Instinct, Morality, and Law

[usfan]

You are not responding to my point. Claiming that there is an "Embedder" of morality is just that - just another claim, by just another human. It is unproven and gives us zero information regarding how the "Embedder" came to his own moral conclusions. It is completely useless in solving any moral question or controversy.

The point is not, 'is there a God?', but the logical possibilities of morality.

IF.. it is a Real Thing, then SOMETHING or SOMEONE had to put it there.

IF.. it is not real, but a human construct, then any belief in morality is a delusion.

This is a 'follow the reasoning, and examine the logical bases for our beliefs', not a debate over the existence of God.

 

[Jim]

Nobody is making the argument that it comes from 'belief!' It either is embedded by a Real God, believed in or not, or it is a human construct.. a contrivance for manipulation.

I understood that you weren’t arguing that it comes from belief, but I have seen people making that argument. I think that it’s part of human nature, so I could agree, metaphorically, with saying that it’s embedded by God.

 

[usfan]

I understood that you weren’t arguing that it comes from belief, but I have seen people making that argument. I think that it’s part of human nature, so I could agree, metaphorically, with saying that it’s embedded by God.

Thanks. This is a logical, hypothetical examination of morality (with instinct & law). There are 2 basic questions, concerning morality:

• Is it real, or contrived?
• If real, where did it come from?

Each of these questions open up a pandora's box of other questions, but until we establish these, jumping ahead to follow the implications only encourages prejudicial and circular reasoning.

 

[Jim]

Thanks. This is a logical, hypothetical examination of morality (with instinct & law). There are 2 basic questions, concerning morality:

• Is it real, or contrived?
• If real, where did it come from?

Each of these questions open up a pandora's box of other questions, but until we establish these, jumping ahead to follow the implications only encourages prejudicial and circular reasoning.

I’ve said all that I want to say about it. Sorry if I was off topic.

 

[usfan]

I’ve said all that I want to say about it. Sorry if I was off topic.

You were completely ON topic.. nothing to be sorry for..

 

[blü 2]

Projecting your biases, and stooping to ad hom does not improve your arguments.

Come now, you offered nothing but your unsupported opinion against the research I reported to you. You're the one with the opinion, I'm the one with the facts, the evidence based on studies.

You've presented your OPINION, about some unsourced studies that you conclude something from. That is not empirical fact.

The studies I refer to are not unsourced. Your opinion that morality comes from God is not only unsourced with reference to any factual basis, but is nothing less than a claim of magic. You may believe in magic and disbelieve science, but my own view's the other way round.

 

[usfan]

Both ethics and morality imply a 'self evident' sense of standards, as opposed to arbitrary, fluid, relative values. They have a deeper basis than a fickle opinion, or a preference.

'My favorite color is blue, and i think murder is bad.'

'I like chocolate, and don't like stealing.'

Are all 'values' just subjective choice, or are there absolutes, that humans are expected to follow?

 

[usfan]

the research I reported to you

What research?

The studies I refer to are not unsourced

Of course they are. You only make allusions to these 'studies!,' if they even exist. Why should i take your word for these mythical arguments of authority?

 

[Left Coast]

The point is not, 'is there a God?', but the logical possibilities of morality.

IF.. it is a Real Thing, then SOMETHING or SOMEONE had to put it there.

IF.. it is not real, but a human construct, then any belief in morality is a delusion.

This is a 'follow the reasoning, and examine the logical bases for our beliefs', not a debate over the existence of God.

First of all, what's this "Real Thing" phrase you keep using? Do you mean objective?

Referring to secular morality as a "delusion" is just a dismissive strawman. Observing the effects of one's behavior and constructively learning from them is the opposite of delusional - it is completely grounded in lived reality. Morality is just the codification of these observed causes and effects as we have collected and refined them over millenia. That is as objective as it gets.

 

[joe1776]

...
That can be the only source of a conscience. So the question is,

Who or what put it there ?

It seems we agree that conscience is most likely an intuitive gift enabling us humans to discern right from wrong in moral situations. I would agree that, if we're right, it's the best evidence of the existence of a Creator.

You see it as compelling evidence, I don't because it's possible that it is the effect of our evolved instinct to survive. For example, conscience aligns with kindness and opposed to unkindness which aligns well for the survival of our species.

You and I disagree on the moral guidance offered by the Bible. I see conscience as further proof that the text was written by men who were not divinely inspired.

Why would an all-knowing Creator give us conscience, a remarkable gift, capable of immediately knowing right from wrong in an almost infinite number of moral situations, and then inspire men from an obscure desert tribe to write moral guidance in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

So, on the question Does a Creator exist? I think it's possible. However, if it does, I don't think the authors of the Bible knew anything more about it than I do. I think they meant well but they were much too proud of their ability to reason.

The Ten Commandments are useless, for example. Like the criminal laws we humans created, they are sometimes coincidentally right when interpretations agree with conscience and potential biases when they don't.

 

[usfan]

It seems we agree that conscience is most likely an intuitive gift enabling us humans to discern right from wrong in moral situations. I would agree that, if we're right, it's the best evidence of the existence of a Creator.

You see it as compelling evidence, I don't because it's possible that it is the effect of our evolved instinct to survive. For example, conscience aligns with kindness and opposed to unkindness which aligns well for the survival of our species.

You and I disagree on the moral guidance offered by the Bible. I see conscience as further proof that the text was written by men who were not divinely inspired.

