to supply you with charities, stories of self sacrifice and bravery, lots of evidence to the contrary. In fact, I myself volunteer as a tutor to teach people to read. It doesn't benefit me in any way, but my psychology is wired to feel happiness at helping others, and the same is generally true for other people too. Yes, you get jerks and selfishness and villainy, but that's just testament to the fact that people aren't just a homogenous single character trait; we're a chaotic patchwork of heuristics and shortcuts programmed into what is, at best, an overclocked primate brain. This is exactly what you would expect if morality was a learning process derived from natural realities, and exactly what you would not expect in a world where morality is an iron clad set of dictates from the opinions of a god.

Go ahead and brush that off as a result of sin. I know you want to. But your unsupported, ad hoc rationalizations carry no weight until you can demonstrate the existence of sin, and sinful natures.

When someone is struggling against stealing some money, he's not thinking to himself how he would destroy the framework of society if he does, but he has something inside him telling him that it is wrong.

Yes, and that thing inside him is called "empathy and enculturation." He is empathetic to the harm he will cause the person he steals from- he himself wouldn't want someone to steal from him, so why should he be able to steal from someone else?- and this is reinforced by the fact that he was born and raised in a culture that prizes that empathy, and denigrates those who steal.

It's simple stuff, but you have to be looking at the real world and how people actually work, rather than searching for magic answers to fit a conclusion you've already decided was correct, because it's in a book you like.

Our morality comes from outside of ourselves and it's not inherent to our nature.

Simply untrue. All of the psychological and behavioral research says otherwise, and you don't seem to even want to support what you say, so... why should I even entertain your wild, baseless claims?

[Lek]

Are you kidding me? I have no objective evidence to show that human beings are biological entities? That they work from roughly the same physical set up? That pain signals injury, and that sickness causes us to suffer? That reality is a thing?

Are you seriously telling me that we have no objective evidence that demonstrates these things to be true? And if not, then you're just factually wrong here.

Np. I agree with you said here. There is some objective evidence on your side, but there is also objective evidence to show that murder, for instance, can be beneficial to the world.

Yes, I know; people violate moral rules. But morality isn't a question of single examples, is it? It's not "Oh, someone can commit murder and get away with it, I guess murder is moral then." Morality concerns the whole of humanity, not individual members of it. If it was acceptable for everyone to commit immoral acts and benefit from the suffering of others, would the world be objectively better, or worse?

I think the world would be worse.

Sure, individuals can. It's an unfortunate consequence of being alive. But if everyone led immoral lives, if it was morally acceptable to do so, the world would be demonstrably worse off, and in fact society itself may become untenable.

Can you demonstrate how the world would have been better off it the Romans had not conquered most of the known world at the time by the sword? And be objective please. The same goes for if the European settlers and the US government had not massacred native Americans.

Not entirely true: altruism, relationship building and charity are also central parts of our natural behavior. You can even see it in other animals.

In fact, your claim is fairly baselessly misanthropic, here. It would take me but a moment to supply you with charities, stories of self sacrifice and bravery, lots of evidence to the contrary. In fact, I myself volunteer as a tutor to teach people to read. It doesn't benefit me in any way, but my psychology is wired to feel happiness at helping others, and the same is generally true for other people too. Yes, you get jerks and selfishness and villainy, but that's just testament to the fact that people aren't just a homogenous single character trait; we're a chaotic patchwork of heuristics and shortcuts programmed into what is, at best, an overclocked primate brain. This is exactly what you would expect if morality was a learning process derived from natural realities, and exactly what you would not expect in a world where morality is an iron clad set of dictates from the opinions of a god.

I guess when you say that your psychology is "wired" to feel good about helping others, that means that you learned to feel this way, since morality is a learning process. It seems that maybe the Romans learned that trampling everyone around them is good morality. Maybe they actually believed they were doing the wrong thing, but did it anyway....[/quote]or maybe they figured it was actually benefiting the whole world.

