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

[Peebothuhlu]

Thank you for supporting my post(s).

You're pretty much agreeing with my ideas. Thanks and cheers.

OK, that's interesting. 

Is it fair to state it this way:

1) Morals are emergent properties from the actions of physical systems. 

2) Emergent properties are real and not simply subjective judgments. 

3) Therefore, Morals are not subjective judgments, but real effects of physical systems. 

I wouldn't have phrased it this way before, but this seems fairly close to Aristotelian Virtue Ethics. (And its many variations over the years.) He claims that human beings have certain characteristics which make them human, and which are common to all humans. You might express this sort of like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is a lot later than Aristotle, but claims to be true of human nature, and not merely a subjective choice or societal trend. 

In short, we can say that because people are a certain way, we can determine with some degree of specificity (not too much) what it is for people to flourish. The emergent properties which constitute flourishing are not something that varies from society to society, but from species to species. (Cat flourishing is not the same as human flourishing.) So although there is a lot of wiggle room for individual variation, in general morality is determined by the kind of animals we are, and is not something that can change, as long as we continue to be this kind of animal.

Yes, no, kind'a.

More along the lines of "IF morals are an emergent property, then all coherent groups/societies/extended bond-sharing species should show such patterns of behaviours."

So, when we meet aliens, regardless of their DNA/Number of manipulators/etc we can compare and contrast their 'Morals' with/alongside our own to see how things square away/match up.

[Belacqua]

More along the lines of "IF morals are an emergent property, then all coherent groups/societies/extended bond-sharing species should show such patterns of behaviours."

So, when we meet aliens, regardless of their DNA/Number of manipulators/etc we can compare and contrast their 'Morals' with/alongside our own to see how things square away/match up.

Yeah, I think that because human beings are very largely the same all across the species (compared to, say, jellyfish) then we are very likely to have a consistent set of emergent properties. So for example if it's true that mind is an emergent property of the brain, it's no surprise that there's a great deal of consistency among human minds. There's variation, of course, but it falls within pretty clear parameters. 

So if morality is also an emergent property from human beings, then all human societies would have fairly similar moral systems -- though again allowing for local variations. 

I also think that this allows for serious debate concerning universal moral principles among humans. Even if one culture DID argue that cutting the arms off of healthy babies for fun was OK, I believe we could build a good case, based on consistencies of emergent morality and obvious facts about human flourishing, that their morality was not only different but outright WRONG.

Of course emergent properties emerge FROM something. If space aliens were quite different from us, physically, mentally, etc., etc., the properties that emerge from them might be quite different. But that's pretty wild speculation. Like intelligent clouds of gas who live in the atmosphere of a gas giant planet would be so different physically and probably intellectually, that it wouldn't be surprising if what they consider to be "proper behavior" is also different.

[Peebothuhlu]

Yes, Bel.

Hence my positing that 'Morals' might emerge as similar across disparate beings... If morals were simply an emergent property of reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

A typical argument would go something like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. 

Incorrect.  Objective moral values are premised on the existence of moral facts.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 
2. But we know from our Conscience that objective moral values do in fact exist, and this is a properly basic belief for virtually everybody, including atheists (e.g. that certain acts are intrinsically and objectively evil, like e.g. murder, rape etc, irrespective of the subjective beliefs of murderers and rapists etc).

Incorrect.  We don't know with our conscience.  We feel.  If moral values are determined by how we feel, that would be a purely subjective, not objective, morality.

3. Therefore, granted the fact of the existence of objective moral values known through our Conscience, we can reasonably conclude that our awareness of this Eternal Moral Law came from the Divine Law-Giver Who made us. 

Even granting both flawed premises, the conclusion does not follow....and is itself incorrect.  An eternal moral law from a divine law-giver is a subjective, not objective, morality.

Thus, since the objective moral law exhorts us to choose good and avoid evil - even if evil may be in our self-advantage - it is clear that that impulse within us could only have originated from an Essentially Good Being, thus refuting the opinion that God might be evil. 

