Time For Martial Law...

[seer]

I don't think any creative arguments are needed.

Since the dawn of time, when one human was afraid of being ambushed and killed by another, humans in our every interaction with each other try to assess the motives of others in an attempt to predict their actions, to understand whether they might be ally or enemy or neither, to predict whether they might help or hinder us, benefit or harm us. Do they desire to bring about our ruin and suffering? Or desire our success and joy? Are they benevolent or malevolent? Do they value us? Or do they value our destruction?

It is these positive / negatives values and intentions toward others that I, and I think most people today, use the word "morality" to refer to. Morality could thus be defined as "valuing others", or as "benevolence", or as "good-will toward others", or as "altruism" (in the sense of positive intentions toward others, not necessarily the self-sacrifice that is sometimes part of 'altruism'), or as "love for others", or as "being an ally of all and an enemy of none". I see all these terms as synonyms. I am not trying to give a complex meaning, but rather give a very very simple one over and over using different words to mean the same thing just to convey as clearly as I can what I am meaning and referring to. Its opposite, immorality, could similarly be defined as "not valuing others, i.e. placing zero or negative value on the well-being of others", or as "malevolence", or as "a psychopathic/sociopathic complete disinterest in the well-being of others", or as "ill-will toward others", or as "a lack of love for others and even a hatred of them".

It is these "positive vs negative values/intentions/motivations toward others" that I take to be what "morality" refers to. And I would say that I understand that to be how the word is commonly used today in any setting that isn't specifically religious.

But I observe that even those few religious people who would not specifically refer to the above concepts using the term "morality" would still spend much of the time using those concepts - assessing whether others have your best interests at heart, or is out to get you, or has other motives, remains part and parcel of almost every human-human interaction. So even one who says to me "well, you guys meaning 'benevolence' by 'morality' is all very well, but for me, personally, I like to use the English word 'morality' to literally mean 'obeying the will of god revealed in the bible'" is still going to be spending just as much of their lives thinking about the positive/negative intentions and motivations of others toward them and of them toward others. Them changing their use and definition of the word 'morality' to refer to something else, doesn't mean they can escape the core concepts of what I call morality - those still apply to them regardless. They, and any person from any culture and any time, is objectively assessable by my definition of morality regardless of whether they personally ascribe to it, and is going to spend a great deal of their lives thinking about it and acting upon it and caring about it even if they don't call it 'morality'.

I have no problem with this or your other post. I have said in the past any rational person can come up workable moral system. Heck if we all sincerely followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth. But these, from a secular perspective, are not universal moral truths. The problem is there is no moral authority or universal rule that can challenge those who have a different perspective. When the Maoists slaughter millions to promote social cohesion that value of conformity trumps individual human rights and worth. And who is to say that that is immoral? That is why, I believe, the Founders grounded rights and duties in God. In principle it puts human rights beyond the vagaries of human sentiment. It also provides a strong moral impetus. If a man truly believes that his rights are God given he is less likely to forfeit them to the state or the mob. Never mind the fact that if a man believes there is a just God at the end of the road it will most likely mitigate his behavior for the better.

[Starlight]

Heck if we all sincerely followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth.

I was thinking today I didn't mention the golden rule in my post outlining morality, and I really should have because it is, loosely speaking, largely identical to the definition of morality I give there.

The problem is there is no moral authority or universal rule that can challenge those who have a different perspective. When the Maoists slaughter millions to promote social cohesion that value of conformity trumps individual human rights and worth. And who is to say that that is immoral?

Ideally a god would turn up with a good old thunderstorm and rain down some justice to rescue the oppressed. Only, he doesn't. So he's not very useful. One might say he equally might as well not exist as all if he's not going to intervene. If he has some opinions on the subject somewhere on his cloud in heaven but isn't intervening at all, then there is, in practice, zero difference to him having the exact opposite opinions on the subject. Even a random troll on the internet is more use because they would at least express their opinions on the subject with vigor. But, in general, that's why we need to build up international organisations like the UN and human rights agreements etc to prevent bad behavior by rogue regimes.

To answer your question directly, "who is to say that that is immoral?" Me. I would say it's immoral. I could explain why with reference to my definition I gave you in the previous post, but it seems rather self-evident.

That is why, I believe, the Founders grounded rights and duties in God.

