What’s wrong with this? Doesn’t it grant good and evil without God?
There’s nothing wrong with it jeffl! I just cant think of anything to say about it.
It only served [some of]us well in the same sense that an 8 year old labourer in a Pakistani carpet factory serves the factory owners well…
We changed the definition of “we” because it conflicted with emerging ideals of equality and individual rights…ideals that had arisen from philosophers practising the art of reason.
“At least”? Is there some other form of slavery that is morally acceptable? What was it based on then? Slavery had probably satisfied our opportunistic and self-serving drives but had been justified by flawed reasoning which was eventually exposed.
Where do “root moral notions” come from if not from human reasoning? Emotions? I dont think so…not on their own anyway, though I do believe that it’s not possible to have a human thought without emotion being in there somewhere. Emotions might give us our motivation for morality but it’s objective reasoning that works it all out…or ideally should. Morals that are based on emotions are standing on shaky ground.
Why should an act that was considered morally fine hundreds of years ago be termed “barbaric” by someone like me now? You’re right, it is my emotional response but only because reason had condemned it long before I was born and I’ve been taught to regard it that way. I dont think it’s an “instinctual” or innate reaction.
tentative,
I dont know, but I think I would call that more an act of bravery than compassion, though it could be both. It might be a highly developed sense of social responsibility or it could be a desire to exceed expectations…a person who risks his life for others then becomes a hero and is feted. Some people are exceptionally brave, some exceptionally ambitious, some exceptionally compassionate, some exceptionally cruel. Human variation I guess. Genes, environment?
Hi Leda,
Like you, darned if I know. The complexity of sorting out the intentions behind acting out almost defies definitive knowing. Over time, I’ve both experienced and have talked to others that seem to suggest a human quality that goes past cognitive apprehension. People act in ways so far from rational explanation that even they are surprised and can offer no answers as to their behavior. I’m not comfortable with the Dawkins ‘selfish gene’ explanation because it is almost solipsic. I like your view that we have the innate capacity to be moral agents, but it doesn’t help explain the origin of moral behavior. Is there such a thing as innate morals and how would we know?
Leda
But these standards need reason only to be applied evenly- one can see through reason that a black man has no strong differences from a white man, such that he should be treated differently, of course. But the very idea of things like equality being ‘good’ are not conclusions of reason. Or at least, not moral conclusions. We can conclude that equality is a means to some desired end, but that’s not morality.
Maybe. I think, at the very least that willing slavery (indentured servitude, say,) and forcing prisoners of war to work without pay are examples of slavery that- even if immoral- are not immoral for the same reasons as chattel slavery, and need to be considered seperately. At the very least, both ideas are extremely distasteful to us these days.
What if moral notions don’t come from anywhere prior like that- it seems to me that they are a root faculty of thought, just like emotion and reason. Maybe not- but what I want to stress is that rationality is based on morality moreso than morality is based on reason. You look at statements like “You should believe in proportion to the evidence” and “It is irrational to hold a position without suffecient arguments to back it”, and these sound a great deal like moral proclamations- the person who doesn’t use reason correctly is guilty of something, wouldn’t you say so?
Greetings! This is my first visit and post to this Site!
I will have to agree for the most part with TheAngryElvis on this.
I read through most of the posts and it appears everyone is missing some very fundamental points in this thread about the topic.
TAE primary Statement was that morals without relgion is completely groundless. This statement ingenders in and upon itself that morals can only be dictated by an authority. One that must be greater than we are as a whole or seperate. Why must it be greater than us? Because we are all equalls and we do not see eye to eye!
A significant issue dealing with our equality is the “relative morals” issue. This being said no matter how anyone feels about a particular moral code they have just as much basis as the next guys whose moral code is completely opposite. In this respect we are no longer dealing with morals, we are dealing with one persons wants versus the other persons wants (ethics)!
Intrinisically the “relative moral” code states that since it is all relative there is no one that is wrong! And because morals consistantly side with the Absolute side of things you can see now that Morals cannot co-habitat with relativism (ethics). And in this we create a paradox/oxymoron that is called “moral relativity” because each word represents something opposite of the other!
Because of this TAE’s claim is entirely founded and backed up!
We know this because some people delight in the death, pain, or destruction of others! Their “moral” code(ethic) is obviously far different than the average being! Not everyone feels things the same way even when exposed to the exact same situation! Because of this something such as an absolution like morals REQUIRES dictation from a source that is beyond our wisdom.