Objective moral values tell us what a things moral status is.  Whether or not we're compelled by that status is personal and variable.  It's not at all clear our own personal impulses could only originate from an essentially good being, nor that their existence modifies the moral status of any objectively immoral thing a god does, did, or is credited for.

Thoughts? 

God Bless.

I think you might want to familiarize yourself with objective morality before you attempt to leverage it for an argument it couldn't seal anyway.  The outcome won't change, but your performance in the attempt might.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I explained many times, from humanistic perspective slavery is bad because a humanistic perspective is based on individual human feelings, and we know that slaves suffer. In Christian societies, the individual is not important, so that is why slavery was often acceptable (and many Christian apologists want it to come back) as is not allowing women to be educated, tolerance of other religions is not allowed, etc.

But there is no objective way for me to say that slavery is bad. I can only appeal to logic and humanistic appeals, which can easily be dismissed by a theistic mentality.

If you can appeal to logic, then you literally -are- saying that slavery is objectively bad.  People might dismiss it, but people often dismiss facts.  That doesn't change anything about those facts, it just tells you about that person.

[The Grand Nudger]

More along the lines of "IF morals are an emergent property, then all coherent groups/societies/extended bond-sharing species should show such patterns of behaviours."

So, when we meet aliens, regardless of their DNA/Number of manipulators/etc we can compare and contrast their 'Morals' with/alongside our own to see how things square away/match up.

I think you might be surprised to find out how similar various societies moral propositions are.  Even extreme examples of apparent moral difference often resolve into fundamental moral agreement with relatively little digging required.   That still leaves the status of moral values an open question, ofc.  Just within the set of cognitive moral systems there are multiple possibilities.

Our moralities could be broadly similar because we are the same species.  Thus, moral values are facts of an individual subjects natural predispositions - and as such subjective.

Our moralities could be broadly similar because our societies practical needs are broadly similar.  Thus, moral values are a fact of societal necessity - and as such relative.

Our moralities could be broadly similar because we have access to the same set of facts about x.  Thus, moral values are facts of those matters x - and as such objective.

With aliens...I mean..who knows. We'd need a moral translation at the very least. If they make a moral claim we're unfamiliar with, they'd need to supply us with facts about their natural predispositions, their societies needs, or the unfamiliar matter x itself, in order to determine what kind of morality they espouse, assuming they espoused one at all - and whether or not a given moral proposition were true. If they had a morality, though, and if that morality was anything like ours, I'd expect them to advance propositions from all three categories (and others).

[Thumpalumpacus]

A typical argument would go something like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. (because there would be objective and universal moral laws in a godless Universe without a divine Law-Giver.)
2. But we know from our Conscience that objective moral values do in fact exist, and this is a properly basic belief for virtually everybody, including atheists (e.g. that certain acts are intrinsically and objectively evil, like e.g. murder, rape etc, irrespective of the subjective beliefs of murderers and rapists etc).
3. Therefore, granted the fact of the existence of objective moral values known through our Conscience, we can reasonably conclude that our awareness of this Eternal Moral Law came from the Divine Law-Giver Who made us. 

There's a lot of overclaimium here.

[brewer]

But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only a Goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope for from the flowers.”

Is this why god made me allergic and gave roses thorns (the source of tetanus for many rose gardners)?

[The Architect Of Fate]

But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only a Goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope for from the flowers.”

Is this why god made me allergic and gave roses thorns (the source of tetanus for many rose gardners)?

No no that's an original sin or the devil or it's a test or it's a mystery or it's nothing personal or some other horseshit. God only creates all pleasant stuff Christians want to attribute to him  then blame everything else on something else. God creating eyes-eating parasites isn't good PR for the church.

[The Grand Nudger]

That avenue is already closed to our new friend, as a person who believes that god is the necessary contingent being. Roses, tetanus, flesh eating bacteria. These are all from god.

The idea that only a “goodness” gives extra will be impossible to support. Abusers dole out all kinds of extra all the time.