From what I've read many/most of them weren't believing Christians and were freethinkers. I think they wanted to grant legal rights, and used the standard language of the time to do it that they thought others would find acceptable. I strongly doubt they all shared any particular view about how rights were derived from God.

In principle it puts human rights beyond the vagaries of human sentiment.

Nowhere has any god(s) I'm aware of ever given a list of human rights. Yours hasn't - the bible doesn't contain one. So your position absolutely doesn't put human rights beyond the vagaries of human sentiment because whatever list of human rights you come up with is absolutely your human sentiment.

It also provides a strong moral impetus.

Belief in God often seems to provide impetuses but they seem to be immoral ones at least as often as they seem to be moral ones.

If a man truly believes that his rights are God given he is less likely to forfeit them to the state or the mob.

People fighting harder for their believed rights isn't necessarily a good thing. e.g. ISIS fighters fighting harder.

Never mind the fact that if a man believes there is a just God at the end of the road it will most likely mitigate his behavior for the better.

Unfortunately Protestantism tends to completely undermine any beneficial effect such historic Christian teachings on judgment may have once had, by emphasizing God's forgiveness and the complete salvation of the believer through faith. Fear of judgment does not appear to function in any meaningful capacity to promote positive behavior. Furthermore modern conservative Christian 'morality' isn't very moral, so they end up with worse behavior not better, the more they follow their religion.

[seer]

I was thinking today I didn't mention the golden rule in my post outlining morality, and I really should have because it is, loosely speaking, largely identical to the definition of morality I give there.

Right and many cultures have had a similar ideal going back centuries. It is not hard to come up with a decent moral system.

Ideally a god would turn up with a good old thunderstorm and rain down some justice to rescue the oppressed. Only, he doesn't. So he's not very useful. One might say he equally might as well not exist as all if he's not going to intervene. If he has some opinions on the subject somewhere on his cloud in heaven but isn't intervening at all, then there is, in practice, zero difference to him having the exact opposite opinions on the subject. Even a random troll on the internet is more use because they would at least express their opinions on the subject with vigor. But, in general, that's why we need to build up international organisations like the UN and human rights agreements etc to prevent bad behavior by rogue regimes.

I doubt if any international organisation would challenge China, one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. Or Muslim countries. And God, even as a concept, helped create the basis for human rights in the West through the US revolution that later spread through Europe and influenced the UN declaration of human rights. None of this was done in a vacuum.

To answer your question directly, "who is to say that that is immoral?" Me. I would say it's immoral. I could explain why with reference to my definition I gave you in the previous post, but it seems rather self-evident.

Right and there is the problem. Why is your opinion more correct or valid than theirs? Because you hold it?

From what I've read many/most of them weren't believing Christians and were freethinkers. I think they wanted to grant legal rights, and used the standard language of the time to do it that they thought others would find acceptable. I strongly doubt they all shared any particular view about how rights were derived from God.

Actually that is not true, the majority of the Founders were Christian. We know their church affiliations. The majority of the Signers for instance were Christian: https://christianheritagefellowship....-independence/

And the Christian religion was key to our founding and our liberties, from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

Nowhere has any god(s) I'm aware of ever given a list of human rights. Yours hasn't - the bible doesn't contain one. So your position absolutely doesn't put human rights beyond the vagaries of human sentiment because whatever list of human rights you come up with is absolutely your human sentiment.

Fine then we are back to moral relativism. Like I said, apart from God universal moral truths don't exist.

Belief in God often seems to provide impetuses but they seem to be immoral ones at least as often as they seem to be moral ones.

And we are back to who or what decides what are the moral ones or immoral ones.

Unfortunately Protestantism tends to completely undermine any beneficial effect such historic Christian teachings on judgment may have once had, by emphasizing God's forgiveness and the complete salvation of the believer through faith. Fear of judgment does not appear to function in any meaningful capacity to promote positive behavior. Furthermore modern conservative Christian 'morality' isn't very moral, so they end up with worse behavior not better, the more they follow their religion.

That is just false Star, at least in my experience. I can name dozens of people I know, including myself, whose behavior changed for the better because they came to faith. Former drunks, drug addicts, hookers, criminals, thieves, liars, etc...

[Leonhard]

Right Leonhard, that only works if we created for specific ends.

I think you are right, but you're working at this from the wrong angle. I don't see why a person has to start out with the conclusion that they're created. I think it's completely reasonable for a person to study human nature, and come to an understanding of human virtues from that insight. I also believe you can demonstrate God's existence from this, but that is the moral argument from God, which is different.