Go ahead and brush that off as a result of sin. I know you want to. But your unsupported, ad hoc rationalizations carry no weight until you can demonstrate the existence of sin, and sinful natures.

Yes, and that thing inside him is called "empathy and enculturation." He is empathetic to the harm he will cause the person he steals from- he himself wouldn't want someone to steal from him, so why should he be able to steal from someone else?- and this is reinforced by the fact that he was born and raised in a culture that prizes that empathy, and denigrates those who steal.

It's simple stuff, but you have to be looking at the real world and how people actually work, rather than searching for magic answers to fit a conclusion you've already decided was correct, because it's in a book you like.

Actually, it is pretty simple. Do I really have to reference an objective study to show that children are selfish? Children generally adopt the morals that are instilled in them by parents, teachers and role models. Accepted morality changes in societies over time. Fifty years ago in the US homosexuality was almost universally unacceptable to society, but is now accepted by majority. The same goes for abortion and other sexual morality. People tend to adapt their moral outlook over time. Unless you purposely hold to an unchanging morality, it's going to become relative to you. And what you've been saying supports my contention that morality is subjectdive.

Simply untrue. All of the psychological and behavioral research says otherwise, and you don't seem to even want to support what you say, so... why should I even entertain your wild, baseless claims?

We've just shown that morality is learned and that may people don't believe in or follow your ideas of what is moral or not. In fact, life on this world involves a daily struggle of good against evil, or right ways against wrong ways as you might call it. This struggle goes on inside of us as well as outside. There's a continual struggle within us about whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing. There's definitely no inherent tendency naturally built into us to do the right thing. I don't see where you have shown that it's logical or objective to support the assumption that your moral beliefs are correct. Evidently many great civilizations didn't share your view of morality and they benefited the world in many ways.

[Esquilax]

Np. I agree with you said here. There is some objective evidence on your side, but there is also objective evidence to show that murder, for instance, can be beneficial to the world.

Yeah, in very specific circumstances, the killing of a person can be morally justified; self defense is the usual example. Sometimes our objective standards can conflict with one another, but even in those cases there's a best attainable scenario, a moral pinnacle, that we can strive for.

I think the world would be worse.

Why do you need more than that to make an accurate moral determination?

Can you demonstrate how the world would have been better off it the Romans had not conquered most of the known world at the time by the sword? And be objective please. The same goes for if the European settlers and the US government had not massacred native Americans.

Well, all the people that they killed would still be alive, the things they destroyed would still be around... I'm not saying good can't arise from immoral acts, but surely you agree that the advancements you make on the corpses of others aren't morally optimal?

I guess when you say that your psychology is "wired" to feel good about helping others, that means that you learned to feel this way, since morality is a learning process.

It's also borne of evolution; altruism benefits the group, and other members of the group are more likely to embrace and protect those that benefit them. It's a survival skill for a species so dependent on each other.

It seems that maybe the Romans learned that trampling everyone around them is good morality. Maybe they actually believed they were doing the wrong thing, but did it anyway....

or maybe they figured it was actually benefiting the whole world. [/quote]

Rule one of good writing for villains and antagonists: nobody is actually motivated to do the wrong thing just to be evil. No doubt the Romans were motivated by what they thought were good reasons, but that doesn't mean they were actually right. It took us a while to understand the value of life; like you say, morality is a learning process. It's imperfect, but it's what we have.

Actually, it is pretty simple. Do I really have to reference an objective study to show that children are selfish? Children generally adopt the morals that are instilled in them by parents, teachers and role models.

Children are selfish, because they have poor impulse control and still developing cognitive faculties. But that doesn't mean that they are exclusively selfish, or don't possess some rudimentary concept of fairness, which is also demonstrated through psychological studies. Hell, this is even true of monkeys; there are studies that show certain types of chimp understand fairness.

Accepted morality changes in societies over time. Fifty years ago in the US homosexuality was almost universally unacceptable to society, but is now accepted by majority. The same goes for abortion and other sexual morality. People tend to adapt their moral outlook over time. Unless you purposely hold to an unchanging morality, it's going to become relative to you. And what you've been saying supports my contention that morality is subjectdive.

