Forgive me for the rushed post here, but thoughts are running riot within the grey matter and I thought I'd share in the hope of learning, discussing and drawing some conclusions on morality.
Now I know there are many apologists that use the axiom of that there morality is objective, Frank Turek is one particular apologist who proposes such a notion (he had the unfortunate privilege of getting hitchslapped by the great man).
For me as a layman in the fields of such subjects as philosophy, it strikes me that morality can only be subjective and as such, underpinning evolution and adaptation.
My premises would be something on the lines that...
a) Morality evolved from primitive tribes and societies in order to preserve harmony and increase effectiveness in the quest of survival.
b) What is right and wrong are simply labels we adhere to what we agree to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior.
I have many other thoughts on morality, but I thought I'd share this and see what others think whilst I await my commute home from work.
Let me know what you think, especially if you disagree.
Also, what are peoples thoughts on morality developing from the evolution of our primitive ancestors forming tribes and basic societies?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@RH1982
Morality is subjective, it is based on laws made up to stop people from doing harmful things. If people break the laws then they are punished. Morality is also based on the person treating others as they want to be treated.
IMO....Morality and it's subsets:
Morality based on family values / Morality based on societal values / Morality based on religious values / Morality based on political values / Morality based on individual values / Morality based on peer values / Morality based on laws / Morality based on historical influences .
The list can go on and on.
Morals are in place not merely to tell us what we can't do but what we can do as well. It is not merely about the punishment we can receive but also the reward we can receive. They are not merely to be seen in a legal light but in dealing with everyday activity as well. Whether we classify those activities as important or mundane is not important when it comes to morality. Morals can help us or work against us.
Sometimes morals are self taught. Ex: I did something that gave me terrible emotions to deal with. I was not expecting that. The butterflies in my stomach showed me that I need to change that behavior.
Sometimes we learn them from seeing the reactions and consequences from others.
Sometimes they are imposed on us.
Theistic morals: According to your beliefs, following it because God says so is a disservice to the respect of the self (Gods creation) and to the God they believe in. I raise the bar to theists when it comes to morals. If it is not in your hearts to be moral in every expected way, then you lack faith and do not know your God and are not Gods children.
Non believers who have a high standard of morals in their hearts are Gods true children , putting aside of course the proof of God and it's related books. Again, this is just an opinion.
I'm not sure how morality started (as individuals or as tribes) or evolved but I will assume that emotions has a strong impact on it's origin.
Morality is a social construct, that's why it varies between cultures and times.
My positions it that such rules, covering say a whole community, always have a purpose. The most obvious is to protect the group. Another reason is to establish and maintain the power and control of a ruler and/or a religion over the group. (the term 'group' can mean from a few, to an indefinite number)
EG: the Commandment actually says 'thou shalt commit no murder". Murder is killing a member of one's own group, but not an outsider. In traditional societies ,strangers were often killed. A current example ; that fuck witted 'missionary"' who tried to impose himself on a traditional tribe, and became dead. To the tribe, (and the authorities) , no murder was committed. That's also how wars are justified; not murder to kill an enemy.
Other commandments against say lying, stealing adultery, or looking after your parents, are all about making sure the group survives.
The commandments concerning god(s) are invented by priests/ shamans and other charlatans to gain power and control within the group. Such rules also impart the illusion of meaning and control in life and the weather. EG sacrifices for say rain or for a sign of favour from the god(s)---of course interpreted by the priest/shaman. The more dire the need the more dire the sacrifice tends to be.
The above argument is based on the academic model of "structural functionalism" , which I have accepted as a rational perspective when studying a culture, be it one's own or another. However, the are other models if you want to look for them.
Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Morality is evidence in all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups. Thus it is strongly evidenced that human morality has it precursors in evolution.
We have evolved an intellect that enables us to examine extremely complex ideas, thus out morality is complex and dynamic. It is and can only be subjective, however once we establish a basis for our moral worldview we can examine objectively the best way to adhere to it. All of this is dependant on our ability to reason, if we abandon that to archaic religious dogma, then this is not morality.
Many theists ironically recognise this, which is why many theists from a 100 years ago would be aghast at some of the behaviours we prohibit and others we allow were they alive to see it.
As has been stated, if religions offered objective morality then it wouldn't mirror the cultures it originated in, and there wouldn't be so many differing views.
It's also a fact that on here not one theist has been able to offer even one example of an objectively moral act, let alone the ten I asked for.
