Instinct, Morality, and Law

[Left Coast]

1. Real, as opposed to a delusion.

Real how? Real the way an elevator is real, ie a physical object? Then no, no morality secular or theistic is "real." Rules/principles are abstract. Their effects are real though.

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.

Morality is more than "felt," it is reasoned. It is reasoned by observing its effects to determine if it provides the outcome desired.

3. If it is not 'real', then morality can only be a human construct for manipulation, i.e., a delusion.

False. Manipulation is not the only result of human invention.

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.

Its source is us. I've explained this repeatedly now. Claiming it comes from a God makes it no more or less "real."

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You've made many assertions.

The existence of sociopathy puts a crimp in your argument that morality is embedded within us by god(s), rather than demonstrating that all humans have been embedded with some kind of universal morality.

I don't see how you've shown that if morality is man made then it must be a delusion. There are actual real world consequences to actions we carry out, based on moral decisions we've made.

 

[Jim]

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.

We all can agree that fire is hot and ice is cold, just by holding our hands near the fire and touching the ice, but for some finer distinctions we use standards of measurement and measuring instruments. I think of morality the in same way. There is near universal agreement on the rightness and wrongness of a few things, but for some finer distinctions we need standards of measuring and measuring instruments, which we call “laws” and “institutions,” I think that the best laws and institutions at any time are the ones most recently prescribed by a kind of person that the Bible calls “prophet.”

 

[blü 2]

What research?

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?

Okay, here's the proposition.

I'll give you a summary of a repeatable experiment already in the scientific literature showing moral tendencies such as I've mentioned, in little kids. (I've already done this elsewhere here on RF a couple of times here but I can repeat.)

Then you'll give me a summary of a repeatable experiment already in the scientific literature showing that a real being which you call God exists, and is capable of influencing reality, and is the source of human morality whether in people who are [his] followers or anyone else.

Deal?

 

[Thief]

Why would there be regret, for acting on instinct?

there's not a lot of thought with instinct

on rare occasion it plays out well enough

but most of the time the consequences set in motion go astray

it may have felt right when you did it
but then later
you regret

 

[usfan]

Its source is us. I've explained this repeatedly now. Claiming it comes from a God makes it no more or less "real."

If humans invent some arbitrary code, and threaten people with hell or physical punishment for not keeping it, then it is a contrived human construct. It is not a 'Real Thing,' but a fabrication. But, if a Supreme Being EMBEDDED these values in people, then it is real, not an artificial construct. We intuitively 'feel' an obligation to follow our conscience.

Morality is more than "felt," it is reasoned.

I can see you feel strongly about this.

I don't see how you've shown that if morality is man made then it must be a delusion.

then no point in repeating myself.

There is near universal agreement on the rightness and wrongness of a few things

Agreed. This is an indicator of universal morality in humans.

you'll give me a summary of a repeatable experiment already in the scientific literature showing that a real being which you call God exists,

We're talking about the source and nature of morality, and you want me to prove God by some study?

it may have felt right when you did it
but then later
you regret

..which reveals a sting of conscience. Acting instinctively can bring awareness of moral violations. You steal something.. lie casually.. immoral sex.. we seem to have a built in moral compass, that guides our choices.

There are 2 basic questions, concerning morality:

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

IF.. this moral sense is Real, Something or Someone had to put it there.
IF.. it is a contrived human construct, for some controlling agenda, then it is NOT real, but a delusion.

Observation, reason, and the human consensus tells me it is real, not contrived by man. So, where did it come from?

 

[usfan]

If all 'morality!' is just subjective preference, then it is the same as arbitrary morality. You pick and choose what you like, and nobody can fault you for your choices.

'I prefer blue, and not adultery.'
'I don't like murder, but i like jambalaya!'

Nobody has a 'standard', as anything goes. Gandhi, Hitler, you or me can just contrive whatever values we prefer, and nobody can dispute them.

Moral relativity is the same as no morality at all.

 

[usfan]

This is either:
A God made universe
A godless universe

That is the dichotomy.

The IMPLICATIONS of each, regarding morality are also simple dichotomies:

Morality is EITHER,
A God embedded sense
A human construct

Those are also simple conclusions, from the premise of each assumption. They are not tautological or false dichotomies. It is not necessary to define God, other than as a Creator able to infuse a moral sense in humanity.

It is completely possible that God may exist, with no embedded morality. But then, the end result is that 'morality' still is a delusion.. a human construct, since God did not embed it.

 

[usfan]

Conscience

This is another related concept, in this discussion. What is it? Is it a Real Thing, or a human construct, imposed upon a pliable herd? Conscience is closely related to morality. It is the 'thing' within humans that reflects the inner, felt morality. It provides the 'sting' when it is violated. It could be correlated to pain, the negative feedback our body gives when we do something injurious to ourselves. In the same way, conscience provides negative feedback when we injure it by violating it's sensitivity.

As usual, I'll give a dictionary definition, in the context of this thread.