Morality changes, but the framework behind it does not. Being alive is still preferable to dying, being sick is still bad, being in pain still signals injury. All you're saying when you talk about homosexuality, abortion and so on, is that people realized they were wrong about the moral content of certain actions, and changed their position. Because, to be clear, there is no rational argument for why homosexuality or abortion is immoral, just religious objections based on a much older, even wronger period of history.

Morality is not subjective, but it does change. It's in a continuous state of improvement, that doesn't mean it's just up for opinion. It's not, unless that opinion comes with an argument that actually follows and reflects the real world.

And you know what we call opinions like that? The truth.

We've just shown that morality is learned and that may people don't believe in or follow your ideas of what is moral or not. In fact, life on this world involves a daily struggle of good against evil, or right ways against wrong ways as you might call it. This struggle goes on inside of us as well as outside. There's a continual struggle within us about whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing. There's definitely no inherent tendency naturally built into us to do the right thing.

You're partially right, and partially wrong. Morality is partially learned, and partially a component of our basic psychology. But we do have certain inherent altruistic behaviors in us too.

I don't see where you have shown that it's logical or objective to support the assumption that your moral beliefs are correct.

For any given moral belief that I hold, there is a corresponding argument which supports that position. Those are the objective reasons why my moral framework should be supported, but since we're talking about morality in a general sense I don't have a single overarching reason why they are correct, because they aren't some collective "Esquilaxist" moral system. They are a collection of individual moral positions with specific support behind each one, which only makes sense, because reality is diverse and there really can't be a one-size-fits-all meta argument that fits every possible scenario.

Evidently many great civilizations didn't share your view of morality and they benefited the world in many ways.

Yes, they sure did. But there was undoubtedly a better way, one that didn't involve so much suffering. You understand that the suffering itself was never the reason the world benefited from those civilizations, right? It was the power and influence that they took by force that allowed them to do those things, of which the immoral acts were but a means to an end. In truth, they aren't connected; the good could be done without committing the bad.

[abaris]

Children are selfish, because they have poor impulse control and still developing cognitive faculties. But that doesn't mean that they are exclusively selfish, or don't possess some rudimentary concept of fairness, which is also demonstrated through psychological studies. Hell, this is even true of monkeys; there are studies that show certain types of chimp understand fairness.

A similar experiment has been carried out with dogs and has shown, they also have a concept of fairness. The scientists ordered two of them to give paw and rewarded them with a treat. When one of them didn't receive the treat after a time, he simply went on strike.

[Lek]

Yes, they sure did. But there was undoubtedly a better way, one that didn't involve so much suffering. You understand that the suffering itself was never the reason the world benefited from those civilizations, right? It was the power and influence that they took by force that allowed them to do those things, of which the immoral acts were but a means to an end. In truth, they aren't connected; the good could be done without committing the bad.

We've pretty much talked this one to death. Let me just say a few things. I agree that we should try to avoid doing things that might hurt others. And that's a big part of christian morality. I believe that humanity is not basically good or else we wouldn't we wouldn't need laws to keep us from causing harm to our neighbors. You've logically decided that the world would be better off if the Romans would have been nice and not overran neighboring lands. Well, maybe or maybe not. I agree that we would have been better off spiritually, which is what really matters, but there's no way to objectively show that we would have better off physically. It's really theory. If the happy Romans disagree with you, all you can do is tell them what you think. Of course, either you're right, or they're right, or you're both wrong, but who's to make that determination. You've related your beliefs about morality, but you've done nothing to objectively prove that they are correct. Your opinions also carry no authority to assume that God's actions in dealing with a world full of sin were unjust or immoral--especially when he sacrificed himself to assure that we all end up in eternal happiness.

---

Children are selfish, because they have poor impulse control and still developing cognitive faculties. But that doesn't mean that they are exclusively selfish, or don't possess some rudimentary concept of fairness, which is also demonstrated through psychological studies. Hell, this is even true of monkeys; there are studies that show certain types of chimp understand fairness.