The idea of law and order comes to us from the great Roman minds. But then, so does Christianity.
Indeed, wasn't it the emperor Constantine that essentially made christianity flourish?
@ Random
The various and divergent sects of christianity were flourishing in the 4th century CE. What Constantine did was to unify the closest religions and christian sects theologically by threat of force and outlaw the dissenters...by force....reinforced by successive Emperors and later Popes who assumed the Caesars divine right to rule.
'Christianity' as such, has been in decline for 1300 years, only the sects have been vying for control ever since the 5th century. We are witnessing in our lifetimes the death throes of a religion. It will live on like a creaking geriatric with dementia for a few more generations but expire, in the end, without grace or fond memories.
Islam may, briefly be in ascendance for the theists in the short term, but it, too, is doomed to failure as education and prosperity, as well as space travel show the silliness of following medieval/dark age texts in modern times.
@ Old man shouts
I agree with your first paragraph.
But I think this has been said before and has not happened.
"We are witnessing in our lifetimes the death throes of a religion."
Didn't someone who lived a few generations ago say something like that?
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." Nietzsche
@ Jo
Your version of christianity is dying. The model established in the 5th Century CE which spawned your ignorance and cruelty has been dying ever since then with sporadic upheavals and wars which gives its shambling corpse a vestige, an illusion, of vitality. It is a zombie, rotting from within. Only interested in violating the brains and bodies of children and the gullible.
Facts are facts, your version of your religion has no basis in history. No evidence to back up its claims contemporary with your magic prophet. Education is sidelining the threats and fear your 'faith' has used to protect its large financial interests.
The internet and people like you who publicly endorse and excuse all manner of crimes are responsible for the education of millions, and the declining church going numbers support my assertion.
Your religion will die, just like the Greek and Roman Pantheons, like Mithras. Children will ask their Roboteachers.."did people really believe that crap back then?" and the robot will reply "yes, but we know better now"..."and don't say crap, it so 21st century"
The sooner your version of god is truly dead in the minds of ordinary people, the sooner we can get on with being fully human.
@Jo
What do you want to say with the following sentence of yours?:
@ Talyyn
I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer.
My response was in reference to Old man shouts claim that Christianity will be dead in three generation (he said something like that). I don't think he knows the future and his predictions are just his beliefs.
It was said three generations ago, but did not come true (Nietzsche).
See "The most recent Great Awakening (1904 onwards)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_revival
@ Jo
Your capacity for mendacity is truly underwhelming. Nope, I NEVER wrote that.
It seems you and Royism went to the same school of self deception, hypocrisy and downright lies. The theist version of Hogwarts I think...and both members of the equivalent of House Slytherin I should imagine.
With your respective versions of 'hermeneutics' you two certainly manage to obfuscate, lie and re-arrange your morals to a most interesting and amoral state.
I do thank you though, on behalf of all the lurkers on this site for illustrating how the slavish distortion of reality you both call your "one true faith" can result in the clear insanity that you both demonstrate.
@ Old man shouts
Her is the exact quote.
"It will live on like a creaking geriatric with dementia for a few more generations but expire, in the end, without grace or fond memories."
@ Jo
VS
Yep...nothing like the quote you ascribed to me. You should be careful, you are getting careless with your lies and misrepresentations.
No apology I notice...but then...do I expect one?
@ Old man shouts
I apologize for misquoting you.
Please note I said "he said something like that." It was not a quote. But I should have given the exact quote.
Jo is either a pathological liar, or hasn't even a remedial grasp of English. As you say the two statements are not remotely similar. He has done the same to me.
I said: Science is the best method we have for understanding reality.
Jo claimed I'd said: "science can answer any question."
I asked "What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?"
Jo claimed I had said "It is possible to show objective objective evidence for a deity."
I said: "Some claims theists make about deities are falsifiable, and so that definition of a deity could be shown not to exist."
Jo said I had claimed "It is possible to disprove god."
It's possible that he just hasn't even the most basic grasp of the English language. Though of course, it's also possible he's as dishonest as theists like Breezy, ROYISM, SFT, AJ777, and a slew of others...at the moment "the jury is still out on Jo"
@ Sheldon
I apologize for misquoting you.
I put what you said in my own words, and I should not have done that.
My mediocre command of the English language is only part of the problem.
I am not very savvy at searching AR for who said what and when.
So sometimes I say it as I understood or remembered it.
No excuses, just explaining what happened.