Taking a look at nature in this aspect one can see how moraless it is. Nature will without scruple hurt, maim, kill, starve, cause pestilence, and disease without regard. The animal Kingdom does not stop to pray over its food prior to killing or eating it as many humans do. They do not establish democracies and governments. Usually it is only one animal that comes along and establishes HIS/HER rule under direct threat of physical harm/death and nothing more! My way or the Highway pal!
Under the Natural Law there are no morals, and because of this whomever that has the power and authority is the sole progenitor of the moral code or law! This includes and exudes correctness no matter how biased or inhuman one may think it is. It is not a contest of moral correctness… merely a contest of you dont like they way they do things!(ethics)
TAE is correct and failure to see his point is failure to understand the underlying definition of Morals.
Dictionary.com
[i]mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. [/i]
In there is always judgement involved when dictation morals, and as you can see also states that are are required absolutes or a maxim in this case!
Now when you read that definition do not be shocked by no mention of a “God” or Supreme Being. Remember the whole case is established that someone in or of authority makes the establishment of what morals are. In other words there is an underlying meaning to what moral are. (The most direct statement of underlying mention concerning religion is underlined)
Morals although indirectly dictated to a Relious code of conduct, still does not mean it is not a religous advent. Under the definition of Religion, even Science is a Religion! Surprised? I am sure there are several that will dissagree.
In our society we shortcut God out of the picture by borrowing much of the moral code out of the Religion(s) and make it our own. In which case it becomes established in a Secular Society as the Government (Being the Sole Progenitor of Moral Code). Now remember this. The progenitor is always ABOVE the moral code. Regardless of their actions they cannot be bound to it. Because they are the authority and have the ability to dictate morals on a whim and at their sole discretion.
And now… ultimately because the governments are always formed of… drum roll… people just like you and me they really do not have the required clarity to dictate proper morals! So what we have instead… is the rule of law and the rule of Ethics!
Even thoough Ethics and morals are considered to be much the same thing… they are not. Ethics are a set of principle of right conduct. These are allowed to be relative compared to Morals having the requirement of being absolute! However in the best interests of confusing the issues there will always be someone to come along and make them equal when they are not! Remember ethics are in the realm of theory. This includes the expection of them possibly being wrong in the definitive sense while morals are not and will never be wrong!
Dictionary.com
[i]eth·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain†(Gregg Easterbrook).
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics. [/i]
After reading both definitions we can tell there are some differences between ethics and morals. As well as ethics falling more squarely on Philosphy as opposed to religious content.
The reason why Morals should be Absolute is the idea that regardless of any rule, law, or ethic someone may create, a moral will never change! It shall always remain right or wrong.
Ethics are relative because their code of conduct can be changed at any time to suit the desires and conduct of the current situation!
And last but not least, in the good ole Red v Blue never ending debate. Moral law cannot be legislated but Ethical law can!
So to sum things up in not so short of a post… TAE is speaking of Morals, were as most of the dissagreers are leaning upon ethics as opposed to moral code!
Ahh my morality vs moral responsibility thread… HOW I’ve missed you since the last 185th time I visited your door step.
“Man’s fundamental power, his “goodness” lies not in knowing the difference between good and evil, in acting with scientific certainty on the basis of a known good, or if he is a wicked man, of known evil: it lies in knowing that there is a difference between good and evil, but in any given situation noit knowing what that difference is… Morality then, is the opposite of moral responsibility: morality’s aim is to reduce freedom of choice toa miniumum, to non-existence, if it can; but the aim of moral responsibility is to increase the realm of moral choice”
“Beyond the Tragic Vision” Morse Peckham.
Think of Goethe’s Faust and his first temptation and why his scorned lover Gertrude will not be saved from her fate of death. She wants to take responsibility for her wrong deeds. She makes the choice to be morally responsible where she has failed to be “moral”.
The athiest that helps the old lady across the street and empathises with those who have suffered may not be “moral” in your eyes but they are certainly “morally responsible”.
I have to admit that your statment in regards to why an athiest would bother to feel compassion for someone elses tragedy bothers me a good deal. You’re forgetting one very important ingredient - that the atheist is human and in doing so is bonded in a very real way to other humans, regardless of their spiritual or lack there of beliefs.