Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Would you say Christians are being reasonable when they make arguments against gay marriage?

If there is a god and if it is perfect, all knowing and all loving, and if it infallibly guided the bible and if the bible is against gay marriage, then yes the Christians are being rational.

Yes, and a perfect creator God is about the only basis for objective morality.  If such a being exists, then morality in the world it created would be based on its nature and character. Anything that mirrored its nature would be moral and anything that didn't would not.  Short of that, morality is not objective - it is relative and subjective, and notions of right and wrong are simply based on the experience and decisions of the community involved.

[jumbojak]

Would you say Christians are being reasonable when they make arguments against gay marriage?

If there is a god and if it is perfect, all knowing and all loving, and if it infallibly guided the bible and if the bible is against gay marriage, then yes the Christians are being rational.

Yes, and a perfect creator God is about the only basis for objective morality.  If such a being exists, then morality in the world it created would be based on its nature and character. Anything that mirrored its nature would be moral and anything that didn't would not.  Short of that, morality is not objective - it is relative and subjective, and notions of right and wrong are simply based on the experience and decisions of the community involved.

Why is it that God is the only possible ground for objective morality? This seems like question begging to me. In order to make the argument work, you must define God as the source for objective morality, and ignore the fact that ojective morality is simply a moral system that is true whether or not anyone believes it is true. If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.

Even theists seem to need at least one objective value outside of God's nature, which is the objective value that it is right to obey God. I've heard this a lot recently, and it seems to originate from a philosopher named Swineburn, and although I have not thouroughly researched the work in question it seems plausible at a glance.

[Sandra Craft]

If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.

How would you go about proving your system is true?  That seems to me the impossible hurdle that makes morality subjective by definition.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

and ignore the fact that ojective morality is simply a moral system that is true whether or not anyone believes it is true. If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.

Which you can never do.

Even theists seem to need at least one objective value outside of God's nature, which is the objective value that it is right to obey God. I've heard this a lot recently, and it seems to originate from a philosopher named Swineburn, and although I have not thouroughly researched the work in question it seems plausible at a glance.

If God exists and if God created the universe, then it's all for him. He created it because it was in his nature to create it. Since it is all for him and it reflects his nature, it conforms to his nature to act in a manner that conforms to his nature (i.e.: obeying God, which is what God did when he created - he obeyed his own nature). Thus, even obeying God stems from his nature, and it is not a value outside of his nature.

[xSilverPhinx]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.

Why?

Because if people have a good reason to respect others, then they'll take it into consideration. I generally don't want to cause harm to those close to me, who I respect and or have sympathies for. Of course this excludes a number of people, but that's something else entirely.

[jumbojak]

If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.

How would you go about proving your system is true?  That seems to me the impossible hurdle that makes morality subjective by definition.

From a philosophical standpoint, and keep in mind I am a very amateurish philosopher, it seems like these values are logically neccesary. I could be arguing from incredulity here, but I cannot imagine any society which could operate on the principle, "You must murder." It would be like Nazis shooting other Nazis instead of saying hello to each other. I just do not see how such a society could function.

These conclusions seem inescapable among any life-form sufficently adapted, to be capable of reflecting on the consequenses of their actions. This leads me to think that our understanding of this standard has advanced along with civilization. I'm reaching here, but the patterns from world cultures seem to adhere to remarkably similar forms of values although they often seem to take a very primitive form

For example, the Bible indirectly outlaws rape in the Mosaic Law. However, it also defines rape in such a way as to only apply to Jewish women, and even then applied inhumane punishments to the victims. They were rational enough to relize that rape was wrong. They just were not rational enough to realize that their marriage practices amounted to rape.

This is a little shaky, I know but it does seem to be plausible at least, and it is at least as strong as any theistic account. Not to mention that this view is accesible to atheists and theists alike. You don't have to lack a belief in God to believe values can be determined this way. If I am correct that a system of objective values must be true whether anyone believes in it or not, then God would neccesarily follow this system.

[Stevil]

I don't know how you can deem anything right or wrong using rationality and logic alone.

If a star goes supernova and destroys the planets orbiting it, billions of life forms may die. Does this mean that it was immoral for the star to go supernova?

