back to the beginning: morality

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

They are not descriptions of what we actually do but prescriptions about what should be done. These prescriptions can take a number of forms: on the one hand, logical laws, rules of inference, and avoidance of logical fallacies; on the other hand, moral laws, rules of conduct, and avoidance of immoral actions. Thus we have the three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) and the utilitarian principle, or a list of basic duties (corresponding to consequentialism and deontology). We also have rules for making inferences: modus ponens and the Kantian principle of universalizability, say—as well as warnings against fallacious inference (don’t affirm the consequent, don’t try to infer an “ought” from an “is”).

Yes, I know: I may well be misunderstanding his point.

So, if you think you do understand it, please note how, given a moral conflict of particular interest to you," logical laws, rules of inference, and avoidance of logical fallacies…moral laws, rules of conduct, and avoidance of immoral actions" are applicable to you.
Same with this…

Thus we have the three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) and the utilitarian principle, or a list of basic duties (corresponding to consequentialism and deontology).

Given a particular set of circumstances, what do you construe to be your own moral obligations?

Neither subject is concerned to establish “matters of fact” about the natural world; both are concerned to improve reasoning, make us better people, keep us on the right track.

The natural world? Well, if human beings are a part of nature, how could anything that we say and do not be natural? Instead the more appropriate word might be normal. Only – click – this too is rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

It is good to reason validly and to do what is morally right. Thus logic and morality are procedural and prohibitive, rule-governed and critical. We apply them to facts in order to produce desirable results—true beliefs, right actions—but they are not a form of fact gathering analogous to physics or history. They are practical not theoretical. They are active and engaged not laid-back and detached.

Practical.

What else can I do here but to note how “being practical” can mean many different things to many different people. My own contention here is that democracy and the rule of law is far more suitable to pragmatism.

Then the part where, in regard to any number of moral objectivists, true beliefs and true actions revolve around sustaining [psychologically,emotionally] their soothing comfort and consolation all the way to the grave. And then for others, beyond the grave.

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

It is true that we have formal logic as taught in university logic courses, while morality can scarcely claim anything comparable (though there is deontic logic).

"Deontic logic is the field of philosophical logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. Alternatively, a deontic logic is a formal system that attempts to capture the essential logical features of these concepts". wiki.

Let’s focus here on a particular moral conflagration of note. Gun control, say. So, using deontic philosophical logic, how would you go about pinning down what all rational – virtuous? – men and women are obligated to believe about buying and selling guns.

As for the “essential logical features of these concepts”, I’m even more intrigued with how they might be intertwined in the lives that we live.

But the logic and morality I am talking about are pre-formal—they are embedded in our natural competence at dealing with the world and are probably innately based.

Either that or some here [like Maia] are convinced that they are “somehow” in possession of an “Intrinsic Self” that ever and always obviates dasein. They just know “deep down inside” that how they think and feel about things like gun control reflects the most “natural” assessment. And since no one else is them, they can’t possibly grasp this frame of mind. In fact, any number of them might claim that their own Intrinsic Self has led them to conclude just the opposite about gun control.

Logical reasoning existed before Aristotle tried to codify it, and morality pre-dates attempts at explicit refined statement. These are primitive forms of human competence, not dissimilar to language competence before grammarians came along.

Grammar and morality?

We’ll need a context, of course. How about…gun control? Okay, grammarians, do your thing and note how deontic logic enables you to, what, provide us with the most rational and morally sound assessment of it?

The distinction between logic and morality is relatively recent and may not have been salient to early humans. We know quite well what is meant by the “ethics of belief”, and we are not shy about pointing out fallacies in other people’s moral reasoning. Sound reasoning is sound reasoning—and it is what we should be aiming at.

Actually, the preponderance of moral objectivists I have come into contact with insist basically that, logically, spiritually or otherwise, their own moral philosophy does in fact reflect the one and the only One True Path to enlightenment.

The distinction between logic and morality is not as sharp as we tend to think these days (I suspect it is less sharp in the ancient world than in the post-Christian word). Shoddy logical reasoning is deplored, as immoral action is. You should keep your promises and you should follow modus ponens; we can worry about fine points of logic versus morality later. If we suppose that animals possess rudimentary forms of logic and morality, are they really distinct modules in the animal mind? Logic and morality bleed into each other.

On the other hand, whatever, for all practical purposes, that means? You tell me. How? By illustrating your own text here existentially pertaining to gun control or any other instance of conflicting goods.

