Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

So, it could also be rephrased to say that immoral killing is immoral. So what makes it immoral/wrong?

That depends on the person evaluating it and the specific nature of their moral framework.

It's not just a preference, it's right reason based. It's true that unlike the fact that green is green because it is green, not because we say it is, murder is not factually immoral in that sense, but I think it is factually, or objectively true in the sense that murder, or wrongful killing, is objectively not in our best interests as a human society. We arrive at objective facts like that by reason.

So two things are being conflated here. First, my observation about "murder is wrong" stands, and you have not refuted it. The statement is meaningless because it is a tautology. It is true because it simply restates the definition of "murder." If you want to discuss this as a moral precept, you need to get away from this problem and talk about how most societies hold the moral precept "wanton killing is immoral."

And you keep asserting this "best interests" argument, but you have done nothing to actually support it. You cannot avoid the problem of the subjective nature of the phrase "best interests of." You will always have to define "best interests to whom?" There is no abstract, objective, "best interests." If think that is untrue, then your path to making your case is simple: explain "best interests" without any recourse to a subject doing the evaluating or a subjectively derived value. So far, you have not.

I think you're defining morality as that which is the best interests of, or that which is objectivelty right or wrong, with respect to human society.

No, I'm not. If you think I am, then you are imposing your position on me. My position is exactly the opposite: morality is a subjective exercise by its very nature. It always has been, it always will be.

That's my point. Morals I don't believe are objective facts like mathematics, but I do believe that the most perfect society would be a one that is so because of its correctly reasoned moral laws.

You are right about the mathematics. This is a mistake Seer repeatedly makes, attempting to align moral principles with rational or mathematical ones with absolutely no justification except his insistence that it is so. Moral principles, as I have repeatedly shown, are analogous to legal principles. Both deal with behavior. Both separate "ought" from "ought not" with respect to behavior. Both operate at the individual and communal level. Both are cognitive in nature. Neither would exist if there were no sentient minds with free will capable of choosing and articulating them. Most of those characteristics do not apply to logical and mathematical principles.

Legal principles are widely understood to be subjective to a society or group, and two groups can have opposing legal norms with no logical contradiction. I see no reason why moral principles are any different.

Your definition of a "perfect society" is meaningless to me: no such thing exists and I don't see how one could be defined to exist.

So the prohibition against theft is rooted in a subjective basis: an individual or social decision to carve out "personal property." The fact that most societies and most individuals have subjectively decided to do this does not make it either absolute or universal. The best you can say is "in a society that subscribes to the concept of personal property, theft will most likely be defined as immoral/illegal."

I think these were my words mistakenly included in your post as yours.

ETA: I would like to acknowledge that I appreciate your ability to engage in a discussion where there is clearly disagreement without peppering your posts with ad homs, accusations of disingenuity, and other such pointless injection. I'm interested in the arguments and the ideas. This articular area is of interest to me because I have come to believe most of the world is indoctrinated to a way of thinking that roots way back in our history and ever prehistory, and we are long overdue to reassess and re-examine some very basic things.

[Tassman]

So what is your point? It is not that Moses did anything wrong -

The “point” is that Moses was merely reflecting the social values of the day just as ALL morality does – whether with slave-owning or subjugating women. And Moses’ tribalism was attributed to the will of God just as slave-owning and the subjugation of women was for millennia.

[Tassman]

I asked first!

That’s the argument of a five-year-old.

You are the one constantly talking about evidence so again: [I]Define evidence without begging the question.

Evidence is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “A body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”. So, when I asserted: “There's no evidence of any “moral law of god” existing outside of the minds of our species” it’s up to you to provide evidence to the contrary in support of your unevidenced claim of the existence of “universal moral law”.

[seer]

Evidence is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “A body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”. So, when I asserted: “There's no evidence of any “moral law of god” existing outside of the minds of our species” it’s up to you to provide evidence to the contrary in support of your unevidenced claim of the existence of “universal moral law”.

So does that include historical evidence?

[carpedm9587]

That’s the argument of a five-year-old.

Evidence is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “A body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”. So, when I asserted: “There's no evidence of any “moral law of god” existing outside of the minds of our species” it’s up to you to provide evidence to the contrary in support of your unevidenced claim of the existence of “universal moral law”.

I think "no evidence" is a bit of a stretch. The bible is an example of "evidence for a moral law of god." We may or may not accept it as adequate or even dependable - but it would likely be put forward as evidence. I think it would be more correct to say "there is inadequate evidence to support the claim that a universal moral law exists."

"Universal" might also be a problem. After all, I believe that my moral framework is correct for all people in all places and all times. When I evaluate someone else's actions, I evaluate those actions against my own moral framework. That's true for anyone, anywhere, at any time. But that is true for all people; we all assess actions (both ours and those of others) against our own moral framework. So "universal" in the sense that there is only one such moral framework is meaningless because every sentient being (presumably) has one. But universal in so far that each of us sees our own moral framework as "universal" is not.

[Tassman]

So does that include historical evidence?