A similar experiment has been carried out with dogs and has shown, they also have a concept of fairness. The scientists ordered two of them to give paw and rewarded them with a treat. When one of them didn't receive the treat after a time, he simply went on strike.

That doesn't demonstrate a concept of fairness. It demonstrates how rewards effect actions. He went on strike because he wasn't being rewarded and therefore had no reason to give them his paw.

[Mudhammam]

Morality is malleable to the desires of each individual. For someone like myself and presumably Esquilax, morality is objective within the framework that human beings share a universal set of basic needs that can be either satisfied or starved given the extent of social cooperation or conflict. Since each person is deprived of the freedom to select their own allotted genetic and environmental past, nobody is entitled to claim superiority for the character nature has bestowed upon them. I value my own life... Hence, I value a system that, ideally, under its laws and institutions values me as an equal to everyone else, regardless of the choices I make. Nobody can establish absolute value--which is what "objective morality" would require to truly be objective, that is, outside of any individual's evaluative framework--because it's a contradictio in adjecto. Value depends on a value-creating subject. There's no self-contradiction involved in discrepant evaluative standards. Whereas some might value equality before the law or "blessing those who curse you," others might value selfishness or even suffering, and arguably, these all contribute and sometimes even necessarily to the development of character and/or society. Of course, people attempt to tyrannize value by imposing their personal standards on others under the guise of authority anyway--"Christian morality" is oftentimes presented as one such attempt. The truth is, all we can do is appeal to the decency of others and hope that when values clash, through rational discussion a middle ground can be forged in which all parties involved are free to pursue their own goals with minimal conflict (insofar as we ourselves do not wish to be left vulnerable).

[Esquilax]

You've logically decided that the world would be better off if the Romans would have been nice and not overran neighboring lands. Well, maybe or maybe not. I agree that we would have been better off spiritually, which is what really matters, but there's no way to objectively show that we would have better off physically. It's really theory.

It's also beside the point: morality isn't just about the outcomes of actions for individual groups, but for all humanity. Moral evils can lead to huge benefits for certain segments of the population, at a cost to other segments, but if that harm is active and needless then the actions are not morally defensible regardless of their results.

If the happy Romans disagree with you, all you can do is tell them what you think. Of course, either you're right, or they're right, or you're both wrong, but who's to make that determination.

So because I can't create parallel universes with which to see whether my morals would have a better effect in past circumstances, my moral arguments carry no validity in present or future scenarios, regardless of how well founded they are? That seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? And the same argument can be applied to you, too; since you can't definitively tell me that any moral situation in the past would be improved with the addition of christian morals, that means they too are useless, right?

You've related your beliefs about morality, but you've done nothing to objectively prove that they are correct.

And again, you're asking me to provide a generic moral justification for a specific set of principles? Your question is malformed; I'm not presenting a system of morality, I am presenting a method by which moral principles can be derived and supported by observing reality. The proof of the efficacy of this method is that it works, and that when I'm presented with a moral dilemma I can resolve it with a well justified reason. But your question is far too generic for me to answer in any specific sense, since this system doesn't rely on magic or assertions of authority. It is correct because it is correct, and this is something I can demonstrate with examples. I can't answer your question for the same reason that you can't objectively prove, through text based arguments, that a specific method of baking dough is objectively correct: the latter question doesn't even make sense.

Your opinions also carry no authority to assume that God's actions in dealing with a world full of sin were unjust or immoral--especially when he sacrificed himself to assure that we all end up in eternal happiness.

Why don't I have that authority? I'm telling you, right now, that I do have that authority. Do you have a problem with that?

If an assertion of authority in text is good enough for you to accept god's authority, why isn't it enough for you to accept mine? And please, don't waste both of our time by appealing back to additional claims that god makes but doesn't demonstrate in the bible; we both know that if I'd made the same claims, and I'd have the same level of support behind me as the bible does, you'd reject them. It means you're special pleading.