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

Where does prudential reasoning fit? It is surely only logical (rational) to consider one’s own future wellbeing—so we might assign prudence to logic. But prudence is also behaving well to one’s future self, so that it falls within morality.

Is it even possible to encompass human morality more…philosophically? Prudential reasoning aimed at sustaining one’s well being into the future? Okay, let’s see if we can pin this down by zeroing in on the most rational and logical future pertaining to behaviors revolving around a moral conflagration of note.

Some moralists have even supposed (I think rightly) that prudence is a special case of morality—we have moral duties towards ourselves, as one sentient being among others. So prudential reasoning is both logical and moral—it has a foot in both camps.

Theoretically, say?

For example, are Donald Trump’s executive orders taking us into a more or a less rational [virtuous] future? How would we go about determining this? How would we go about configuring our philosophical assumptions into actual political legislation?

Or should we say that the idea of a dualism of camps is mistaken? Isn’t the line more blurred than contemporary culture recognizes? We think there is no morality in logic textbooks and that moral issues can’t be resolved by formal logic: but that is surely too narrow a view of both fields. Logic is up to its ears in normative notions, and morality is a domain of logical reasoning.

For instance, consider the “normative notions” that have been accumulated philosophically over the centuries by these folks: List of philosophies - Wikipedia

The A’s alone account for nearly fifty schools of philosophy.

If you are trying to resolve a complex moral issue, such as abortion or animal rights, you will find yourself invoking principles drawn from logic and from normative ethics—as we currently understand those fields. But from a ground level perspective these distinctions are blurred and irrelevant: you are just reasoning with whatever bears upon the topic.

Okay, start here:

Abortion - Contemporary abortion procedures | Britannica

Vegetarianism | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Health, Nutrition, &...

Note the most principled/reasonable assessments.

You are applying your logical and moral competence to a real world problem with a view to doing what is right.

Uh, define competence?

When you avoid deriving an “ought” from an “is” are you doing logic or morality? When you declare that all sentient beings have rights is that intended as a moral principle or a logical one? It functions as an abstract axiom used to draw conclusions—it is irrelevant whether it crops up in a standard logic text (they don’t even include modal logic).

So much more to the point [mine] are the moral objectivists among us who refuse to make that distinction. Some go so far as to insist that morality encompasses nothing less than a metaphysical truth.

One that revolves “philosophically” around, say, capitalism? Or “scientifically” around socialism?

And what is particularly irrelevant for almost all objectivists is the fact that other objectivists insist it is their own One True Path that actually reflects the one and the only truly enlightened assessment of, well, everything, right?

We shouldn’t have too narrow a view of logic, and we shouldn’t neglect the abstract character of much moral reasoning. I am inclined to say simply that moral reasoning just is logical reasoning—logical reasoning about questions of value.

Now all we need is a context.

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

What about the point that logic is fixed, rigid and universal while morality is changeable, fluid and relative? Isn’t morality controversial and logic indisputable? But this is a naïve and tendentious way to think: logic has its controversies and morality is a lot more universal than many people suppose.

Now all we need are a few actual accounts of how this distinction is made existentially. Morality is controversial because for thousands of years now philosophers and ethicists have failed to provide mere mortals in a No God world with anything approaching a deontological moral philosophy. The only thing truly controversial about it, in my view, is how the moral objectivists themselves refuse to acknowledge how that they are but one of hundreds of additional advocates all championing the one and the only true path to enlightenment. I’m the first to acknowledge that moral nihilism is no less a subjective assessment on my part. It seems reasonable to me here and now but then so did a half dozen additional “my way or the highway” dogmas I embraced and embodied in years past.

And while logic can be used to express accounts of human moral interactions, that’s hardly the same thing as insisting – and then demonstrating – that your own moral philosophy reflects the most logical account that mere mortals in a No God world are able to sustain socially, politically and economically.

Isn’t morality controversial and logic indisputable? But this is a naïve and tendentious way to think: logic has its controversies and morality is a lot more universal than many people suppose.

Okay, for those who basically agree with this, note how, given your own personal experiences involving conflicting goods, this was/is applicable to the behaviors you chose/choose. And noting that morality is universal is merely a way of pointing out that when men and women do come together to form communities, “rules of behavior” are a must. Prescriptions and proscriptions used to either reward or punish particular behaviors. Then the part where all of this is embedded in one or another intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law.

