Jimbo,

Moral critique is illogical without a moral standard to which one can appeal, one that is not subjective, one that is not relative. If not, you're protestations amount to little more than saying "I don't like that." I think your moral position deserves a little more dignified and vigorous defense than an appeal to "different strokes for different folks."

While it is true that in some sense morality is "subjective", that is derrived from a complex set of cultural and personal varriables, and that it is "relative", dependent up some facet of point of view and circumstance, that doesn't logically mean that those things cannot be judged by some ultimate standard.

Otherwise, if morality amounts to a subjective relative preference, like favorite foods, or opinions on art, then your inquiry into moral philosophy here is, at best a leisure activity and nothing more, and at worst, an illogical waste of time.

fwiw,
guaca.

Originally posted by guacamole

Jimbo,

Moral critique is illogical without a moral standard to which one can appeal, one that is not subjective, one that is not relative. If not, you're protestations amount to little more than saying "I don't like that." I think your moral position deserves a little more dignified and vigorous defense than an appeal to "different strokes for different folks."

While it is true that in some sense morality is "subjective", that is derrived from a complex set of cultural and personal varriables, and that it is "relative", dependent up some facet of point of view and circumstance, that doesn't logically mean that those things cannot be judged by some ultimate standard.

Otherwise, if morality amounts to a subjective relative preference, like favorite foods, or opinions on art, then your inquiry into moral philosophy here is, at best a leisure activity and nothing more, and at worst, an illogical waste of time.

fwiw,
guaca.

So perhaps you can elaborate as to exactly what this supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard would happen to be.

And while your at it, explain how this absolute moral standard has not obviously changed over time.

Beat me to it.

Guac, and AP I guess, Christians have claimed objective morality, we'd all just like to know how this actually works, how its not just following someone elses subjective morality, the problem of change as robert mentions, along with how anyone knows what this ultimate standard is supposed to be to compare their actions against.

Originally posted by robertb

So perhaps you can elaborate as to exactly what this supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard would happen to be.

And while your at it, explain how this absolute moral standard has not obviously changed over time.

[/quote]

That "so" seems to imply some sort of logical development of what I said earlier, but it is a non sequitor. It does not necessarily follow that one should be able to explain the "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard", and--more importantly, my inability to satisfy you does not logically mean there isn't one. The point stands as noted--if morality is a simply a statement of preference, moral critique is illogical in the worst possible sense--we can't use reason to determine right from wrong any more than we can use reason to determine whether or not chocolate is better than vanilla. The fact that Jimbo and you, can construct critical attacks on my moral philosophy exposes that you are inconsistent in this. If you really thought morality was subjective and relative, and if you really understood the logical demands of that position, you wouldn't waste your time with any sort of moral critique of anything.

This puts you in an awkward position. I, the believer who supposedly lives by faith, now place greater trust in reason and logic to describe and evaluate the human condition than you, the skeptic who suppsedly lives by logic, reason, and evidence.

Nevertheless, let's see what evidence there is for such a thing as you have asked this "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard".

So lets begin with the most fundamental acts of human cognition--observation. In this I appeal to Thomas Hobbes and his text Leviathan. Hobbes recognized that the concepts of "rights" were mere human constructions, blind assertions with no deeper foundation other than wishful thinking. He observed that if we truly deconstruct human morality and then produce a man who lives without morality --he calls this the "state of nature"-- then you have a being that can be guaranteed to do nothing else but this one thing, to defend himself with all his strength from others. This is what we will do when pressed. Furthermore, this is the one natural right we have because there is no way anyone else can take from us these acts of self defense short of destroying the individual will (death, extreme mental or physical confinement, etc.). Thus we have one right, to do what we need to do to make ourselves stronger and thus better able to defend ourselves. However, he further noted that if we do this, this creates endless conflict--what he called the bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of everyone against everyone else. This state of affairs, in which each person takes from the other as his strength permits in order to make himself stronger results in a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short". The only way that the weaker can survive is if they band together, put aside their natural right as individuals, and, in effect, exercise that natural right to self-defense as a collective. This gives incentives to those who were formerly stronger and who are now weaker to join the collective. We now see an interesting principle develop, cooperation is conducive to peace, whereas selfishness is not. We can further observe another behavioral tide here, that if a person does not cooperate, he suffers a greater cumulative likelihood that he will be defeated by the collective. This cooperation is the ultimate basis for logical construction of morality --either the legal moralities we all agree are the minimum baseline for cooperation, or the ideal moralities which specify how ultimate human cooperation would look.

Now this is interesting to me because there are scientific witnesses to these ideas in the form of behavioral and genetic studies noting that animals that cooperate are more likely to be successful (as defined by surviving from one breeding season to the next, and passing down genetic material to the next generation) than animals that do not cooperate. That is, while there are various adaptive methods used to cope with predation, most animals that do not reproduce anonymously or via some sort of broadcast copulation (and even that is, in some sense, cooperation), engage in some sort of cooperative behavior to better their chance of survival. Some animals have developed this to a greater degree than others--think of social insects where some members of the colony have evolved nonparticipation in reproduction in order to benefit the colony. However, even amonst solitary predators there is evidence of indirect cooperation, even if of the most rudimentary sort--they respect marked territory, they do not fight to death over mates, etc. In a sense, we've climbed backwards in time from Hobbes, haven't we? But it is interesting that these biological and behavioral observations support what he wrote. Weaker organisms work collectively to defend themselves from the stronger. The is a biological imperative to cooperate that is hardwired into our biological organism. Hence begin to see how easy it is to inject moral language into this observation. It is objectively better to cooperate than to fight. This isn't simply a biological statement or a common sense one, it is also a moral statement.

