None of the above has anything to do with whether morals and ethics are the result of natural biological processes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Foundation for objective moral standards
- Thread starter Regiomontanus
- Start date
None of the above has anything to do with whether morals and ethics are the result of natural biological processes.
Not an adequate response. You are making an unfounded generalization that the negative expression of morality (evil?) such as hate are natural morals and positive morals uch as love are God's moral's without any objective evidence to justify this distinction.
Hate is not a moral nor ethical form of behavior. It is the opposite. The best generals in history do not hate their enemies.
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
In regards to this section (from 36 - 47 minutes) my own thoughts are, that they are both partly wrong as I see it. Will try to point out why as best as I can.
I think WLC is correct, that without God or some other higher power, there is not really any reasonable foundation for objective morality. And I think Sam Harris is wrong in assuming that there is such thing as objective morality in the first place, so when he tries to defend it, he falls in sort of the same "trap" as religious people does when trying to explain it. Because if there is no higher authority, where should objective morality come from?
On the other hand, WLC sort of dodges, what I think is really the important issue here, when he say that "If God exists then there is basis for objective morality" and then he sneak in all the positive characteristics he link to God, but ignore all the bad ones.
So if objective morality comes from God then one would also assume that God in fact, think that it is morally right, to kill gays, slam children against rocks.. and all the other things.
Psalms 137:8-9
8 Daughter of Babylon! You devastator! How blessed will be the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
9 How blessed will be the one who seizes your young children and pulverizes them against the cliff!
(So much for turning the other chin I guess)
He gracefully avoid getting into that, which is the real issue, if one claim that objective moral comes from God.
Last I think WLC is wrong when he say that there is no moral duties in atheism, as he seem to base all of morality on there being a God, and honestly without actually saying it, I think he somewhat believe that the only reason atheists can be moral, is because he is convinced God exists.
But this, I think makes his view to narrow. Morality from a natural perspective do make a lot more sense, than if it came from God.
But rather than coming from a higher authority its a fundamental part of nature, but is just a lot more complex in humans than in other species. But ultimately its about survival and security as I see it. Pretty much no different than what we can observe in other animals. why doesn't animals eat their offspring? why doesn't a zebra just sacrifice their foal? or why do they even walk around in huge herds. All of this is about survival and security and each species having to trust each other to survive.
No different than it is with humans, we also look out for each other and since we do that, morality evolves as well. If we look at an early human society, it would not survive if it didn't have children. People get old and are no longer able to support the tribe, so in order to make sure that a new generation could replace them and those that died, there is a moral obligation for everyone to make sure that children survive or it will hurt themselves and those people they love.
Therefore it also becomes crucial that people within the tribe can trust each other, so while a hunter is out finding food, he need to be able to trust that his child is not eaten by the others for instance. If there was no such trust or moral standard in a tribe they would not survive.
However where I think both of them are wrong is in regards of claiming that objective morality even exist in the first place. Even if trust is needed within a tribe to survive, the morality changes based on the society. And therefore child sacrificing can over time be seen as beneficial to the tribe, if that is what they see as morally good for the groups survival.
Therefore the assumption that it is always wrong to kill children is false as I see it, but solely depend on what a specific group of humans have been convinced is morally right or wrong and therefore morality is not objective, but subjective and we judge other peoples actions based on our own moral standards.
In the coastal desert north of Lima, Peru, archaeologists have uncovered the skeletal remains of 227 children seemingly slain and buried hundreds of years ago in a massive ritual sacrifice. According to researchers who have been excavating the site for more than a year, this find represents the single largest child burial site on Earth, and the bodies discovered so far may just be the tip of the proverbial blade.
This is a passage from the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari (Can highly recommend it). I have to translate it from Danish, so will probably contain a few errors:
The Aché people, that were hunter and gatherers and lived in the jungle of Paraguay until 1960, give a more sinister view of these types of societies. When a highly esteemed member of the tribe died, the Aché would kill a little girl and bury them together.... When an old aché-women became a burden for the rest of the tribe, one of the younger men would sneak up behind her and kill her with a blow to the head with an axe. One of the aché-men told the anthropologists about his life in the jungle. >>I often killed old women, I killed my aunts... the women were afraid of me... Now, when the white have come, I have become weak.<< Infants born without hair were considered underdeveloped and killed on the spot. A women explained that her first girl were killed, because the men in the tribe didn't want any more girls. At another occasion a man killed a little boy, because he were in a bad mood and the boy was crying. Another child was buried alive because it looked funny while the other kids laughed at it.
