Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

You would use the word "sin." I would not - but the concept is essentially the same.

Well the word sin (greek hamartia) means missing the mark. Which would fit with you rather nicely.

I have already traced that in my earlier posts. I'm not sure going around that horn again is going to serve any value.

I'm not sure where we fleshed out the reason for the disconnect.

The same things that "prevent" most of us. I think you would call it "temptation." Some immediate want/need is enticing, or some immediate hurt/discomfort is uncomfortable and we compromise our long-term vision for our short-term gain. So I head downstairs in the night with an upset stomach and want some milk. Wanting to just get back to bed, I grab the jug and swig some milk right out of the gallon instead of getting a glass. Next morning, wife says, "I heard you get up. Not sleeping well?" I tell her I had an upset stomach and wanted some milk. She fixes me with that steely glare and says, "you didn't drink right out of the gallon did you?"

That steely glare is enough to get any man to compromise his moral code...

I always found it fascinating that the atheist can invent a moral code that even he often doesn't live up to. Especially since he could easily invent a moral code that he could live up to. To me there is something strange about that, like he is, mentally at least, channelling a higher or universal, moral reality... Why not just change the standard and claim moral perfection?

[JimL]

I always found it fascinating that the atheist can invent a moral code that even he often doesn't live up to. Especially since he could easily invent a moral code that he could live up to. To me there is something strange about that, like he is, mentally at least, channelling a higher or universal, moral reality... Why not just change the standard and claim moral perfection?

Now that's funny seer, that's exactly what thiests do. They invent a moral code, turns out to be the same basic code that athiests abide, that even they can't live up to. As far as being able to invent a moral code that we could live up to is silly, the only moral code that we could live up to as individuals would be no code at all, but that wouldn't be in our collective bests interests.

[seer]

Now that's funny seer, that's exactly what thiests do. They invent a moral code, turns out to be the same basic code that athiests abide, that even they can't live up to. As far as being able to invent a moral code that we could live up to is silly, the only moral code that we could live up to as individuals would be no code at all, but that wouldn't be in our collective bests interests.

Except Jim, we don't believe that we invented our own moral code. The atheist does,at least Carp does. And once again you are back to that fantasy of collective bests interests.

[carpedm9587]

Well the word sin (greek hamartia) means missing the mark. Which would fit with you rather nicely.

I do not avoid the word because of its denotation, but because of it connotation - it is a word associated with religions and gods.

I'm not sure where we fleshed out the reason for the disconnect.

Why the disconnect I explained earlier - immediate gratification. The second question (where these ideals come from) has already been discussed. We disagree.

I always found it fascinating that the atheist can invent a moral code that even he often doesn't live up to. Especially since he could easily invent a moral code that he could live up to. To me there is something strange about that, like he is, mentally at least, channelling a higher or universal, moral reality... Why not just change the standard and claim moral perfection?

Invent? Wow - you really ARE very dismissive of things that do not align with your worldview.

Despite the dismissive choice of language, I can assure you, as an atheist, that a moral framework, even a subjective one, is not simply "invented" on a whim. It is a function of reason, unbringing, cultural influences, social influences, peer influences, etc. It does not change "on a whim" and is not subject to "on the spot invention," despite language from folks like you who clearly hold them in contempt.

And if you can ask that last question, then I'm not sure there is anything I can say to you that will help you understand the subjective framework.

Seer - why do you continue this discussion? You're not really even making arguments anymore. You do not appear interested in understanding; you seem more interested in making fun and disparaging beliefs and worldviews that are not your own. I frankly do not see the point. Why bother? Why not just continue on your apparently superior path and leave such flawed and compromised worldviews as my own by the side of the road like the trash you apparently believe them to be? What does it gain you to engage in these discussions?

[seer]

I do not avoid the word because of its denotation, but because of it connotation - it is a word associated with religions and gods.

See though - you can sin against yourself. Interesting concept...

Why the disconnect I explained earlier - immediate gratification. The second question (where these ideals come from) has already been discussed. We disagree.

But why? Why the ideals that you don't even live up to at times?

Invent? Wow - you really ARE very dismissive of things that do not align with your worldview.

Despite the dismissive choice of language, I can assure you, as an atheist, that a moral framework, even a subjective one, is not simply "invented" on a whim. It is a function of reason, unbringing, cultural influences, social influences, peer influences, etc. It does not change "on a whim" and is not subject to "on the spot invention," despite language from folks like you who clearly hold them in contempt.

Carp, it was not a pejorative nor did I suggest that you invented on a whim - but invent you did. You took all these different influences and came up with your own moral code. So why not a moral code that you could consistently live up to? What prevents that? Why do these ideals so resonate with you that you are willing undergo a sense or guilt or moral failure while trying keep them?

[carpedm9587]

See though - you can sin against yourself. Interesting concept...

I can violate my own moral code, yes. Like I said, I don't use the word "sin," because I am not a god.

By the way - we often fall short of our own expectations for ourselves, on moral fronts as well as other fronts. We make resolutions and fail to meet them. We set out to lose weight, drink less, cut down on sweating, stop yelling at our children, etc. etc. etc. So I am not sure why it is surprising to you that we can have a moral code and fail to live it consistently.