Why is it a moral statement? A third witness to this observation comes from religion. I place it third, not because it is the least important, but because it is most straightforward. Religion, I don't care which in particular, spends a great deal of time working out the advanced moral and legal framework of cooperation. In some sense the 10 Commandments are simply ten critical ways to cooperate. Likewise, the Golden Rule in it's many incarnations ("Do unto others...", "Do justly, love mercy...", "Do not do unto others...", "What goes around comes around..."etc.) across the history of faith is a redaction, a simplification meant to offer guidance when the letter of the law seems to contradict the objective truth that cooperation is better than conflict.

None of these witnesses--philosophy, science, or religion-- offer conclusive proof that the universe "rewards" (in some sense, some personification and anthropomorphism is unavoidable) cooperation and punishes conflict. Nevertheless, there are still other witnesses--i.e., art, history, experience...--that will likewise testify to the moral imperative that we cooperate or be "punished".

Now, I have at least three witnesses, though you should grant me the other three I cited lated, that testify to there being an objective universal moral law. What witnesses do you have to defend this opposite statement:

"The universe is free from moral law."

fwiw,
guaca.

Guaca,

Moral critique is illogical without a moral standard to which one can appeal, one that is not subjective, one that is not relative. If not, you're protestations amount to little more than saying "I don't like that." I think your moral position deserves a little more dignified and vigorous defense than an appeal to "different strokes for different folks."

I appeal to my own moral standard, most people's standards and probably your standard as well when I condemn putting people into slavery for life and slaughtering little cooing babies. I think most people value freedom and little cooing babies and abhor slavery and the murder of little cooing babies. I appeal to these values that most people share. If you think there is a moral standard in which these actions-putting people into slavery for life and slaughtering little cooing babies-are morally good, feel free to tell me why anyone should base their morality on it.

That "so" seems to imply some sort of logical development of what I said earlier, but it is a non sequitor. It does not necessarily follow that one should be able to explain the "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard", and--more importantly, my inability to satisfy you does not logically mean there isn't one. The point stands as noted--if morality is a simply a statement of preference, moral critique is illogical in the worst possible sense--we can't use reason to determine right from wrong any more than we can use reason to determine whether or not chocolate is better than vanilla. The fact that Jimbo and you, can construct critical attacks on my moral philosophy exposes that you are inconsistent in this. If you really thought morality was subjective and relative, and if you really understood the logical demands of that position, you wouldn't waste your time with any sort of moral critique of anything.

This puts you in an awkward position. I, the believer who supposedly lives by faith, now place greater trust in reason and logic to describe and evaluate the human condition than you, the skeptic who suppsedly lives by logic, reason, and evidence.

Nevertheless, let's see what evidence there is for such a thing as you have asked this "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard".

So lets begin with the most fundamental acts of human cognition--observation. In this I appeal to Thomas Hobbes and his text Leviathan. Hobbes recognized that the concepts of "rights" were mere human constructions, blind assertions with no deeper foundation other than wishful thinking. He observed that if we truly deconstruct human morality and then produce a man who lives without morality --he calls this the "state of nature"-- then you have a being that can be guaranteed to do nothing else but this one thing, to defend himself with all his strength from others. This is what we will do when pressed. Furthermore, this is the one natural right we have because there is no way anyone else can take from us these acts of self defense short of destroying the individual will (death, extreme mental or physical confinement, etc.). Thus we have one right, to do what we need to do to make ourselves stronger and thus better able to defend ourselves. However, he further noted that if we do this, this creates endless conflict--what he called the bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of everyone against everyone else. This state of affairs, in which each person takes from the other as his strength permits in order to make himself stronger results in a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short". The only way that the weaker can survive is if they band together, put aside their natural right as individuals, and, in effect, exercise that natural right to self-defense as a collective. This gives incentives to those who were formerly stronger and who are now weaker to join the collective. We now see an interesting principle develop, cooperation is conducive to peace, whereas selfishness is not. We can further observe another behavioral tide here, that if a person does not cooperate, he suffers a greater cumulative likelihood that he will be defeated by the collective. This cooperation is the ultimate basis for logical construction of morality --either the legal moralities we all agree are the minimum baseline for cooperation, or the ideal moralities which specify how ultimate human cooperation would look.

Now this is interesting to me because there are scientific witnesses to these ideas in the form of behavioral and genetic studies noting that animals that cooperate are more likely to be successful (as defined by surviving from one breeding season to the next, and passing down genetic material to the next generation) than animals that do not cooperate. That is, while there are various adaptive methods used to cope with predation, most animals that do not reproduce anonymously or via some sort of broadcast copulation (and even that is, in some sense, cooperation), engage in some sort of cooperative behavior to better their chance of survival. Some animals have developed this to a greater degree than others--think of social insects where some members of the colony have evolved nonparticipation in reproduction in order to benefit the colony. However, even amonst solitary predators there is evidence of indirect cooperation, even if of the most rudimentary sort--they respect marked territory, they do not fight to death over mates, etc. In a sense, we've climbed backwards in time from Hobbes, haven't we? But it is interesting that these biological and behavioral observations support what he wrote. Weaker organisms work collectively to defend themselves from the stronger. The is a biological imperative to cooperate that is hardwired into our biological organism. Hence begin to see how easy it is to inject moral language into this observation. It is objectively better to cooperate than to fight. This isn't simply a biological statement or a common sense one, it is also a moral statement.

Why is it a moral statement? A third witness to this observation comes from religion. I place it third, not because it is the least important, but because it is most straightforward. Religion, I don't care which in particular, spends a great deal of time working out the advanced moral and legal framework of cooperation. In some sense the 10 Commandments are simply ten critical ways to cooperate. Likewise, the Golden Rule in it's many incarnations ("Do unto others...", "Do justly, love mercy...", "Do not do unto others...", "What goes around comes around..."etc.) across the history of faith is a redaction, a simplification meant to offer guidance when the letter of the law seems to contradict the objective truth that cooperation is better than conflict.

None of these witnesses--philosophy, science, or religion-- offer conclusive proof that the universe "rewards" (in some sense, some personification and anthropomorphism is unavoidable) cooperation and punishes conflict. Nevertheless, there are still other witnesses--i.e., art, history, experience...--that will likewise testify to the moral imperative that we cooperate or be "punished".