Why would an all-knowing Creator give us conscience, a remarkable gift, capable of immediately knowing right from wrong in an almost infinite number of moral situations, and then inspire men from an obscure desert tribe to write moral guidance in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

So, on the question Does a Creator exist? I think it's possible. However, if it does, I don't think the authors of the Bible knew anything more about it than I do. I think they meant well but they were much too proud of the ability to reason.

The Ten Commandments are useless, for example. Like the criminal laws we humans created, they are sometimes coincidentally right when interpretations agree with conscience and potential biases when they don't.

These are mostly implications or speculations of belief that do not really address the topic. But I'm glad we agree that morality, & its expression, 'conscience' is a Real Thing, and must have a Source, however that is defined.

But i do not think speculative comments about what you believe MY beliefs are, contribute to the discussion.

Bible? 10 commandments? How does this relate, unless you are presenting them as codeified law, of the inner, felt morality?

They are examples of that.

 

[usfan]

First of all, what's this "Real Thing" phrase you keep using? Do you mean objective?

Referring to secular morality as a "delusion" is just a dismissive strawman. Observing the effects of one's behavior and constructively learning from them is the opposite of delusional - it is completely grounded in lived reality. Morality is just the codification of these observed causes and effects as we have collected and refined them over millenia. That is as objective as it gets.

1. Real, as opposed to a delusion.
2. I do not distinguish between 'secular!' or 'religious!' Morality. There is just human morality, with no groupthink loyalties. It is either a Real Thing, or a delusion. Human institutions make laws that can reflect the felt morality. Or, they fabricate it for an agenda.
3. If it is not 'real', then morality can only be a human construct for manipulation, i.e., a delusion.
4. The 'effects' of morality do not indicate its source. It still is either a real thing, or a delusion, that we observe in the human animal.

 

[Thief]

Any thoughts, differences, additions, examples, or corrections on these concepts?

law needs to be taught
but then the snare......ignorance is no excuse

morality needs to be taught
and then the snare.....ostracized

instinct.....learned by trial and error
harm dealt by ignorance
then the snare of regret

 

[usfan]

instinct.....learned by trial and error
harm dealt by ignorance
then the snare of regret

Why would there be regret, for acting on instinct?

 

[usfan]

Human law reflects the values of those in power, and not always the majority of the people under that power.

Human law does not always reflect human morality. They are different concepts. The reformed view, is that there is a Higher Law that supercedes human decree, and that takes precedence. Conscience, not conformity to human mandate, is the higher Law, for human behavior.

Stalin, cleansing the USSR in pursuit of the 'New Soviet Man', killed millions of people, which reflected his moral values (and the Law). Those killed likely did not agree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point is not, 'is there a God?', but the logical possibilities of morality.

IF.. it is a Real Thing, then SOMETHING or SOMEONE had to put it there.

IF.. it is not real, but a human construct, then any belief in morality is a delusion.

This is a 'follow the reasoning, and examine the logical bases for our beliefs', not a debate over the existence of God.

I don't agree with these premises and I don't think you've demonstrated them.

 

[usfan]

Evidence that morality is a Real Thing:

The Sociopath
Dictionary definition:
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I probably should define and analyze 'conscience', first, since it is foundational to defining a Sociopath. But, since we have been using the concept of 'conscience', as a moral 'sense' that is universal and self evident, it should be unnecessary.

The very existence of the term, 'sociopath' implies a normal human standard.. a 'sense' of right and wrong that the Sociopath lacks. How can anyone condemn a sociopath, if all moral values are arbitrary or relative? He just exhibits his values, and not yours.

So the 'science' of psychiatry, the justice system, the media, and all human institutions accept and reflect a belief in a 'normal' human standard, or sense of conscience, that the sociopath does not have.

Whether a biological aberration, or learned behavior, sociopathy is a negative condition, in the human collective. That judgement is made by appealing to a self evident standard of acceptable and normal human moral values, as reflected in the conscience.

 

[usfan]

I don't agree with these premises and I don't think you've demonstrated them.

Ok..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence that morality is a Real Thing:

The Sociopath
Dictionary definition:
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I probably should define and analyze 'conscience', first, since it is foundational to defining a Sociopath. But, since we have been using the concept of 'conscience', as a moral 'sense' that is universal and self evident, it should be unnecessary.

The very existence of the term, 'sociopath' implies a normal human standard.. a 'sense' of right and wrong that the Sociopath lacks. How can anyone condemn a sociopath, if all moral values are arbitrary or relative? He just exhibits his values, and not yours.

So the 'science' of psychiatry, the justice system, the media, and all human institutions accept and reflect a belief in a 'normal' human standard, or sense of conscience, that the sociopath does not have.

Whether a biological aberration, or learned behavior, sociopathy is a negative condition, in the human collective. That judgement is made by appealing to a self evident standard of acceptable and normal human moral values, as reflected in the conscience.

I"m not sure how this supports your argument.

If your assertion is that someone (i.e. a God) endowed each of us with a sense of morality, then what went wrong with sociopaths? Did God forget about them?

 

[usfan]

I"m not sure how this supports your argument.

If your assertion is that someone (i.e. a God) endowed each of us with a sense of morality, then what went wrong with sociopaths? Did God forget about them?

1. I have made no assertions, just follow the assumptions, arguments, or evidence.
Morality real? --> an Embedder
Morality man made? --> human construct, and delusion
2. I do not explain 'why' someone becomes sociopathic, just observe that the existence of sociopathy is evidence for universal morality in human beings.