However your point is about circular logic, why are you so strong on that point? Been reading Bahnsen and Van Till?

[seer]

I think you are right, but you're working at this from the wrong angle. I don't see why a person has to start out with the conclusion that they're created. I think it's completely reasonable for a person to study human nature, and come to an understanding of human virtues from that insight. I also believe you can demonstrate God's existence from this, but that is the moral argument from God, which is different.

However your point is about circular logic, why are you so strong on that point? Been reading Bahnsen and Van Till?

It is circular because at some point the moral question must stop, or you have an infinite regression of explanations. Instead of circular you could just make a dogmatic asserting. But we all land on one horn of Münchhausen trilemma. A is wrong because the individual says it is wrong, A is wrong because society says it is wrong, A is wrong because God says it is wrong. I don't see any way around this.

[Starlight]

I have said in the past any rational person can come up workable moral system.

Okay cool. Well then our job here is done. We both agree that workable moral systems can be created without God.

Can you say that nice and clearly so I can stick it on my signature?

But these, from a secular perspective, are not universal moral truths.

You're using the term 'universal' wrong here. Most moral systems that people come up with are universal in scope and application. They propose objective definitions of what is moral and immoral under any and all circumstances, times, places, cultures etc.

You're not trying to challenge that. What you're trying to say is that there are multiple different proposals that you find to be equally valid.

You see that as being a serious problem. I don't.

I think it's totally fine for people to value different things. One person can care about some things more than others. I might have different priorities and interests to them. You, for example, might particularly care about obeying your God. So, for this reason, you might want to yourself measure the behavior of others based on how well you view it as conforming to the bible. That's fine. I, on the other hand, aren't religious and so am far more interested in assessing people's actions based on how positive or negative I perceive their intentions toward others as being. Leonhard appears to value human fulfilment and flourishing, and so in interested in assessing other people's actions with regard to the extent to which they promote or hinder that.

All these are different systems, and we all have our motivations for being interested in them, and they all measure things that are real and measurable. In a similar way, someone might ask how tall you are, and someone else at a different point in your life might as how much you weigh. Both those are real things. They're objectively measurable. But they are different measurements, and someone's reasons for being interested in the one aren't always the the same as their reasons for being interested in the other. Likewise, someone else might be interested to know you eye color, and someone else your skin color etc.

All those are real things. They're objective. They are all true measures of true things about you. And people might have totally valid reasons for being interested in one of them at a given time and not others.

It's the same with different systems of morality. We agree there are multiple different rational ways of measuring and assessing an action - multiple different valid moral frameworks that different people in history have endorsed and used. Any given person, e.g. you or I, will, due to our own values be more interested in some of those systems of measurement than others. I tend to be interested in the level of altruism in any given action, you tend to be interested in the level of conformity with commands in the bible. If you say of an action "I see that as conforming to one of the commandments" we can have a rational and reasonable discussion about whether it really did conform well or not to the commandment. And if I say of an action "I see that action as being altruistic" we can have a rational and reasonable discussion about whether it really was or not.

And we both happen to refer to our frameworks of assessment using the English word "morality". And this, I think, is where you are getting confused. You seem to be upset that different people use the same English word to refer to different concepts - different moral frameworks. You are upset they aren't all using the same English word to refer to the same framework. I would say that this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter in the least, not one iota, that different people use the same word to refer to their own preferred system of measurement. Because all language use is subjective. Every single word in the English language could have been different, and indeed will be different at some point in future as the language changes over time naturally. In 500 years the word "up" might refer to the direction that the word "down" refers to today. Language is what is called "intersubjective", which means that society as a whole loosely agrees on its definitions, at least enough to get by. The makers of dictionaries regularly update their definitions to include whatever new meanings speakers of that language have begun using for words. And sometimes it happens that different groups of speakers within a single language group can use the same word to mean different things. And that can lead to confusion. But that subjectivity is all part of the nature of language, and inherently applies to every single word in every single language. You can never completely remove subjectivity from language, and trying to do so is inherently an error and would mean you don't understand what language is and isn't.