Now, I have at least three witnesses, though you should grant me the other three I cited lated, that testify to there being an objective universal moral law. What witnesses do you have to defend this opposite statement:

"The universe is free from moral law."

Sounds a lot like a morality derived from evolution and based on human values. I don't see anything in this lengthy cut and paste that indicates that human morality is objective and derived from a supernatural being. Feel free to explain in your own words what you think I have missed.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Originally posted by guacamole

That "so" seems to imply some sort of logical development of what I said earlier, but it is a non sequitor. It does not necessarily follow that one should be able to explain the "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard", and--more importantly, my inability to satisfy you does not logically mean there isn't one. The point stands as noted--if morality is a simply a statement of preference, moral critique is illogical in the worst possible sense--we can't use reason to determine right from wrong any more than we can use reason to determine whether or not chocolate is better than vanilla. The fact that Jimbo and you, can construct critical attacks on my moral philosophy exposes that you are inconsistent in this. If you really thought morality was subjective and relative, and if you really understood the logical demands of that position, you wouldn't waste your time with any sort of moral critique of anything.

Actually the "So" simply meant "With all that has been so far discussed".

As such, let's just get to the meat of your post. In doing so, I suppose that the rest of this section will be addressed.

This puts you in an awkward position. I, the believer who supposedly lives by faith, now place greater trust in reason and logic to describe and evaluate the human condition than you, the skeptic who suppsedly lives by logic, reason, and evidence.

Nevertheless, let's see what evidence there is for such a thing as you have asked this "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard".

Cool, as this is actually what we have been asking for and as now you have made the claim of your "greater trust in reason and logic", we can see how this plays out, as well.

So I expect you to now describe your "supposedly non-derived and allegedly ontological moral standard."

So lets begin with the most fundamental acts of human cognition--observation. In this I appeal to Thomas Hobbes and his text Leviathan. Hobbes recognized that the concepts of "rights" were mere human constructions, blind assertions with no deeper foundation other than wishful thinking. He observed that if we truly deconstruct human morality and then produce a man who lives without morality --he calls this the "state of nature"-- then you have a being that can be guaranteed to do nothing else but this one thing, to defend himself with all his strength from others. This is what we will do when pressed. Furthermore, this is the one natural right we have because there is no way anyone else can take from us these acts of self defense short of destroying the individual will (death, extreme mental or physical confinement, etc.). Thus we have one right, to do what we need to do to make ourselves stronger and thus better able to defend ourselves. However, he further noted that if we do this, this creates endless conflict--what he called the bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of everyone against everyone else. This state of affairs, in which each person takes from the other as his strength permits in order to make himself stronger results in a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short". The only way that the weaker can survive is if they band together, put aside their natural right as individuals, and, in effect, exercise that natural right to self-defense as a collective. This gives incentives to those who were formerly stronger and who are now weaker to join the collective. We now see an interesting principle develop, cooperation is conducive to peace, whereas selfishness is not. We can further observe another behavioral tide here, that if a person does not cooperate, he suffers a greater cumulative likelihood that he will be defeated by the collective. This cooperation is the ultimate basis for logical construction of morality --either the legal moralities we all agree are the minimum baseline for cooperation, or the ideal moralities which specify how ultimate human cooperation would look.

Now this is interesting to me because there are scientific witnesses to these ideas in the form of behavioral and genetic studies noting that animals that cooperate are more likely to be successful (as defined by surviving from one breeding season to the next, and passing down genetic material to the next generation) than animals that do not cooperate. That is, while there are various adaptive methods used to cope with predation, most animals that do not reproduce anonymously or via some sort of broadcast copulation (and even that is, in some sense, cooperation), engage in some sort of cooperative behavior to better their chance of survival. Some animals have developed this to a greater degree than others--think of social insects where some members of the colony have evolved nonparticipation in reproduction in order to benefit the colony. However, even amonst solitary predators there is evidence of indirect cooperation, even if of the most rudimentary sort--they respect marked territory, they do not fight to death over mates, etc. In a sense, we've climbed backwards in time from Hobbes, haven't we? But it is interesting that these biological and behavioral observations support what he wrote. Weaker organisms work collectively to defend themselves from the stronger. The is a biological imperative to cooperate that is hardwired into our biological organism. Hence begin to see how easy it is to inject moral language into this observation. It is objectively better to cooperate than to fight. This isn't simply a biological statement or a common sense one, it is also a moral statement.

I like Hobbes, of course I ripped the final section out of my copy of Leviathan because it, in my mind, detracted from the brilliance of the work as a whole.

I gather that you have not done the same with your copy.

Anyhow, what I see above is a very acceptable description of the evolution of morality in a society. As a matter of fact, it is a very naturalistic view of the ability of individuals to overcome their basic "state of nature" and, through reason and intellect, make subjective value judgements and act in concert to provide for the overall benefit of their society as a whole.

As for animals, in general, such actions would naturally occur as a result of the instinctual drive to propogate the species.

So, as this actually supports my position suppose I would have to agree.

(If you think about it for a second, you might even understand why I found it necessary to mutilate my poor old copy of this book.)

Why is it a moral statement? A third witness to this observation comes from religion. I place it third, not because it is the least important, but because it is most straightforward. Religion, I don't care which in particular, spends a great deal of time working out the advanced moral and legal framework of cooperation. In some sense the 10 Commandments are simply ten critical ways to cooperate. Likewise, the Golden Rule in it's many incarnations ("Do unto others...", "Do justly, love mercy...", "Do not do unto others...", "What goes around comes around..."etc.) across the history of faith is a redaction, a simplification meant to offer guidance when the letter of the law seems to contradict the objective truth that cooperation is better than conflict.

I would say that the word religion in this paragraph is actually superfluous, especially considering the paragraphs which they follow. One could simply say that all these societies chose to codify certain principles in a language understandable to the time and place in which they lived. Of course, in antiquity, it would not have been unusual for such things to be codified under, or as part of, a religion. However, they could have just as easily have codified it under any type of system, so the fact that it happened to be a religion is basically an irrelevancy.