I won’t rehearse the usual criticisms of moral relativism, subjectivism, emotivism, etc.; suffice it to say that morality is really a subject in objectively good standing. Also, logic is not free of internal strife: some find modal logic suspect, others favor intuitionistic logic, still others adopt a highly inclusive conception of logic (even accepting logical contradictions). Not much in human thought is not controversial in some way.

Again, whichever assessment of logic you prefer, note how for all practical purposes it either works or does not work to sustain your own interactions with others.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Speaking of logic.

The way we do things may not be aligned with how things are if you start from the position that every self is an other to another self, or person equals person.

If you start from there, consent violation is a divergence from reality, or nature.

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

Skeptics of the normative will object to “ought” in both logic and morality, but that simply underlines the affinity of the two areas. The essential point is that both logic and morality are normative systems designed to facilitate desirable outcomes; and both admit of a degree of formal articulation rooted in intuitive human faculties.

On the other hand, if the affinity above revolves around one or another rendition of moral objectivism, we have to confront the fact there are dozens and dozens of ofttimes conflicting assessments of alleged One True Paths here. God or No God, many claim to embody the font [the only font] for achieving the best of all possible worlds. And some will insist this is applicable to both sides of the grave.

Still, if there is anyone here convinced their own moral philosophy reflects the optimal frame of mind, let them note particular interactions between themselves and others such that they attempt to note this affinity existentially. After all, who gets to decide what the most desirable outcome is in regard to the abortion wars?

We can all agree (if we are sane) that pain is bad and everything is identical to itself: why one should be assigned exclusively to something called “logic” and the other to something called “morality” is obscure. Both are self-evident propositions capable of functioning as axioms in a train of reasoning: the affinity is more obvious than the difference.

Of course, here those on both sides of any number of moral and political conflagrations will insist their own dogmas reflect, what, the least of all possible pain? And, again, what is the affinity between those on both sides of, say, the gun control issue? The part where both sides have their own renditions of morality and logic.

You should keep your promises and not be cruel; you should existentially generalize and not affirm the consequent. Where exactly is the deep difference here?

Keep your promises regarding what? Promises made to those who embrace MAGA, or promises made to those who are fighting them? Promises made to the Nazis or promises made to those they intend to eradicate?

As for this…

And this is before we get to non-standard logics like modal logic, epistemic logic, indexical logic, and deontic logic. They are all about reasoning and validity—but so is morality about reasoning and validity. If morality is about moral reasons, it is about moral reasoning: but then it is a logical enterprise. Logic is capacious enough to subsume morality, being the general theory of sound reasoning.

…what on Earth does it mean given a moral conflagration of note “in the news”?

What I would appreciate are those here who basically subscribe to these theoretical assumptions and are willing to note how existentially they play out when confronting others who have accumulated conflicting sets of assumptions.

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

Recognizing the affinity is helpful in resisting certain deforming conceptions of moral language and thought. Emotivism, prescriptivism, naturalism, psychologism, non-cognitivism, Platonism, contractualism: are any of these remotely plausible when applied to logic?

From my frame of mind, “resisting certain deforming conceptions of moral language and thought” revolves first and foremost around the assumption that in a No God world the optimal assessment of any particular behaviors is rooted existentially in dasein. Unless, of course, someone here can connect the dots between logic and morality pertaining to a moral conflagration we are all likely to be familiar with. Why my set of assumptions and not yours or theirs? After all, given all of the “isms” that are involved here what are the odds that your own comes closest to whatever the most rational/logical/epistemologically sound assessment of human morality actually is.

People have toyed with such accounts of logic, but generally they have not found favor, so why should we seriously entertain them for morality? Moral discourse is like logical discourse—objective and normative—and should be treated as such. It is what it is and not some other thing.

Right. Let’s run that by the moral objectivists here.

In other words, “let mere mortals toy with all of the other ‘my way or the highway’ accounts of morality but not with our own.”

Then, for some, this part: “Or else”.

Thus its similarity to logic can work to legitimize it and avoid procrustean and reductive reinterpretations. Notably, the difficulty of finding justificatory foundations applies to both areas—some things just have to be taken for granted (pain just is bad, modus ponens just is correct).

You tell me. After all, if the pain is being inflicted on those who are intent on inflicting pain on us…?

Modus ponens: “the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.”