Perhaps you would be less confused by the situation if English happened to have a bunch of different words each of which referred to a different moral framework. e.g. instead of calling all the different frameworks 'morality' we had words 'moralityA', 'moralityB', 'moralityC', for all the different ways of measuring actions. In the same way we have two different words for measuring distance and weight ('miles', and 'pounds') and it might have caused some people confusion sometimes if we only had one word for the two possible measurement frameworks (e.g. 'milounds') and we asked for a measurement of a person in 'milounds' and got the response that they weren't sure which of multiple ways of measuring 'milounds' to use... you would have to be specific and tell them to measure distance or measure weight. In this way, English currently happens to have one term 'morality' which can cause confusion when you ask someone to measure it because they're not sure which of the possible ways of measuring morality you would like them to measure. So it's necessary to tell them you want them to measure altruism or measure conformity with the bible, just as you would tell them to measure distance or measure weight.

I think the root problem you have is that you're upset that the English word morality doesn't currently happen to refer to any one specific moral system. Basically it's just a quirk of language, get over it. It's certainly not something that can be solved by you creating yet another moral framework that happens to include God. That would be simply one more moral framework that the English word morality could refer to. It wouldn't stop the English word morality being intersubjective in its meaning.

[Charles]

[...] Furthermore modern conservative Christian 'morality' isn't very moral, so they end up with worse behavior not better, the more they follow their religion.

That is true about very many of them. We shall know them by the fruit...

[seer]

That is true about very many of them. We shall know them by the fruit...

Didn't I ask you to leave this thread Charles?

[seer]

Okay cool. Well then our job here is done. We both agree that workable moral systems can be created without God.

The problem has never been coming up with a system, it has been getting men to follow it. For instance other men follow a different golden rule: He with the most gold rules. Why is that wrong or invalid?

You're using the term 'universal' wrong here. Most moral systems that people come up with are universal in scope and application. They propose objective definitions of what is moral and immoral under any and all circumstances, times, places, cultures etc.

You're not trying to challenge that. What you're trying to say is that there are multiple different proposals that you find to be equally valid.

You see that as being a serious problem. I don't.

I have no idea what you mean by universal. You invent a system then say it is universal? You can not have different moral theories and claim that they are all universal since they would often contradict.

[seer]

I think it's totally fine for people to value different things. One person can care about some things more than others. I might have different priorities and interests to them.....

OK then, so you are totally fine with the values and priorities of the elites...

You don't seem to understand that the elites have been seeking to rule and enjoy the benefits since the dawn of time, and in general have been pretty consistently doing so.

They were doing it when the Caesars had themselves proclaimed divine.

They were doing it when the feudal lords of the middle ages treated their people as slaves.

They were doing it when the French revolutionaries cut off their heads.

[Starlight]

The problem has never been coming up with a system, it has been getting men to follow it.

This seems a huge change of topic from anything you've previously said in this thread. What might or might not motivate people to do things is complicated and entirely a different discussion.

I have no idea what you mean by universal.

You could try googling it:

"Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature."

Any proposed system that could apply to everyone is 'universal' in scope or 'objective'. If my proposed moral system could be applied to assess the morality of the actions of a cave man just as easily as the actions of 21st century president or a 4th century Amazonian tribes-person, then it it universal in scope. Those people need not themselves follow my proposed system of morality for my system to be potentially applicable to them and hence universal in the sense that I can assess their actions in light of it.

[JimL]

It is circular because at some point the moral question must stop, or you have an infinite regression of explanations. Instead of circular you could just make a dogmatic asserting. But we all land on one horn of Münchhausen trilemma. A is wrong because the individual says it is wrong, A is wrong because society says it is wrong, A is wrong because God says it is wrong. I don't see any way around this.

Whatever is in the best interests of all involved is moral. If two people have guns pointed at each other, the moral thing would be for neither of them to murder the other. Best interests of all involved. That's why murder is considered to be immoral. There is no actual objective moral law, we make it up according to the interests of society, in the interests of survival. Even your Bible only gives you 10 things that thou shalt not do, and half of them aren't even taken seriously as being immoral anymore. Most christians I've known think nothing of working on Sundays, we covet our neighbors stuff sometimes. How is coveting immoral? It's made up stuff. But stealing? That's not in the interests of all involved. Killing is not in the best interests of all involved. So, they would be considered immoral. Empathy I think is a whole nuther category. One doesn't have to be empathetic to act morally, and one doesn't need be a so called moral person to have empathy. The reason we created god was simply to give force to our morals, we knew we were going to need something, some psychological compulsion to keep you otherwise bad boys in line.