Other than that critique, your argument remain a naturalistic one, based on the subjective views of the members of the societies relative to their values at the time.

This of course explains why certain institutions, now considered unacceptable, were at one time actually considered otherwise.

None of these witnesses--philosophy, science, or religion-- offer conclusive proof that the universe "rewards" (in some sense, some personification and anthropomorphism is unavoidable) cooperation and punishes conflict. Nevertheless, there are still other witnesses--i.e., art, history, experience...--that will likewise testify to the moral imperative that we cooperate or be "punished".

From a purely naturalistic perspective, you would be correct. Indeed, your whole case, minus the slight irrelevancy, has done nothing more than support my position. I see no need to speculate about how the "universe rewards", as it seems, once again, to be irrelevant to your case so far.

Now, I have at least three witnesses, though you should grant me the other three I cited lated, that testify to there being an objective universal moral law. What witnesses do you have to defend this opposite statement:

"The universe is free from moral law."

fwiw,
guaca.

On the contrary, I see absolutely nothing in your post that even begins to address, much less testify to "an objective universal moral law" and as a matter of fact, the majority of your own post actually argues for the exact opposite.

Thanks.

Originally posted by jimbo

I appeal to my own moral standard, most people's standards and probably your standard as well when I condemn putting people into slavery for life and slaughtering little cooing babies.

I'm fairly certain you are not appealing to my moral standard, considering I think there is an absolute objective one. I'm not certain it's safe to say you are appealing to most people's moral standards when moral philosophy for you is simply a statement of what you like. That's the problem--you can't rationally assert anything of the sort.

I think most people value freedom and little cooing babies and abhor slavery and the murder of little cooing babies. I appeal to these values that most people share. If you think there is a moral standard in which these actions-putting people into slavery for life and slaughtering little cooing babies-are morally good, feel free to tell me why anyone should base their morality on it.

I wrote that "rather lengthy cut and paste" to explain that if there a context in which those actions supported cooperation rather than conflict, they might be good.

Sounds a lot like a morality derived from evolution and based on human values.

You have the cause and effect wrong. We see the morality in cooperation because of our evolution. Our values are it's product. This is the working out of moral law.

I don't see anything in this lengthy cut and paste that indicates that human morality is objective and derived from a supernatural being. Feel free to explain in your own words what you think I have missed.

Actually. I wrote that while I was sitting at the computer. I'm not certain you've read it because you haven't really addressed the universality of cooperation.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Likewise,
guaca.

Originally posted by robertb

Anyhow, what I see above is a very acceptable description of the evolution of morality in a society. As a matter of fact, it is a very naturalistic view of the ability of individuals to overcome their basic "state of nature" and, through reason and intellect, make subjective value judgements and act in concert to provide for the overall benefit of their society as a whole.

That's my first point of disagreement. "Cooperation is better than conflict" is not subjective if it leads us to construct a society. If we agree to put aside our natural right, if nothing else then we have created an objective moral law. The point about biology and evolution builds on this to point out that this isn't merely a human construction--it is observable in nature.

I would say that the word religion in this paragraph is actually superfluous, especially considering the paragraphs which they follow. One could simply say that all these societies chose to codify certain principles in a language understandable to the time and place in which they lived. Of course, in antiquity, it would not have been unusual for such things to be codified under, or as part of, a religion. However, they could have just as easily have codified it under any type of system, so the fact that it happened to be a religion is basically an irrelevancy.

To a certain extent, if I put away my theistic bias, I would agree with you. It's possible to explain this phenomena anthropologically through the view of ancient religion as proto-science. Nevertheless, I choose to include it here because, so often, skeptics critique religion as getting things wrong, whereas here, I think it's incontrovertible that religion gets it right.

Other than that critique, your argument remain a naturalistic one, based on the subjective views of the members of the societies relative to their values at the time.

This of course explains why certain institutions, now considered unacceptable, were at one time actually considered otherwise.

Actually, I think those institutions, now considered unacceptable, are not considered unacceptable because we've decided, subjectively or relativistically, that cooperation is not better than conflict. We've decided that those institutions we now consider unacceptable, are not optimally cooperative considering what we can do now. That is, we no long keep slaves, not because the moral law of universe--cooperation is better than conflict--changed, but that our ability to enact insititutions to uphold that moral law--i.e., credit ratings versus debtor's prison or slavery--changed. The law that cooperation is better than conflict is still active. I suppose it would be possible, after a nuclear holocaust, in a time when the economies of the world have collapsed, that the survivors, trying to eke out an existence in the barren post apocalyptic wastes of time, would decide to go back to utilizing slavery as a means to redress debts and grievances rather than revenge killings, because, even after the nuclear holocaust, the moral law that cooperation is better than conflict is still operative.

From a purely naturalistic perspective, you would be correct. Indeed, your whole case, minus the slight irrelevancy, has done nothing more than support my position. I see no need to speculate about how the "universe rewards", as it seems, once again, to be irrelevant to your case so far.

The point supports my case because the "rewards" (increased survivability, increased reproduction, development of society and culture) that come from cooperation are consistent with cooperation. That is, they do not come from conflict.

On the contrary, I see absolutely nothing in your post that even begins to address, much less testify to "an objective universal moral law" and as a matter of fact, the majority of your own post actually argues for the exact opposite.

Thanks.

I guess we shall agree to disagree then.

fwiw,
guaca.

Originally posted by guacamole

That's my first point of disagreement. "Cooperation is better than conflict" is not subjective if it leads us to construct a society. If we agree to put aside our natural right, if nothing else then we have created an objective moral law. The point about biology and evolution builds on this to point out that this isn't merely a human construction--it is observable in nature.

Indeed, we have created a seemingly objective moral law based on the subjective decisions of the participants. The specifics of this law have, over time, evolved.