One have to be careful judging the aché to fast. The anthropologists that lived with them for years, tells that violence between adults were very rare. Both male and female could freely change their partner. They always smiled and laughed and didn't have any hierarchy with leaders and dominating figures. They were extremely generous with the few items they owned and the thought of riches and succes of no importance. What they valued most of all, were good social relationships and close friendships. Their view on killing children, old people and the sick were a lot like we view abortion and euthanasia today. Besides that, the aché were hunted and killed by relentless farmers from Paraguay. The need to flee from their enemies have most likely caused them to develop a very uncommon view on anyone that could be considered a burden for the tribe...
Now is what these people were doing morally wrong? In our eyes the answer is most likely, yes. But apparently not in their eyes. So if objective morality exists and comes from God, how does one explain these peoples morality?
Last edited:
I refuse to support him, mostly. Or get as far away from him as I can. Or try to encourage those around me to refuse him support.
It is not really a matter of religion - because those are not religious beliefs, much as afterlife beliefs aren't really religious either - as of ethics proper.
Testarossa
New Member
Of course not.
And I can just as easily say to you that if you are going to claim that morals and ethics are completely disconnected from the commandments of God, then I have no clue what you mean by those words, but it's clear what we both mean when we use these words: by "good" I mean that which reflects the nature of God and by "evil" that which is unlike it. These criteria have nothing inherently to do with human well-being but nevertheless often lead to the promotion of it. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Of course I care, but that doesn't mean those things actually matter; they don't in a naturalistic universe.
Just the one?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The above post was written to another member.
Reading the above, I thought of the Laws of Moses.
I put it to you that none, not one of the laws of Moses was anything to do with the word 'moral'. There are 613 laws shown in the KJV bible and if the laws about ceremony and sacrifice are separated out then 507 laws remain.
These laws were intended to produce a strong, healthy, powerful and cohesive force of invincible people, and the people who kept these laws were righteous, lawful, loyal and brave. There is no place for the word moral in that description.
The very word is a pretentious posturing hypocrisy. Look at Deuteronomy 22:8 for example. In order to prtect from injuries and lost lives within the people due to falling from heights, all roofs (they were all flat) were required to be fitted with parapets, just as our bye-laws require today if work is being carried out upon flat roofs. A person who kept this law was not 'moral', they were law-abiding!
With that in mind, could you offer any condition, characteristic, action etc which you would describe as 'moral'? Let's see what you offer.
I just don't know how you people find it in yourselves to watch videos this long to listen to so much Craig.
Did any of you find a transcription? @Sunstone seems to think that there is a point to learn what he is saying and, particularly, what Sam Harris says in response, so I will read it if it is available.
Did any of you find a transcription? @Sunstone seems to think that there is a point to learn what he is saying and, particularly, what Sam Harris says in response, so I will read it if it is available.
First I consider the above description of Craig's use of "objective" incomplete.I do not consider Craig's definition and use of "objective" by Craig adequate in any context. It has a narrow context based on his religious agenda. I understand Craig's use goes beyond the above description. Yes, "objective" is independent of our opinion, but a word of caution on what is valid and binding, and Craig's basis for the necessity of an independent "objective" 'Source' for morals and ethics beyond natural biologic processes..
He fails to comprehend that the scientific view of the origin of morals and ethics from evolution as biologic processes is also "objective" in that it is independent of our opinion, and also based on objective verifiable scientific evidence.
Morals and ethics of societies, cultures, and all of humanity is indeed independent of the individual opinions and choices to comply with the morals and ethics of individual societies and cultures. It is the society and culture that determines the morals and ethics, that people 'ought to' comply with, that dominate that society and culture not individuals There is a diversity of systems of morals and ethics in the world and throughout history, but there is a consistent pattern based on the needs of cooperative human family and community to survive.The evidence demonstrates that morals and ethics have evolved in humanity from the beginnings of family and community, such as the migratory group, to the tribe, to kingdom, to the nation, to a system of morals and ethics that address the needs of a world community.
This "objective" nature extends to the nature of science where science is independent of 'opinions,' religious beliefs, or the diverse of societies and cultures.
Last edited:
Please don't get me wrong, Luis. It was not a very good debate. Not at all a very good debate. Hardly worth my time. I studied it only on a whim.
For instance, Harris muffed up the presentation of his views and Craig glossed over the single most important and crucial premise of his views (possibly because he did not want to confuse the audience -- most of whom probably would not have easily understood it). So basically, both Craig and Harris have a lot to be embarrassed about here. This is probably a debate Craig will forget and Harris will wish he could forget.
It seems to me that an implication of what you are saying is this: There is no point to reasoning about morality or moral questions and instead the world should cut to the chase -- which is to threaten, frighten, and force people to be moral.
Quite an impressive tour de force of irrelevancy, confusion, and misunderstanding you have there. Bravo!