[Leonhard]

I think you are right, but you're working at this from the wrong angle. I don't see why a person has to start out with the conclusion that they're created. I think it's completely reasonable for a person to study human nature, and come to an understanding of human virtues from that insight. I also believe you can demonstrate God's existence from this, but that is the moral argument from God, which is different.

It is circular because at some point the moral question must stop, or you have an infinite regression of explanations. Instead of circular you could just make a dogmatic asserting. But we all land on one horn of Münchhausen trilemma. A is wrong because the individual says it is wrong, A is wrong because society says it is wrong, A is wrong because God says it is wrong. I don't see any way around this.

No that isn't Munchhausen trilemma's conclusion. The conclusion isn't that all logic is circular. That would be a ridiculous conclusion. The conclusion is that all deductive logic is based either on arguments that are based on other conclusions (regressive arguments), or are based on axioms (axiomatic arguments) or is circular logic.

Circular logic is always fallacious.

Axioms aren't dogmatic assertions. They're simply the basic points of deductive reasoning. However deductive reasoning isn't the only kind of reasoning we have. If we were only able to reason deductively we wouldn't be able to deduce much of anything useful at all and we would be nowhere. Deductive arguments however are a good tool for both exploring what presumptions exist in a conclusion, and what can be concluded from something, or whether a particular argument contains fallacies. That's why it is useful.

The kind of logic I proposed derives deductively from some axioms which are entirely reasonable to hold, and from that makes conclusions about morality. The question then is whether I have good reasons for holding these conclusions, but again, that isn't a circular argument. It would only be a circular argument if I used the conclusion to support the conclusion.

I asked you about Bahnsen and Van Till. Because they became very obsessed with something they called 'golden circular logic', though ironically their arguments aren't circular at all (some of their apologetics were). And since Van Till so insisted on 'circular logic' and Bahnsen being his disciple never said anything that contradicted Van Till, and both of them were highly influential, there's a lot of garbage floating around about circular logic being valid. Even though it in no way is inherent to the kind of argumentation that Van Till laid out, which is basically the transdendental argument for God.

[Leonhard]

Hmm, I've never been a fan of this Aristotelian sense of 'end', and prefer to avoid it by phrasing things in other ways. So, to give what I think you're saying my own phrasing, would you agree you're saying something like: A. "The concept of morality is about humans living out the fullness of their innate potential, taking their natural state further towards its implied [evolutionary] goals."?

I would agree that this might be workable definition, though I don't understand the point of introducing evolution into it. Especially since the natural process of evolution doesn't have an end goal, but is simply an abstract explanation of the natural process of species changing over generations to adapt to environmental changes.

C. "Morality is the behaviours that tend toward maximising the psychological well-being of those involved, and we can continue to discover through science what is helpful and harmful for human psychological well-being."?

This is good, though it smuggles the complexity into 'well-being'. You'd have to have something that in the end analyses human nature in terms of what we aim towards. For instance our intellect is aimed towards finding truth.

Accepting the reality of final causality is needed I think, and in the end the entire argument would be about whether that can be done legitimately.

[seer]

This seems a huge change of topic from anything you've previously said in this thread. What might or might not motivate people to do things is complicated and entirely a different discussion.

You could try googling it:

"Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature."

Any proposed system that could apply to everyone is 'universal' in scope or 'objective'. If my proposed moral system could be applied to assess the morality of the actions of a cave man just as easily as the actions of 21st century president or a 4th century Amazonian tribes-person, then it it universal in scope. Those people need not themselves follow my proposed system of morality for my system to be potentially applicable to them and hence universal in the sense that I can assess their actions in light of it.

Yet all you are doing is inventing a system and saying it applies to all men. Like I said the golden rule would fit the bill. Yet you have no authority, legal or otherwise, to impose your ideal. And you have no rational basis for arguing against any other system.

OK you said:

I think it's totally fine for people to value different things. One person can care about some things more than others. I might have different priorities and interests to them.....


I asked: OK then, so you are totally fine with the values and priorities of the elites...

You don't seem to understand that the elites have been seeking to rule and enjoy the benefits since the dawn of time, and in general have been pretty consistently doing so.

They were doing it when the Caesars had themselves proclaimed divine.

They were doing it when the feudal lords of the middle ages treated their people as slaves.

They were doing it when the French revolutionaries cut off their heads.