To a certain extent, if I put away my theistic bias, I would agree with you. It's possible to explain this phenomena anthropologically through the view of ancient religion as proto-science. Nevertheless, I choose to include it here because, so often, skeptics critique religion as getting things wrong, whereas here, I think it's incontrovertible that religion gets it right.

The fact that all religions got things right tends to show that "relgions" in and of themselves are irrelevant, as you could easily simply say societies. The fact that the ancients used religion to codify their value system is simply a time and place issue.

Today we tend to use secular legal constructs that fulfill the same basic need.

Actually, I think those institutions, now considered unacceptable, are not considered unacceptable because we've decided, subjectively or relativistically, that cooperation is not better than conflict. We've decided that those institutions we now consider unacceptable, are not optimally cooperative considering what we can do now. That is, we no long keep slaves, not because the moral law of universe--cooperation is better than conflict--changed, but that our ability to enact insititutions to uphold that moral law--i.e., credit ratings versus debtor's prison or slavery--changed. The law that cooperation is better than conflict is still active. I suppose it would be possible, after a nuclear holocaust, in a time when the economies of the world have collapsed, that the survivors, trying to eke out an existence in the barren post apocalyptic wastes of time, would decide to go back to utilizing slavery as a means to redress debts and grievances rather than revenge killings, because, even after the nuclear holocaust, the moral law that cooperation is better than conflict is still operative.

Actually the cooperation v. conflict issue is more one of resources.

If one were to look at more recent slavery institutions, the US south perhaps, one might notice that, in order to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by life, liberty, etc..., the slaves were actually viewed as sub-human. This of course served as one of the justifications for the continued practice.

Of course, based on the current values and morays of most societies in the world, slavery, in any form, is simply immoral.

The point supports my case because the "rewards" (increased survivability, increased reproduction, development of society and culture) that come from cooperation are consistent with cooperation. That is, they do not come from conflict.


I guess we shall agree to disagree then.

fwiw,
guaca.

As I said earlier, though I do agree that cooperation is better than conflict, this is really a resource issue, at it's most basic.

Originally posted by robertb

Indeed, we have created a seemingly objective moral law based on the subjective decisions of the participants. The specifics of this law have, over time, evolved.

I do not believe it is accurate to say, in an unqualified way, that we have created a seemingly objective moral law. If the law is universal, then it is operative whether or not we describe it. That was the point of the scientific witness. Whether or not we choose to act on it or not, indeed whether or not we recognize it, write it down, codify it, write treatises expounding on its finer points, etc. It is operative. We do not sibjectively create the "law of gravity". It is part of the fabric of the universe, whether we acknowledge it or not. That is what we propose about this moral law.

The fact that all religions got things right tends to show that "relgions" in and of themselves are irrelevant, as you could easily simply say societies.

That is true, but the likewise, the fact that all religions got things wrong means that critiques of religion are also irrelevant, as you could easily simply say societies, no? In that case, to be rationally consistent, you'd have to agree that critiques of religion as immoral are wrongheaded.

Actually the cooperation v. conflict issue is more one of resources.

Supposing that is true, that wouldn't change the fact that in a situation of scare resources, it's better to cooperate than to have conflict.

If one were to look at more recent slavery institutions, the US south perhaps, one might notice that, in order to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by life, liberty, etc..., the slaves were actually viewed as sub-human. This of course served as one of the justifications for the continued practice.

Of course, based on the current values and morays of most societies in the world, slavery, in any form, is simply immoral.

And where did those values and morays come from? Did they evolve spontaneously in a vacuum of public opinion? Is it simply the morality flavor of the month? Can we expect that in a thousand years that we will count as monstrously immoral to the next moral flavor?

Or is it a rational process? Consider the appeal to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--these rights that are supposedly inalienable--if we think that Hobbes in some sense is right, then we know that the extension of these inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is simply the idea that cooperation is better than conflict in different clothes. It seems to me that these ideas didn't evolve spontaneously then, but were simply the continuing development of our applicatin of ultimate moral law.

fwiw,
guacamole

Originally posted by guacamole

I do not believe it is accurate to say, in an unqualified way, that we have created a seemingly objective moral law. If the law is universal, then it is operative whether or not we describe it. That was the point of the scientific witness. Whether or not we choose to act on it or not, indeed whether or not we recognize it, write it down, codify it, write treatises expounding on its finer points, etc. It is operative. We do not sibjectively create the "law of gravity". It is part of the fabric of the universe, whether we acknowledge it or not. That is what we propose about this moral law.

The fact is, is that we have created seemingly objective moral law. In fact, mankind has created many such codes, some even contradictory, over the ages.

Your appeal to some universal law seems misplaced in this discussion. In order for such an idea to be considered, one would have to presuppose it. I submit that this is all you are actually doing here.

That is true, but the likewise, the fact that all religions got things wrong means that critiques of religion are also irrelevant, as you could easily simply say societies, no? In that case, to be rationally consistent, you'd have to agree that critiques of religion as immoral are wrongheaded.

Like I said, religion is irrelevant to this issue. I never claimed that relgion is, of it self, immoral. I would, however, view some described practices of ancient societies as immoral, by current standards.

Supposing that is true, that wouldn't change the fact that in a situation of scare resources, it's better to cooperate than to have conflict.

I wish this were true, but it is observably not.

And where did those values and morays come from? Did they evolve spontaneously in a vacuum of public opinion? Is it simply the morality flavor of the month? Can we expect that in a thousand years that we will count as monstrously immoral to the next moral flavor?

What do you mean by "a vacuum of public opinion"? On the contrary, I would say that public opinion is anything but a vacuum.

Or is it a rational process? Consider the appeal to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--these rights that are supposedly inalienable--if we think that Hobbes in some sense is right, then we know that the extension of these inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is simply the idea that cooperation is better than conflict in different clothes. It seems to me that these ideas didn't evolve spontaneously then, but were simply the continuing development of our applicatin of ultimate moral law.

fwiw,
guacamole

Our concept of morality has indeed evolved over time. Our concept of the worth of the individual has definitely evolved over time. You are simply trying to equate ideas with literal objects, which is a category error.