Try this ("searching the forums" section).
@ Nyarlathotep
Thanks, very helpful.
@Jo
Apology accepted.
@Jo
My question was not about Christianity as a religion per se, but whether you, as an individual, knows if your god truly exists (or existed at the time of Nietzsche).
@ Talyyn
I would say yes.
@Jo
How so?
@ Talyyn
I have given some of my reasons previously.
So I will just give a short summary.
It is the best answer that makes the most sense of what I have observed in my life.
Personal experiences that have helped confirm or support my belief.
My knowledge of science points in the direction of God.
It seems like the most logical and objective answer to me.
Does this answer your question?
@Jo: Re: Personal Experience - There are people in psych wards whose personal experience tells them that they are Muhammad, Jesus, (Well, maybe not Muhammad, The idiot who says "I am Muhammad" is immediately killed.) Napoleon, alien, or special in some way. Their personal experience tells them that they are right and everyone is out to get them. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SCIENCE AND WHY WE FACT CHECK OUR PERCEPTIONS. Why do you get special privileges? Do you need to be locked away with the rest of the nutjobs?
YOU DO NOT GET TO CLAIM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE FREE OF CRITICAL INQUIRY/ In short, basing moronic beliefs of any kind on personal experience can only prove that you are detached from reality.
@Cog
Oh come on, poor old Jo has found his only refuge. After all he failed to:
History his god into existence
Science his god into existence
Logic his god into existence
Apologise his god into existence
So naturally he has only been able to 'personal revelation' his god into existence. Well, for once, I think he is telling the truth. La la land is available to anyone, a truth that no one can deny.....now that he has fully admitted that, he can start learning and stop preaching.
@ Cognostic
My personal experiences were only part of why I beleive.
"THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SCIENCE AND WHY WE FACT CHECK OUR PERCEPTIONS."
How does science check for Gods existence/nonexistence?
How can science test if God is inspiring me or not?
Well, you look at the competing models.
Theism lacks definition and a clear model in how it works with the reality we all experience.
Compare this to a naturalistic world view and there is no competition between the two theories.
Furthermore, you can look at the 'sacred texts' and test the claims that are made, I.e. Noah's ark, global flood, winged horses etc...
And you can say from all the data gathered, the archaeological evidence does not support the first two claims and the later claim is not seen anywhere in the fossil record.
Then you compare models again and notice that one claim (naturalism) is accurate, conforms to reality, is predictable, evidenced and testable.
The theistic claim however, not so much! In fact, its pretty piss poor in every department.
Then you can look at how humans are superstitious, have a fear of death, are pattern seeking and have for millennia expressed beliefs in god(s) that have been proven not to exists and cast away like yesterdays newspaper.
Given just the small sample size I've provided, it's clear that naturalism is a fairly reasonable worldview that can be relied upon to be compatible with nature and the reality we all experience.
And theism has all the evidentiary powers of fluorescent unicorns, Zombie dragons and intergalactic hedgehogs that control our minds.
So one is reasonable, the other is total bollocks.
@Jo. No one would argue that the idea of a God is not inspiring to some people. We have tons of evidence for that in songs, architecture, wars, and the rest.
All you have to do now is prove that the God idea has some sort of reality. Your god is not the only god idea that people have found inspiring. It is not the most inspiring / effective god idea either. Your god inspired the mass suicide and murder at Jones Town.
Science has checked for God's existence over and over and over again. Each time some theologian come up with a God claim it is looked at by science and so far ALL have been found to be lacing. (Refer to the Bear Cave Analogy). Why must we repeat the same bullshit over and over and over for you.
Absence of evidence, is in fact, evidence of absence. (It is not total confirmation; however, it is significant when it has gone on for 10,000 years with the exact same results.) There is no good evidence for any God. NONE! No rational person should believe in a god or gods without good evidence to support the belief.
@ Cognostic
"Your god inspired the mass suicide and murder at Jones Town."
How do you know that? Is there some reference in the Bible?
Is it just a smear or is there some evidence you have?
"Science has checked for God's existence over and over and over again."
How has science checked for God's existence? Your claim is not scientific.
Can you provide the tests, experiments, measurements, and data?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-plato-can-save-your-life/201...
"Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them." https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
"Absence of evidence, is in fact, evidence of absence."
That is a argument from ignorance fallacy.
The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"There is no good evidence for any God."
That is opinion or a faith claim.
Just like when I say there is good evidence for God.
Pages