But why? Why the ideals that you don't even live up to at times?

A moral code is nothing more than a code to separate "ought to do" from "ought not do." It is a natural function of the human brain. Some things are simple, practical issues: if I want to lose weight, I ought not eat too many calories. We don't consider those moral issues. Morality is simply a class that has to do with separating what is "right" from what is "wrong," not what is "advisable" from what is "inadvisable." We can no more stop our human brains from processing this way than we can stop our brains from thinking.

Carp, it was not a pejorative nor did I suggest that you invented on a whim - but invent you did. You took all these different influences and came up with your own moral code. So why not a moral code that you could consistently live up to? What prevents that? Why do these ideals so resonate with you that you are willing undergo a sense or guilt or moral failure while trying keep them?

Seer - your disdain for moral codes that are not aligned with your "universal" and "absolute" is pretty evident. I'm sure I am not the only one to see it - nor am I unused to that general attitude from people with an "absolute" moral worldview. It leaves me wondering why you pursue this discussion. Do you have an objective? What, specifically, are you trying to achieve? It does not seem to me that "understanding" is your goal. The impression is that you wish to poke fun, ridicule, and dismiss. You are certainly free to do that. It simply makes the conversation one I am increasingly disinclined to engage in. If you have an interest in exploring a worldview that is different from yours - no problem. If all you want to do is ridicule - I'd rather get a little work done.

On the off-chance that your goal is actually to understand, your question suggests that you still believe a subjective moral framework is something someone "just makes up" and can do so at the drop of a hat. It simply doesn't work that way. I cannot sit here and say, "I think I'll decide that killing innocent children is moral" and make that happen. That moral precept was formed by way of the various familial, social, and cultural influences I have grown up with, but (as an adult) has been reflected upon and grounded in reason. Other moral precepts I was brought up with (e.g., "homosexuality bad!") did not pass the test of my adult reason and have been jetisoned.

Whether or not I can 100% adhere to my own moral code is not a basis for changing it. That would, indeed, render my moral code whimsical, unreasonable, and meaningless.

[JimL]

Except Jim, we don't believe that we invented our own moral code. The atheist does,at least Carp does. And once again you are back to that fantasy of collective bests interests.

I know you don't believe it seer, but thats the way it is. Even if our moral rules had an objective source, neither you nor anyone else have access to it, nor know what those rules are. So regardless of your belief in a source, or in an objective reality of morals, we invent them, and, with knew knowledge, we change them as we see fit over time to better serve our overall best interests as both individuals and as a community.

[carpedm9587]

Except Jim, we don't believe that we invented our own moral code. The atheist does,at least Carp does. And once again you are back to that fantasy of collective bests interests.

As a clarification - the human moral code is both individual AND social. It follows more a pattern of evolution than invention. We are born without one because we are born without developed reasoning faculties. We are all familiar with the infant and toddler's "I centered" world. We typically begin adopting the moral code of our immediate surroundings as children, with those sourroundings widening as we grow up and gain independence. Eventually, as reasoning adults, we should take command of our moral code and put it to our own tests of reason. The moral code can continue to morph, to some degree, throughout our life.

Some people arrest at different stages of that development cycle. For example, some people fully adopt the moral code of their surroundings and never challenge it or put it through their own "reasoning" tests. I think we see that most often in religions. However, religion or otherwise, the communal moral code heavily influences the development of our own moral code - so there is a strong bias to it and it does take a significant "paradigm shift" for most people in order for their moral code to change. Some people never adopt a moral code at all - usually because the part of the brain that processes such things is malfunctioning. We tend to call such people sociopaths or psychopaths: they lack a moral compass and can become very dangerous to the community as a consequence.

[seer]

As a clarification - the human moral code is both individual AND social. It follows more a pattern of evolution than invention. We are born without one because we are born without developed reasoning faculties. We are all familiar with the infant and toddler's "I centered" world. We typically begin adopting the moral code of our immediate surroundings as children, with those sourroundings widening as we grow up and gain independence. Eventually, as reasoning adults, we should take command of our moral code and put it to our own tests of reason. The moral code can continue to morph, to some degree, throughout our life.

Some people arrest at different stages of that development cycle. For example, some people fully adopt the moral code of their surroundings and never challenge it or put it through their own "reasoning" tests. I think we see that most often in religions. However, religion or otherwise, the communal moral code heavily influences the development of our own moral code - so there is a strong bias to it and it does take a significant "paradigm shift" for most people in order for their moral code to change. Some people never adopt a moral code at all - usually because the part of the brain that processes such things is malfunctioning. We tend to call such people sociopaths or psychopaths: they lack a moral compass and can become very dangerous to the community as a consequence.

To even suggest a moral compass Carp is to agree or admit that there is a true moral north. Which there isn't if atheism is correct.

[seer]

I know you don't believe it seer, but thats the way it is. Even if our moral rules had an objective source, neither you nor anyone else have access to it, nor know what those rules are. So regardless of your belief in a source, or in an objective reality of morals, we invent them, and, with knew knowledge, we change them as we see fit over time to better serve our overall best interests as both individuals and as a community.