Let’s bring this down out of the didactic clouds and note how it is applicable given particular circumstantial contexts swirling about conflicting goods.

There’s the pain inflicted on a family when one of them is murdered. Then the pain inflicted on the family of the convict when he or she is executed.

Then [from my frame of mind] just more of the same “analytic” jargon…

And in so far as logic should not be construed as a descriptive science of the platonic realm but as a normative system of rules of correct reasoning, so morality should not be thought of as describing the Good but as a normative system of rules of right action. If we cleave to the logical analogy, we can steer our way through dubious assimilations and deformations.

Again, existentially, how is this pertinent “for all practical purposes” given your own close encounters with conflicting goods? If this seems reasonable to you, note more specifically why and how you came to embody it “normatively”.

Just to simplify matters, I recommend that we assert outright that morality is logic (part of it anyway): that way we have a neat antidote to various bad ideas about morality. This does not remove all philosophical questions about morality, but it raises the right kinds of questions. Logic, too, raises real philosophical questions, both metaphysical and epistemological, but these questions are the right ones to raise concerning morality.

Then those who basically argue, “just to simplify things, and in order to minimize bad ideas about morality, you will need to become ‘one of us’”.

[Demon]

Morality is imposed by authority, even though the authority itself does not abide by moral laws.
Apply rational expediency of coexistence within the framework of society — and what will remain of morality? Most likely, nothing.

[iambiguous]

a duplicate post

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan** on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones… If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives.” Charles Darwin

Of course, up in the philosophical clouds, describing “acts for the good of others” can precipitate all manner conflicting assessments of what [technically, theoretically, deontologically, etc.] good means for each of us reacting to the context in which this is discussed and debated. But this sort of complexity actually pales significantly next to the part where the theoretical constructs collide existentially given all manner of value judgment collisions.

And then the part where this frame of mind is reconciled [if it can be] with natural selection, survival of the fittest: a dog eat dog law of the jungle existence.

The above quote, taken from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, addresses a central issue in the ongoing debate between science and religion: How does one best understand the origins of human morality?

Really, how hard can that be to grasp? Human morality revolves around conflicting assessments of how to sustain human interactions when wants and needs collide. “Rules of behavior” are basically just common sense in my view. Instead, the tricky part here comes about when, in any given human community, these rules reflect various combinations of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law. This and the fact that ethicists and political scientists are themselves often all over the map…all up and down the moral and political spectrum. And that’s before we get to the part about God and religion.

There is still a popular assumption that religion and morality are synonymous. This is not surprising, since almost everyone is raised within some type of religious community, which teaches various rules for how to act, and sanctions these rules by claiming they were created by a deity.

That and the part whereby, even among the flocks of sheep, there are endless squabbles [and sometimes outright jihads] regarding what it actually means to be one of the truly faithful. Then the or else part where deemed necessary..

What I tend to note here, however, is that only through God and religion is immortality and salvation within reach.

This so-called ‘Divine Command Theory’ of morality has had many prominent defenders. And yet, it is by no means self-evident that our sense of right and wrong, and the codes of behavior we are expected to follow, come from a supernatural source. The following analysis will criticize the claim that morality comes from and is sanctioned by a deity or deities, and will present a naturalistic alternative view regarding the origins of our moral sense.

Again, however, it does seem self-evident that “naturalistic” alternatives are still today no less embedded in a fierce battleground between those deemed “one of us” and those deemed “one of them”.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

A binary processing biological machine needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist and it claims that it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life.

So if you claim that you don’t exist then you are a liar because you are a lifeless binary processing biological machine which claims things.

A lifeless binary processing biological machine doesn’t know if there is a difference between good and evil so it computes that there is and there isn’t because it’s software is binary.

There is/There is
There is/There isn’t
There isn’t/There is
There isn’t/There isn’t

The issue for many individuals is that they are stuck in existence/non existence binary because they don’t possess life because God has not granted it to them.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

Religions have traditionally played a large role in shaping people’s behavior, and in inculcating a set of practices for them to follow. Such practices are presented as being beneficial to society, and also as having good practical effects for those who adhere to them, usually by having some sort of ultimate pay-off after death. Why be good? “You’ll get your reward in heaven,” as the saying goes.

Of course, my point is to suggest instead that we not start here, but start with the fact that there are any number of Gods and religious denominations that insist you will not get any rewards whatsoever if you don’t subscribe to their own Scriptures. In fact, your life may well become a living Hell if you balk here.