If you answer that the star doesn't make moral choices, then I have to question how you think you can make any choice what-so-ever.

Your body moves because your muscles contract and relax, they contract and relax because of electric signals sent from the brain. The brain operates on electric signals.
All of this occurs because it has to. Everything obeys the physical laws of material existence. Gravity attracts, electro-magnetism can attract or repel.  All of this is predictable and happens exactly how it should because the alternative is impossible.

Now when you make a choice, do you really think you can decide to have an electron go down one path in your brain as opposed to an alternative path? You can no more decide the path of an electron in your brain than you can decide the path of lightening as it travels from the sky into the ground. Everything obeys the unchanging laws of material existence. There is no magic aspect to you, no metaphysical aspect that is uncaused (by the laws of material existence) which can decide to cause anything in material existence to disobey the laws that must be obeyed.

You only think you make choices, your mind rationalises that which is inevitable and you tell yourself, "yeah, I made that happen, that was my decision", thus you think you are alive, conscious and able to make choices when really you are merely an observer. Just like the a star, you do what you do, because you have no choice, you must obey the laws of material existence.

Now how does morality have anything to do with that?
A star cannot be moral, neither can a rock or an atom, neither can you.

[The Magic Pudding]

I can make choices, do it all the time. 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Here I am in this moment, the universe has made me through actions external to me and actions by a related earlier me.  I'm me and I can make decisions, how I got here is irrelevant, whether a super being could have predicted everything I've done and will do is irrelevant, I did them.  I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe.  I am the thing the universe created which will make the decisions I will make.  I own me, the universe may bump me on the head and change me and I'll do things differently.

[Stevil]

I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe.

Then you are a god manipulating material existence with your supernatural power. That is magic!

[The Magic Pudding]

I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe.

Then you are a god manipulating material existence with your supernatural power. That is magic!

Naturally, Magic is my middle name.

[En_Route]

Would you say Christians are being reasonable when they make arguments against gay marriage?

If there is a god and if it is perfect, all knowing and all loving, and if it infallibly guided the bible and if the bible is against gay marriage, then yes the Christians are being rational.

Yes, and a perfect creator God is about the only basis for objective morality.  If such a being exists, then morality in the world it created would be based on its nature and character. Anything that mirrored its nature would be moral and anything that didn't would not.  Short of that, morality is not objective - it is relative and subjective, and notions of right and wrong are simply based on the experience and decisions of the community involved.

Why is it that God is the only possible ground for objective morality? This seems like question begging to me. In order to make the argument work, you must define God as the source for objective morality, and ignore the fact that ojective morality is simply a moral system that is true whether or not anyone believes it is true. If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.

Even theists seem to need at least one objective value outside of God's nature, which is the objective value that it is right to obey God. I've heard this a lot recently, and it seems to originate from a philosopher named Swineburn, and although I have not thouroughly researched the work in question it seems plausible at a glance.

You can never create a moral system that is true irrespective of whether any believes it or not. All you can do is pluck ideas out of the air and make assertions which are unverifiable and unprovable. The very notion that there is a golden moral standard by which we must all be judged may be no more than a kind of sublimated theism. Having ditched the transparent nonsense of God, there is a tendency to worship at the altar of ethical values which we use to give a sense of meaning, purpose and dignity to our lives as well as in some cases a sense of moral superiority over others who do not subscribe to our shiny principles.

[En_Route]

It seems to me that you are arguing for the Golden Rule, or do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, on the basis that this is what rational people would espouse. Ergo don't rape anyone because you would not want to be raped. The shortcomings of the Golden Rule  are well documented, but let 's accept for the sake of argument that it is a viable basis for a moral code. But what gives it any binding force.? It's merely a set of rules which constitute a set of socially acceptable mores in the eyes of your hand picked rational arbiters. If I think rape is okay and spurn your conventional morality, then if I can get away with it undetected, what would stop me? The idea that right and wrong exist separately from human minds, that they have an objective existence, that they are factual as opposed to conjectural, is to assume a moral order in the universe and effectively to replace God with another abstraction.

Surely causing harm to someone else, who is not part of just one person's subjective experience, must factor in somehow.

Why?