There's no evidence of any of the gods having existed outside of the minds of our species – this encompasses the entire existence of our species.

[seer]

There's no evidence of any of the gods having existed outside of the minds of our species – this encompasses the entire existence of our species.

That is not what I asked: is historical evidence actual evidence?

[carpedm9587]

There's no evidence of any of the gods having existed outside of the minds of our species – this encompasses the entire existence of our species.

Again - "no evidence" is not correct. Inadequate evidence I agree with. But if there were a trial concerning the existence of god, the "pro" side would have evidence to bring.

[JimL]

Again - "no evidence" is not correct. Inadequate evidence I agree with. But if there were a trial concerning the existence of god, the "pro" side would have evidence to bring.

I think that would depend on what one considers to be actual evidence. If someone tells you that he just witnessed someone walking on water, some would consider that to be actual evidence that they actually did witness someone walk on water. That is the only so called evidence for the existence of a god.

[carpedm9587]

I think that would depend on what one considers to be actual evidence. If someone tells you that he just witnessed someone walking on water, some would consider that to be actual evidence that they actually did witness someone walk on water. That is the only so called evidence for the existence of a god.

Eyewitness testimony is widely considered to be "evidence," Jim, but it can be countered by other evidence, or it can be shown to be false.

There is a distinction between "no evidence" and "inadequate evidence to prove X." I am atheist because I believe there is inadequate evidence to support the belief in a good and adequate evidence to support the belief that no such being exists outside the minds of men. But I would never go so far as to claim there is "no evidence."

Put it this way: the movement of the sun each day can be presented as evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. If the sun actually revolved around the earth, that is pretty much what we would see. However, other evidence can be presented that provides an alternate explanation and demonstrates the other explanations are more viable. That does not make the original evidence "not evidence." It means that evidence (the movement of the sun across the sky) was inadequate to make the case.

[JimL]

Eyewitness testimony is widely considered to be "evidence," Jim, but it can be countered by other evidence, or it can be shown to be false.

There is a distinction between "no evidence" and "inadequate evidence to prove X." I am atheist because I believe there is inadequate evidence to support the belief in a good and adequate evidence to support the belief that no such being exists outside the minds of men. But I would never go so far as to claim there is "no evidence."

Put it this way: the movement of the sun each day can be presented as evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. If the sun actually revolved around the earth, that is pretty much what we would see. However, other evidence can be presented that provides an alternate explanation and demonstrates the other explanations are more viable. That does not make the original evidence "not evidence." It means that evidence (the movement of the sun across the sky) was inadequate to make the case.

Yes, and I would agree, but I wouldn't agree that an ancient book, written by who knows who, making extrordinary claims of events decades after the claimed occurences of those events, as eyewitness testimony.

[Tassman]

That is not what I asked: is historical evidence actual evidence?

Historical evidence requires primary sources such as original documents, artifacts, and other contemporary information dating from the period being studied – all of which are in very short supply when it comes to the Jesus story.

But what I’m addressing is not this but your unevidenced claim of the existence of “universal moral laws”. As far as we can tell the notion of gods and the concept of eternal moral laws do not exist outside of the minds of our species and were instigated by us.

[seer]

Historical evidence requires primary sources such as original documents, artifacts, and other contemporary information dating from the period being studied – all of which are in very short supply when it comes to the Jesus story.

Of course the New Testament has primary sources written by those who knew Christ or from the community populated by those who knew Christ.

But what I’m addressing is not this but your unevidenced claim of the existence of “universal moral laws”. As far as we can tell the notion of gods and the concept of eternal moral laws do not exist outside of the minds of our species and were instigated by us.

You don't know that at all.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, and I would agree, but I wouldn't agree that an ancient book, written by who knows who, making extrordinary claims of events decades after the claimed occurences of those events, as eyewitness testimony.

On that we are largely in agreement. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the authors of the N.T. were eyewitnesses to the events they describe, and some of them it is highly implausible that they were present (e.g., the birth narratives, etc.). The epistles were written by eyewitnesses to the early Christian church, but there is little reason to believe they were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, we have no original copies of anything that was written, nor can we reliably determine authorship.

Note that does not mean there is NO evidence to support that claim. The naming of the gospels and epistles, for example, is evidence for that claim. But I do not find it adequate evidence. What we see in the NT is a portrait of the beliefs ABOUT Jesus of Nazareth as held by the early Christian church.

[JimL]

On that we are largely in agreement. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the authors of the N.T. were eyewitnesses to the events they describe, and some of them it is highly implausible that they were present (e.g., the birth narratives, etc.). The epistles were written by eyewitnesses to the early Christian church, but there is little reason to believe they were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, we have no original copies of anything that was written, nor can we reliably determine authorship.

Note that does not mean there is NO evidence to support that claim. The naming of the gospels and epistles, for example, is evidence for that claim. But I do not find it adequate evidence. What we see in the NT is a portrait of the beliefs ABOUT Jesus of Nazareth as held by the early Christian church.

I concede. I guess one would have to call the beliefs of a people evidence for the reality of their beliefs, but a very paltry evidence at that.