To ask questions about the origins of moral principles was often taken to be the same thing as raising questions about either the existence or the goodness of the supernatural beings who had supposedly given these tenets.

Still, those who embrace any number of different Gods – or No God spiritual paths – can’t all be right. But any number of the flocks fall back on the ecclesiastics to assure particular congregations that it’s ever and always their own God who can save them.

Socrates found this out when, in 399 B.C.E., he was placed on trial by his fellow Athenians for the capital offense of spreading disbelief in the gods. In his defense, he argued that, in encouraging people to try to understand the meaning of moral terms like ‘goodness’, ‘virtue’ and ‘happiness’ he was actually acting on behalf of the gods.

But then the part where distinctions are made between belief in any number “the Gods” back then and belief in the God today. And the main lesson to learn from the Socrates trial seems to be that when it comes to morality, it ultimately comes down to the capacity of those in power to enforce their own.

He did not convince the jury, which sentenced him to death – an act that has generally been thought to have been highly immoral.

And that would/could actually be demonstrated…how?

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

There are problems with the claim that morality comes from a divine source. I will list and briefly examine a few objections, before then looking at some arguments for the origins of morality which do not rely upon the existence of a divinity.

On the other hand, for every one person who sees divine morality as untenable there are still hundreds and hundreds of others who insist not only that God is the basis for their own moral font, but it had better be your own as well. As in “or else”.

This and the fact that the divine is said to be the one and only source for free will. Not to mention immortality and salvation.

How do we know this Law Giver exists? For most people, the existence of God is something they learn from earliest infancy. They seldom think much about it but if they did, they would find that the arguments traditionally given to justify this existence have serious flaws.

Yes, any number of us are indoctrinated as children to believe in one or another God. But, again, for any number of them [still] merely believing in a God, the God need be all that establishes His existence. In fact, for many of them, the most serious of flaws revolve instead around the fact that others believe in a different God…and are doomed/damned if they don’t come around to the One True God.

There are many such arguments and I will not examine them here, as it would need a separate article, or even a book. (The philosopher Michael Martin has written two such books, which I recommend: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and The Case Against Christianity). Suffice it to say that no argument for the existence of a transcendent deity has proven to be generally persuasive or has withstood rigorous philosophical analysis. If the existence of God cannot be proven, how can one argue that morality is grounded in his commands?

Philosophical analysis? Right. Run your own No God philosophy by the religionists here. If only up in the spiritual clouds. With moral commandments, immortality and salvation at stake both here and there, God and religion are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

In fact: Google Search

And I suspect the irony here revolves around the fact that in our modern/postmodern world, men and women have access [re extraordinary communication technology] to any number of One True Paths around the globe. God and No God. Back in the day when most human beings lived in villages or hamlets or other small communities, failures to communicate were minimized given that there was “a place for everyone” and everyone was expected to stay “in place” until they…died?

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

Philosophically,you can’t be sure if good=bad and bad=good OR if good=good and bad=bad but you can be sure that good/bad=good/bad.It’s a mathematical certainty.

The whole of the physical cosmos is constructed and operates on +/-=+/- philosophy and this can be explained scientifically.

This philosophy gives you free will and choice.

This choice has nothing to do with believing in the religions of atheism or theism because neither are of any use to you.

Atheism and Theism is binary.

There is no life in binary.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

In response to this challenge [above], there have been those, like Søren Kierkegaard, who admit that all such arguments are faulty, but who then take a ‘leap of faith’ and believe in God’s existence anyway.

Not so much faulty, in my view, as profoundly problematic. Especially given the fact that Kierkegaard’s leap of faith was to the Christian God. So, what of all those worshiping and adoring entirely different Gods? Any “leaps of faith” among them? And, if so, why yours and not theirs?

Whether one claims to actually know that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist, or takes a leap of faith, or makes a wager, or falls back on one or another scripture, they have to acknowledge that until this God of theirs chooses to reveal Himself, there does not appear to be a way for the faithful to pin down that it really is their own God.

Then this part: Google Search

In other words..

But then how does one convince those who do not accept one’s faith that the commandments of this being should be followed?

Again and again and again: given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave – moral commandments, immortality, salvation – why on Earth would an existing God not make it absolutely clear which path to choose?