Because if people have a good reason to respect others, then they'll take it into consideration. I generally don't want to cause harm to those close to me, who I respect and or have sympathies for. Of course this excludes a number of people, but that's something else entirely.

That's a natural human inclination, but it doesn't provide any basis for arguing in favour of an objective morality.

[En_Route]

If I can create a system, here on Earth, that is true regardless of adherence, then I have a secular foundation for objective morality.

How would you go about proving your system is true?  That seems to me the impossible hurdle that makes morality subjective by definition.

From a philosophical standpoint, and keep in mind I am a very amateurish philosopher, it seems like these values are logically neccesary. I could be arguing from incredulity here, but I cannot imagine any society which could operate on the principle, "You must murder." It would be like Nazis shooting other Nazis instead of saying hello to each other. I just do not see how such a society could function.

These conclusions seem inescapable among any life-form sufficently adapted, to be capable of reflecting on the consequenses of their actions. This leads me to think that our understanding of this standard has advanced along with civilization. I'm reaching here, but the patterns from world cultures seem to adhere to remarkably similar forms of values although they often seem to take a very primitive form

For example, the Bible indirectly outlaws rape in the Mosaic Law. However, it also defines rape in such a way as to only apply to Jewish women, and even then applied inhumane punishments to the victims. They were rational enough to relize that rape was wrong. They just were not rational enough to realize that their marriage practices amounted to rape.

This is a little shaky, I know but it does seem to be plausible at least, and it is at least as strong as any theistic account. Not to mention that this view is accesible to atheists and theists alike. You don't have to lack a belief in God to believe values can be determined this way. If I am correct that a system of objective values must be true whether anyone believes in it or not, then God would neccesarily follow this system.

I think it is right that every society puts limits of some kind on when you can  justifiably kill. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective but our predisposition to internalise moral rules don't make them "real" in the sense that they exist outside human thought processes.

[En_Route]

I can make choices, do it all the time. 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Here I am in this moment, the universe has made me through actions external to me and actions by a related earlier me.  I'm me and I can make decisions, how I got here is irrelevant, whether a super being could have predicted everything I've done and will do is irrelevant, I did them.  I can cause an electron to take different paths by choosing to wiggle my thumb and not my toe.  I am the thing the universe created which will make the decisions I will make.  I own me, the universe may bump me on the head and change me and I'll do things differently.

All true. Though there is nobody to whom any ultimate responsibility for those choices can be assigned.

[En_Route]

I don't know how you can deem anything right or wrong using rationality and logic alone.

If a star goes supernova and destroys the planets orbiting it, billions of life forms may die. Does this mean that it was immoral for the star to go supernova?

If you answer that the star doesn't make moral choices, then I have to question how you think you can make any choice what-so-ever.

Your body moves because your muscles contract and relax, they contract and relax because of electric signals sent from the brain. The brain operates on electric signals.
All of this occurs because it has to. Everything obeys the physical laws of material existence. Gravity attracts, electro-magnetism can attract or repel.  All of this is predictable and happens exactly how it should because the alternative is impossible.

Now when you make a choice, do you really think you can decide to have an electron go down one path in your brain as opposed to an alternative path? You can no more decide the path of an electron in your brain than you can decide the path of lightening as it travels from the sky into the ground. Everything obeys the unchanging laws of material existence. There is no magic aspect to you, no metaphysical aspect that is uncaused (by the laws of material existence) which can decide to cause anything in material existence to disobey the laws that must be obeyed.

You only think you make choices, your mind rationalises that which is inevitable and you tell yourself, "yeah, I made that happen, that was my decision", thus you think you are alive, conscious and able to make choices when really you are merely an observer. Just like the a star, you do what you do, because you have no choice, you must obey the laws of material existence.

Now how does morality have anything to do with that?
A star cannot be moral, neither can a rock or an atom, neither can you.

I am not sure that that there may not be scope for quantum- style indeterminacy in human actions, but this dgoesn't really affect your analysis I guess. I am not so sure that your analysis necessarily implies that there could not be an objective morality although it  refutes the idea of ultimate moral responsibility . I reject the notion of objective morality because to my mind it is an example of the classic error of reifying abstract ideas, as if what people cook up in their minds has any kind of objective reality outside their minds.