At present all I can conclude here is a total failure to respond with some blue smoke and mirrors thrown in sprinkled with meaningless sarcasm..
I did not point out in detail how off the mark is your criticism of Craig's definition of objectivity because I am powerless to talk you out of the confusion you have talked yourself into. Only you can clean up your act, I cannot do it for you.
At present all I can conclude here is a total failure to respond with some blue smoke and mirrors thrown in sprinkled with meaningless sarcasm..
You are neglecting the underlying motive for the concept of Craig and other Christian apologists is that God is the 'objective' source of everything as being outside human knowledge and of course 'opinions.' The only reliable record and knowledge of this 'objective' source is the Bible.
Last edited:
How can the basis of morality be anything other than subjective? My moral values are based on what feels right to me, as are yours, even if you submit to some prefabricated moral code that somebody is saying has objective existence. If that is the path one takes, it is based on a subjective judgment, not the observation of any objectively existing moral code the way we observe the sun and stars.
How is that a caricature? It's only a partial description of the god of the Christian Bible, but it is accurate as far as it goes. The god of that holy book is grossly immoral. And trying to find ways to justify the immorality of that character deforms the morals of the believer. Here's an example of Craig himself justifying genocide because it came from his god:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged?" - William Lane Craig
See? God is good. When he orders the destruction of an entire people, it must be good. They must have been corrupt. And even the murdering of their children is good to him, because they will go to heaven.
I saw it the other way around. Here's Harris crushing and embarrassing Craig in that debate ( transcript source):
“Please notice the double standard that people like Dr. Craig use to exonerate God from all this evil. We’re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we’re told that God is mysterious. “Who can understand God’s will?”
“And yet, this is precisely - this “merely human” understanding of God’s will - is precisely what believers use to establish his goodness in the first place. Something good happens to a Christian - he feels some bliss while praying, say, or he sees some positive change in his life - and we’re told that God is good. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents’ arms and drowned, we’re told that God is mysterious. This is how you play tennis without the net. And I want to suggest to you, that it is not only tiresome when otherwise-intelligent people speak this way, it is morally reprehensible.
“Given all the good, all that this God of yours does not accomplish in the lives of others, given - given the misery that’s being imposed on some helpless child at this instant - this kind of faith is obscene. To think in this way is to fail to reason honestly, or to care sufficiently about the suffering of other human beings." - Sam Harris
Would you care to rebut this argument - if we are expected to judge this god good using our human moral faculties, why is it off limits to deem this god cruel, ? Why is that god called moral? And why is such a judgment not just as subjective as all other moral proclamations?
"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
I find that judgment valid. What objective morals can you or anybody else produce to contradict that? None. It's all just opinion.
The problem with this is that morals and ethics are not based on an individual's morals and ethics, or their choices. Morals and ethics are based on the society's, culture's of religion's standards of morality and ethics. There are both objective and subjective attributes in codes of morals and ethics. The objective nature of morals and ethics is objective verifiable evidence of the evolved nature of morals and ethics in humanity, our ancestors and other mammals with the natural biological processes with the purpose of the survival of the species.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I have my own set of morals of my own volition. I am not predisposed to accept anything. There's no driving physical force that tells me who I am.
There are universal objective morals as well as personal morals. I dare say there are levels of morality as well. The lowest level is self. Then there is selflessness. And then their is the desire for principles of virtue without the motives of gain or loss, but simply the love of virtue, which includes the self, and selfless motives, but nothing below the standards of virtue.
There are universal objective morals as well as personal morals. I dare say there are levels of morality as well. The lowest level is self. Then there is selflessness. And then their is the desire for principles of virtue without the motives of gain or loss, but simply the love of virtue, which includes the self, and selfless motives, but nothing below the standards of virtue.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The above was sent to another member.
If that is what the member was hinting at, with an intention to subject some kind of 'morality' upon the world, then 'bad luck' with that.
But there is no point in even using the word 'Moral' because it is a pretentious impost...... an 'It' word for the self righteous, maybe?
There is no action, condition, characteristic or mindset that is universally accepted as 'moral' by all...... not one. Your hero is someone else's villain. Your honour is someone else's shame. etc. And (for example) a law-abiding, honest, true and kind person is just that.... no need for that impost 'moral'.
The problem with any religious based system of morality is that it asserts that God is providing the rules. But actually, it is human interpretations of the revelation that provide the rules.
At least in the case of Christianity, there is no clear unambiguous moral teaching in the Bible.
And not all brands of Christianity think the Bible is the final source. Catholicism, for example, teaches it's the Church, not the Bible, that is the authority. And the current pope thinks he can declare exceptions to established Catholic teaching.
In other words, it is always humans who determine morality based on whatever philosophical framework they deem proper.