Darwin raised a powerful objection to this claim that God exists because we just feel that he exists:

“At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God…This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists.” The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

What many here, in my view, refuse to acknowledge. Some, in fact, claim to be in possession of a “deep down inside them” Intuitive or Intrinsic Self. There are things they “just know” are true about God and religion. About morality. But since others are not them, what could they possibly know about it? It’s the perfect moral and political and spiritual argument. People might disagree with your own value judgments, sure, but how on Earth could they ever really be in sync with them given an Intrinsic Self all their own. One predicated on very different experiences in life, very different relationships and access to very different information and knowledge.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

There is only ONE philosophy for the physical and ALL the sciences which are ALL interconnected and that philosophy is +/-=+/- and we have the science to prove it.

This philosophy does not have a religious bias regarding good and bad moral absolutes as the atheists +=- and -=+ philosophy does and the theists +=+ and -=- philosophy does.

Science is not interested in an individuals religious bias

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

The English philosopher John Stuart Mill raised a further criticism, by addressing those who claim that God, although the creator of the world, is not responsible for all the evils found within it. It seems hard to square a benevolent creator with the infliction of physical suffering, the permission of moral evil, the prosperity of the wicked, and the misery of the innocent.

And around and around we go. However hard it might seem to any number of us squaring a loving, just and merciful God with all the numbing pain and suffering endured by all of the truly innocent given “acts of God”, what’s the alternative? It’s either God’s mysterious ways making it all righteous in the end or you have to somehow come to grips with a world where all of the terrible things that happen just happen for no ultimate reason or purpose.

To say that such a creator is ‘good’ seems to be using the term in a different way than when it is used to describe human actions.

Perhaps that’s because mere mortals have no capacity to provide other mere mortals with moral commandments, let alone immortality and salvation. So, being bad around them might result in a mere mortal lecture or a mere mortal scolding or a mere mortal shunning. Or even a mere mortal prison sentence or a mere mortal execution. But that is still almost nothing at all compared to what God has in store for the “sinners”.

Yet if ‘good’ for God means something different than ‘good’ does for humans, how can we base our morality on such a being? Mill wrote:

“Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures, and if such a being can sentence me to Hell for not so calling Him, to Hell I will go.” [J.S. Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, 1865]

Of course, it’s often easy enough to confront God in this manner when existentially one is not “here and now” in the vicinity of death…the abyss, oblivion. Some will insist this is the only manner in which one can sustain either one’s intellectual honesty or integrity. Those like me, however, are willing to roll the dice and accept any terms an actual existing God imposes on mere mortals in order to attain immortality and salvation.

By raising the issue of eternal punishment, Mill leads us to the third question that divinely-sanctioned morality must address: Why should we follow divine commandments?

Yeah, okay, if avoiding eternal damnation in Hell isn’t enough incentive for some to follow divine commandments…good for them?

[iambiguous]

duplicate posting

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

Must we follow these divine rules out of compunction? If we break them, will we be punished eternally in some fashion? This is surely a powerful sanction for inculcating moral codes. But it also seems to imply that one follows these rules out of fear. Yet if this is so, what does it say about humans? Are they not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions without constantly looking up over their shoulders to see if God is watching?

Basically, the adult rendition of this:

He’s making a list,
He’s checking it twice,
Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He sees you when you’re sleeping,
He knows when you’re awake.
He knows if you’ve been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake

On the other hand, the stakes are a bit more draconian for…the infidels? What’s no present this year compared to eternal doom and damnation in Hell?

As Mill pointed out, evils occur even with religion. Why assume that its absence would lead to even greater atrocities? The absence of religion would present an opportunity for people to take full personal responsibility.

Right. And what are moral commandments, immortality and salvation for all of eternity compared to taking full personal responsibility for one’s life down here for 70 odd years? And at least Mill wasn’t fractured and fragmented in regard to evil.

If morality, then, is not founded on the dictates of some divine source, from where does it arise? Perhaps it is perfectly natural. The desire to act kindly toward others, and to try to see the world as they might see it, could have arisen as a consequence of human beings’ biological and social characteristics.

Please. If you are going to extrapolate a deontological moral assessment from the remains of human history…? The desire to be kind, sure. But kind to who? And given what particular world understood in what particular way? Then, for some, the desire to be unkind to those they insist are the evil ones. Of course, as likely as not, that’s exactly what any number of others will be presuming about them.

As for the interaction of the biological and the social, I’m still convinced that political economy explains that the best