Well that is just silly Jim, of course we know them, just read your New Testament.

[seer]

Seer - your disdain for moral codes that are not aligned with your "universal" and "absolute" is pretty evident. I'm sure I am not the only one to see it - nor am I unused to that general attitude from people with an "absolute" moral worldview. It leaves me wondering why you pursue this discussion. Do you have an objective? What, specifically, are you trying to achieve? It does not seem to me that "understanding" is your goal. The impression is that you wish to poke fun, ridicule, and dismiss. You are certainly free to do that. It simply makes the conversation one I am increasingly disinclined to engage in. If you have an interest in exploring a worldview that is different from yours - no problem. If all you want to do is ridicule - I'd rather get a little work done.

Carp, again the term invent was not pejorative, nor was it meant to ridicule, nor did I suggest that you invented it on the flip of a coin. But invent you did.

On the off-chance that your goal is actually to understand, your question suggests that you still believe a subjective moral framework is something someone "just makes up" and can do so at the drop of a hat. It simply doesn't work that way. I cannot sit here and say, "I think I'll decide that killing innocent children is moral" and make that happen. That moral precept was formed by way of the various familial, social, and cultural influences I have grown up with, but (as an adult) has been reflected upon and grounded in reason. Other moral precepts I was brought up with (e.g., "homosexuality bad!") did not pass the test of my adult reason and have been jetisoned.

Whether or not I can 100% adhere to my own moral code is not a basis for changing it. That would, indeed, render my moral code whimsical, unreasonable, and meaningless.

And that is what I will never understand, one could logically lower the bar for what one expects of himself to meet those expectations. He could do it rationally and consistently, it need not be whimsical or unreasonable. It may in fact be the most reasonable thing one could do - aligning your moral code with your nature as you find it - avoiding a cognitive disconnect. But it is like you believe that there are some things that are absolutely wrong, lines that should never be crossed.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, again the term invent was not pejorative, nor was it meant to ridicule, nor did I suggest that you invented it on the flip of a coin. But invent you did.

I resist the term "invent" because of its conotation. Something that is invented is "dreamed up and created," possibly out of whole cloth. Invention is not a have to have - it's a nice to have. I could just as easily invent as not invent. Morality does not not function that way. We ALL have a moral code, because that is how the human brain works. Most of our moral code is inhereted from the communities in which we developed as children (family, locality, religion, etc.). Only as a reasoning adult do we begin to question parts of that moral code when they begin to conflict with new experiences, or now cultural norms, and put that code to the test of reason (hopefully).

Your language of "invent" has a connotation of optional and (to some degree) whimsical. I can assure you that my moral code is nothing of the kind.

And that is what I will never understand, one could logically lower the bar for what one expects of himself to meet those expectations. He could do it rationally and consistently, it need not be whimsical or unreasonable. It may in fact be the most reasonable thing one could do - aligning your moral code with your nature as you find it - avoiding a cognitive disconnect. But it is like you believe that there are some things that are absolutely wrong, lines that should never be crossed.

If you will never understand it, then I guess it serves no purpose for me to try to explain it to you. Apparently, you are closed to the possibility of understanding

[carpedm9587]

To even suggest a moral compass Carp is to agree or admit that there is a true moral north. Which there isn't if atheism is correct.

No - it's not. You, of course, continue to return to the need for a "objective" and "universal" true north. But the moral code for a society is the moral compass for that society. The individual moral code is the moral compass for that individual. The religious moral code is the moral compass for that religion.

A sociopath or psychopath physiologically lacks the ability to form a moral compass of any kind. So they never align, even in part, to the social moral norm - which makes them a danger to the society.

Seer, you repeated show that you are SO locked into the need for an absolute/universal, you cannot even fathom a world where it does not exist, and continually make statements that amount to, "but it doesn't work, because it's not absolute/universal," without ever demonstrating why an absolute/universal is necessary, or even existent. It is why I keep pointing out that your objections are all of the same basic ilk, and are unsubstantiated assertions.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why a universal/absolute is necessary/possible, and that one actually exists.

[carpedm9587]

Well that is just silly Jim, of course we know them, just read your New Testament.

The problem for the atheist is, we hear the Muslim point to the Quran, the Christian point to the NT, the Jew point to the OT, and the list goes on. And when we turn to any ONE of these religions, we find some Christian sects defending anti-gay positions on the basis of the NT, and some Christian sects defending pro-gay positions on the basis of the NT - so the interpretation of this "universal/absolute" is all over the map.

When I see that degree of variation, it causes me to raise an eyebrow. The Christian sees this as "failure to meet up due to the phenomenon of sin." The atheist, seeing the universe as not including a god that might be the source of this supposed "universal," sees exactly what a subjective moral framework predicts: different communities developing different moral frameworks on the basis of a combination of their traditions/history, and revised assessment of former moral norms in the light of new arguments and new cultural pressures.

[Tassman]

Well that is just silly Jim, of course we know them, just read your New Testament.

It’s not that simple is it, otherwise there would not be thousands of Christian denominations in existence, each one certain that they alone correctly understand the New Testament. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing denominations hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.