Originally posted by jimbo

volcano rocket,



Wow. We are not sure how life started yet, but there are some good natural explanations for how it may have started. The latest Scientific American actually has a good article on the latest research into this subject.

There are some good natural explanations but they all still invoke the supernatural.

Why should anyone believe this?

Belief that God created human life to worship and glorify Him is reasonable because of 2 reasons.
1. Science has no answer to how life originated. This makes it a supernatural event and can only be explained by invoking the supernatural. This means that belief in God as creator of human life is reasonable and rational despite not being able to scientifically prove it. Also, since you are unable to scientifically prove how life originated from a source other than God, belief in God as creator is a viable explanation.
2. Since belief in God as creator is a viable origin of life explanation, seeking explanations of why He created us is a rational and logical objective. As we seek this answer we discover we are actually seeking the meaning of life. This is a monumental quest that invades every part of our public and private life and connects us to every one else because we all seek meaning in life. Christians describe this quest as worship. To them worship is coextensive with life and only God can unify the diversity in our life to bring meaning in life. This accomplishment alone is reason enough to glorify God.
To sum up, worshiping and glorifying God provides meaning to life and is the reason God created human life. No wonder Jesus said loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind is the first and great commandment.

How do you know that a guy named Jesus said this and if so why anyone should care?

We know Jesus said this commandment because it is recorded in the New Testament. If you are questioning the accuracy and authenticity of the New Testament, then you have an awful lot of historians to go through and a lot of historical facts and testing to disprove. This shows lots of people do care what Jesus said because it is the truth.

How do you know this God thing actually exists and why do you feel that its morality is something we should try to emulate?

I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove God’s existence. I claim belief in God’s existence is reasonable and rational. I feel God’s morality is worthy of emulation because it is true, holy, and perfect.

Why should I accept this idea?

You do not have to accept Jesus’ first and great commandment as a guide to the source of truth and morality, the Christian God. However, you must understand that your non-acceptance does not mean the idea is any less true.

Doesn't this just represent the personal subjective opinions of Christians?

This idea is a reasonable and rational idea based upon a supernatural explanation of the origin of life and what God has revealed to us through the Bible. If you are looking for something not based on a supernatural explanation of the origin of life, you will not find one. Science has no explanation for the origin of life and therefore cannot give you the scientifically testable proof about truth and morality. Only religion provides those answers.

How do you know that this god exists and is morally good?

Again, I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove God’s existence. I claim that belief in God’s existence is rational and reasonable. I know God is morally good because God gives meaning to life by meeting my needs where I cannot. When Jesus died on the cross for my sins, He provided a way for me to be saved from my sins. He is the only God who did something for me.

Isn't this just your personal subjective opinion and the personal subjective opinions of other Christians?

I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove God’s existence. Your questioning of my scientific knowledge of god’s existence and stating that it is my personal subjective opinion is misdirected at me.

How do you know that the Bible is not simply a human creation which reflects the archaic and mistaken ideas of ancient people? In other words, why should anyone else accept your belief that the biblical god is the foundation of human morality?

We know that the Bible is not simply a human creation. If one studies Bible history, one learns that the scriptures were disclosed over 1500 years or so. It was written by 40 different writers and is comprised of 66 books. There is a prophetic schema all the way down to the person of Christ. Considering the miraculous element and the historic element, when one looks into the scriptures, one sees there is an authenticity. It all points to one person…the person of Christ. The same person who knew the truth and the meaning of life, preached this, and gave His life for our sins thus demonstrating His holiness and perfect morality. Based upon this evidence, believing that the Bible and the Christian God are the foundations of human morality is rational and reasonable.

That is great. Neither am I, but that is who the Bible writers attribute the comments to. Do you think that the Bible writers just made up these quotes themselves and put them into the mouth of the Christian god? I think that that is true of all the comments that are attributed to the Christian god. I think that the Bible writers also made up all of the actions of the Christian god as well.

You are mistaken. There is no evidence that the Bible writers attribute the comments in your mentioned verses to the Christian God. What is your evidence to support this claim?

Nowhere does Jesus speak out against slavery and he actually uses slavery in his stories and parables. Here are some examples:

"Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes...."

Jesus-Luke 12:37


"No servant can serve two masters..."

Jesus-Luke 16:13


"A servant is not greater than his master."

Jesus-John 15:20


"And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating."

Jesus-Luke 12:47

You would think, wouldn't you, that if Jesus was such a wonderul and morally perfect guy, he would-at some point-make it clear to people that slavery is objectively morally wrong. But he doesn't do that, does he? Kind of strange, don't you think? But if we recognize Jesus as simply a fallible human being or the imaginary creation of the Bible writers, we can understand why there wouldn't be any words attributed to him which condemn slavery. In either of these cases, his view would merely reflect the morality of his culture, a culture which supported slavery.

These stories refer to servants not slaves. A slave is a piece of property. Nowhere in these verses are the servants noted as being property. In fact, the servants in these verses held great responsibility and prestige managing their lord’s wealth and possessions. No slave would have had such importance. Your claim that Jesus uses slavery in his stories and parables is unfounded.

I don't know how much clearer it could be made to you that the biblical god does promote and support lifelong slavery. Let's try this again, with the pertinent comments of the biblical god put in bold:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

Again, this scriptures does not refer to the Christian God.

If you have any further questions, just let me know. Just as I have done in all my previous posts in this thread, I will be eager to reasonably and rationally tell you as much as I can about the existence of God’s perfectly, wonderful morality.

Originally posted by robertb

The fact is, is that we have created seemingly objective moral law. In fact, mankind has created many such codes, some even contradictory, over the ages.

No doubt man has created some supposedly objective moral codes. I believe they are wrong considering how they have changed. What hasn't changed is the observation that cooperation is better than conflict. I would go so far as to assert that our changes in the fine points of the law are fine tuning as we come to appreciate how cooperation is better than conflict.

Your appeal to some universal law seems misplaced in this discussion. In order for such an idea to be considered, one would have to presuppose it. I submit that this is all you are actually doing here.

I think what I have presupposed is that morality is, like many other things in life, is worth logical scrutiny. I figured that if there really is a moral law, then it will be apparent to several witnesses, including science. I believe I have represented that at least clearly, if not logically. Thus I disagree that I am presupposing morality.

Like I said, religion is irrelevant to this issue. I never claimed that relgion is, of it self, immoral. I would, however, view some described practices of ancient societies as immoral, by current standards.

Nevertheless, there are atheists who do say religion is immoral (in as much as that has meaning other than "I don't like religion", which is what one is asserting if there is no objective morality) rather than noting that societies are immoral.

I wish this were true, but it is observably not.

I disagree. Rationing, welfare systems, slavery, and even other social adjustments are made in order to prevent widespread conflict over limited resources. We do not always do so, but we do, at least, sometimes. Morality does not prevent every war over resources, but it does prevent more wars over resources. A people who recognize that cooperation is better than conflict should eventually fight fewer wars as they come to a more equitable distribution of resources.

What do you mean by "a vacuum of public opinion"? On the contrary, I would say that public opinion is anything but a vacuum.

A vacuum is a nothing. The moral public opinion of a people is a nothing statement--it is nothing scientifically, it is nothing logically, it is nothing significant other than an expression of willful opinion.

Our concept of morality has indeed evolved over time. Our concept of the worth of the individual has definitely evolved over time. You are simply trying to equate ideas with literal objects, which is a category error.

No, an idea is literally an object. It is intangible, granted, but it is a real thing. There are many things that are intangible in the standard sense, but these things are nevertheless objective and real. We can only discern them through thinking about them. Science, reason, and history are all methods (amongst others) in which we verify the reality of the intangible. There is no category error here.

fwiw,
guaca.

Originally posted by guacamole

No doubt man has created some supposedly objective moral codes. I believe they are wrong considering how they have changed. What hasn't changed is the observation that cooperation is better than conflict. I would go so far as to assert that our changes in the fine points of the law are fine tuning as we come to appreciate how cooperation is better than conflict.

You place many eggs in the "cooperation is beter than conflict" basket. I'll address this, specifically, later.

I think what I have presupposed is that morality is, like many other things in life, is worth logical scrutiny. I figured that if there really is a moral law, then it will be apparent to several witnesses, including science. I believe I have represented that at least clearly, if not logically. Thus I disagree that I am presupposing morality.

I do not follow your argument here. You say "if there is..." then, "it will be apparent...", then "I believe..."

Perhaps you can restate this.

Nevertheless, there are atheists who do say religion is immoral (in as much as that has meaning other than "I don't like religion", which is what one is asserting if there is no objective morality) rather than noting that societies are immoral.

Perhaps, though this really has nothing to do with our conversation.

I disagree. Rationing, welfare systems, slavery, and even other social adjustments are made in order to prevent widespread conflict over limited resources. We do not always do so, but we do, at least, sometimes. Morality does not prevent every war over resources, but it does prevent more wars over resources. A people who recognize that cooperation is better than conflict should eventually fight fewer wars as they come to a more equitable distribution of resources.

I'll address this later as it applies to the cooperation versus conflict issue.

A vacuum is a nothing. The moral public opinion of a people is a nothing statement--it is nothing scientifically, it is nothing logically, it is nothing significant other than an expression of willful opinion.

You lost me here. Perhaps you could clarify.

You say opinion is a nothing statement and then say it is an expression of willful opinion.

No, an idea is literally an object. It is intangible, granted, but it is a real thing. There are many things that are intangible in the standard sense, but these things are nevertheless objective and real. We can only discern them through thinking about them. Science, reason, and history are all methods (amongst others) in which we verify the reality of the intangible. There is no category error here.

An idea is a literal object? This makes absolutely no sense unless you are redefining the phrase 'literal object'. Is this what you are doing?

Do you really believe that science, or history, is a method that verifies the "reality of the intangible"?

Could you please clarify this because it sounds like you are saying that science, or history, can verify the existence of the non-existent?


Regarding cooperation versus conflict, as I said before, this is basically a resource issue and not a question of morality, at it's core.

If there are 2 groups, yet only enough resources for 1 group to survive, cooperation is then removed from the table. In such a case, it is then no longer a moral issue and, back to Hobbes, is a specific return to the "state of nature".

Originally posted by volcano rocket

There are some good natural explanations but they all still invoke the supernatural.

How do you figure this?

Belief that God created human life to worship and glorify Him is reasonable because of 2 reasons.
1. Science has no answer to how life originated. This makes it a supernatural event and can only be explained by invoking the supernatural. This means that belief in God as creator of human life is reasonable and rational despite not being able to scientifically prove it. Also, since you are unable to scientifically prove how life originated from a source other than God, belief in God as creator is a viable explanation.

Not so. It means nothing more than science has no answer as yet as to how life originated. You make the mistake of assuming that what science can tell us now will always be the case. This has not been the history of science. You are presenting a god-of-the-gaps argument.

2. Since belief in God as creator is a viable origin of life explanation, seeking explanations of why He created us is a rational and logical objective. As we seek this answer we discover we are actually seeking the meaning of life. This is a monumental quest that invades every part of our public and private life and connects us to every one else because we all seek meaning in life. Christians describe this quest as worship. To them worship is coextensive with life and only God can unify the diversity in our life to bring meaning in life. This accomplishment alone is reason enough to glorify God.
To sum up, worshiping and glorifying God provides meaning to life and is the reason God created human life. No wonder Jesus said loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind is the first and great commandment.

This is all unsupported presumption based on the unsupported assumption that god is the originator of life. You have no evidence for any of this.

We know Jesus said this commandment because it is recorded in the New Testament. If you are questioning the accuracy and authenticity of the New Testament, then you have an awful lot of historians to go through and a lot of historical facts and testing to disprove. This shows lots of people do care what Jesus said because it is the truth.

The consensus opinion among biblical scholars is that the gospels are late, anonymous and not written by eyewitnesses. So your evidence is not as cut-and -dried as you would like to have it.

I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove God’s existence. I claim belief in God’s existence is reasonable and rational. I feel God’s morality is worthy of emulation because it is true, holy, and perfect.

I would claim that the notion of god arose as a means for primitive man to explain an otherwise inexplicable world in a pre-scientific age. It may have served its purpose once but nowadays it is merely a failed hypothesis. It has been superseded.

You do not have to accept Jesus’ first and great commandment as a guide to the source of truth and morality, the Christian God. However, you must understand that your non-acceptance does not mean the idea is any less true.

Conversely, your belief does not mean the idea IS true.

This idea is a reasonable and rational idea based upon a supernatural explanation of the origin of life and what God has revealed to us through the Bible. If you are looking for something not based on a supernatural explanation of the origin of life, you will not find one. Science has no explanation for the origin of life and therefore cannot give you the scientifically testable proof about truth and morality. Only religion provides those answers.

The assumption of a supernatural universe is unsatisfactory in that there is no method or epistemology for knowing it, therefore no creditable evidence for its existence. Whereas, by contrast, there is the demonstrated success of a naturalistic world view and a massive amount of knowledge accumulated for the benefit of humankind.

Again, I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove God’s existence. I claim that belief in God’s existence is rational and reasonable. I know God is morally good because God gives meaning to life by meeting my needs where I cannot. When Jesus died on the cross for my sins, He provided a way for me to be saved from my sins. He is the only God who did something for me.

Before you can attempt the proof of a supernatural god you need to establish the existence of a supernatural universe and this you cannot do.

I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove God’s existence. Your questioning of my scientific knowledge of god’s existence and stating that it is my personal subjective opinion is misdirected at me.

But, unless you scientifically prove god’s existence then the only way you can ‘prove’ it is by your personal, subjective experience of him. And there is no way you can prove this to be correct, especially as there are many different forms of god(s) personally experienced by others....some of them quite contradictory.

We know that the Bible is not simply a human creation. If one studies Bible history, one learns that the scriptures were disclosed over 1500 years or so. It was written by 40 different writers and is comprised of 66 books. There is a prophetic schema all the way down to the person of Christ. Considering the miraculous element and the historic element, when one looks into the scriptures, one sees there is an authenticity. It all points to one person…the person of Christ. The same person who knew the truth and the meaning of life, preached this, and gave His life for our sins thus demonstrating His holiness and perfect morality. Based upon this evidence, believing that the Bible and the Christian God are the foundations of human morality is rational and reasonable.

These stories refer to servants not slaves. A slave is a piece of property. Nowhere in these verses are the servants noted as being property. In fact, the servants in these verses held great responsibility and prestige managing their lord’s wealth and possessions. No slave would have had such importance. Your claim that Jesus uses slavery in his stories and parables is unfounded.

There are many Bible passages which directly sanction and regulate slavery. Throughout history the OT account of slavery has been as most people understand it to be...including the Southern Baptist Convention until the mid 20th century. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest single Protestant body in the world, was formed on the premise that the Bible sanctions slavery and that it was acceptable for Christians to own slaves.

The modern attempt to explain away slavery in the OT is limited to very few would-be scholars of the order of JP Holding and Glen Miller and their rationalizations to revise god’s moral code to fit modern standards of morality are not widely accepted by qualified scholars.

Guacamole,

J: I appeal to my own moral standard, most people's standards and probably your standard as well when I condemn putting people into slavery for life and slaughtering little cooing babies.

G: I'm fairly certain you are not appealing to my moral standard, considering I think there is an absolute objective one.

You think there is an absolute moral standard. Why should I care what you think? I mean why should I believe that this is anything other than your personal subjective opinion? Convince me that there is an objective moral standard.

Also: Are you saying that you don't value freedom and little cooing babies?

G: I'm not certain it's safe to say you are appealing to most people's moral standards when moral philosophy for you is simply a statement of what you like. That's the problem--you can't rationally assert anything of the sort.

Is it safe to say that most people value little cooing infants and freedom? Our morality is based on promoting and protecting those things that we value, and most people value common things like life, health, security, freedom, happiness...and little cooing babies. Actions which threaten or harm these things are seen as bad, actions or behavior that promote and protect these things are seen as good. That is admittedly a very, very, almost ridiculously simplistic nutshell view of how human morality works, but I don't understand why Christians such as yourself see the need to inject a god into human morality. Well...no...actually I do, but I don't see how you can logically support the idea.

J: I think most people value freedom and little cooing babies and abhor slavery and the murder of little cooing babies. I appeal to these values that most people share. If you think there is a moral standard in which these actions-putting people into slavery for life and slaughtering little cooing babies-are morally good, feel free to tell me why anyone should base their morality on it.

G: I wrote that "rather lengthy cut and paste" to explain that if there a context in which those actions supported cooperation rather than conflict, they might be good.

Sorry for assuming that that was a cut and paste.

J: Sounds a lot like a morality derived from evolution and based on human values.

J: You have the cause and effect wrong. We see the morality in cooperation because of our evolution. Our values are it's product. This is the working out of moral law.

Human beings generally see cooperation as a good thing as it helps to insure life, health, freedom, security-things which human beings generally value.

I don't see anything in this lengthy cut and paste that indicates that human morality is objective and derived from a supernatural being. Feel free to explain in your own words what you think I have missed.

G: Actually. I wrote that while I was sitting at the computer. I'm not certain you've read it because you haven't really addressed the universality of cooperation.

The universivality of cooperation is based on the fact that human beings-social mammals-generally do better-are happier, healthier, wealthier, etc- cooperating with others than living as, say, anti-social hermits. What is so hard to understand about this? Where does a supernatural being fit into human morality?

Cheers,

Jimbo