Conscience: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

All of the terms used in these definitions are steeped in moralizing undertones. 'Sense', 'moral goodness', 'do right', etc, ALL reflect the underlying assumption of common knowledge of these things. 'Good' carries a moral judgement, as well as 'bad'. Nobody is confused, or thinks that murder, theft, lying, etc are 'good!', and bravery, honesty, and altruistic acts are 'bad!'

So there is a common base of communication, even crossing language, culture, race, and time. You can ask anyone, in any culture, era, or region, to list 'good & bad!' things, and they will very nearly correlate. There may be a few specifics, or arbitrary cultural mores that vary, but the core elements of morality are consistent and constant, throughout the human experience.

An Indian might have, 'eaten by tiger' as bad, while a pacific islander might use shark. But the basics, murder, theft, assault, fraud, lying; are universally held in disdain by the human collective. I know of no culture or society where these things are esteemed as virtues.

On the 'good' side, bravery, hard work, altruistic acts, kindness, honesty, helping in time of need, and personal responsibility are universally esteemed and held as virtuous, among human beings.

I haven't had many quotes in this thread, but i will rectify that immediately.

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ~Martin Luther King Jr

Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. ~Carl Gustav Jung

The only tyrant I accept in this world is the 'still small voice' within me. And even though I have to face the prospect of being a minority of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless minority. ~Mahatma Gandhi

The torture of a bad conscience is the hell of a living soul. ~John Calvin

It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience. ~Martin Luther

A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory. ~Mark Twain

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question, “Is it right?”... The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of convenience, but where he stands in moments of challenge, moments of great crisis and controversy. ~Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[blü 2]

We're talking about the source and nature of morality, and you want me to prove God by some study?

You're the one saying God is the source of human morality. First define a real God and demonstrate [his] existence, then demonstrate [he]'s the source of human morality.

As you saw, I've offered to demonstrate my case in real terms. If you're right, if God isn't imaginary, what's the problem?

 

[usfan]

You're the one saying God is the source of human morality. First define a real God and demonstrate [his] existence, then demonstrate [he]'s the source of human morality.

As you saw, I've offered to demonstrate my case in real terms. If you're right, if God isn't imaginary, what's the problem?

No problem. There is no God, and morality is a human construct. I get that. That is a consistent, logical conclusion.

But why do some atheists righteously assert their own superior morality, if it is a human fabrication in a godless universe? How can any moral preference be better or worse than another's?

 

[Thief]

So, where did it come from?

morality?
or instinct?

I would venture.....God installed instinct
reflex
fear
these and other functions would help keep the body up and in one piece

morality is likely to have been the result of grief

humans strive against each other
someone gets hurt
someone dies
the pain and suffering....and the dying
lead people to seek remedy

language takes over
law is written

the difficult part is getting everyone to understand
that you have suffered
the law might force restraint

you can't go around venting your revenge......even if it seems the thing to do

 

[blü 2]

No problem. There is no God, and morality is a human construct. I get that. That is a consistent, logical conclusion.

If morality is correctly called a construct, I'd say morality was an evolutionary construct with a human overlay.

But why do some atheists righteously assert their own superior morality, if it is a human fabrication in a godless universe? How can any moral preference be better or worse than another's?

Because it's based on our evolved moral tendencies, the ones I listed in my first post here, the ones that are demonstrated by the repeatable experiments I've referred to.

As I also said, we get the rest of our morality from our upbringing, culture, education and experience, from our mirror neurons which allow us to see the world through another's eyes, and from our conscience, our evolved sense that some of the rules of behavior we feel are right, have universal application, not just our opinion ─ even though it will be rare for any two people to share the same list of such rules.

 

[Jim]

@usfan I might not have made it clear enough that thinking of the world as being created by God is strictly metaphorical for me. I’m not saying anything about whether or not there actually is such a being, and I reject and denounce all efforts to prove that there is, as part of the smoke, dust and mirrors hiding the light of God from people, and even repelling them away from it.

 

[Left Coast]

If humans invent some arbitrary code, and threaten people with hell or physical punishment for not keeping it, then it is a contrived human construct. It is not a 'Real Thing,' but a fabrication.

Also known as an invention, or tool. Like the computer you're using right now. Or the language we're communicating in. Complete fabrications by human beings. But that doesn't make them any less useful or valuable, or change our reasons for using them.

But, if a Supreme Being EMBEDDED these values in people, then it is real, not an artificial construct.

False, again. The fact that a non-human imposes the moral code makes it no more or less "real." It is still arbitrary, just arbitrarily imposed by something non-human. We are still left asking how that non-human source came up with that code and why we should care.

We intuitively 'feel' an obligation to follow our conscience.

That's true, but our moral intuitions are consistently rooted in things that have survival value for us as social animals. Which again, requires no Supreme Being. Nor would them being implanted in our brains by a Supreme Being give us any more reason to care about them.

I can see you feel strongly about this.

I can see you need to do some more reasoning about this.

 

[usfan]

@usfan I might not have made it clear enough that thinking of the world as being created by God is strictly metaphorical for me. I’m not saying anything about whether or not there actually is such a being, and I reject and denounce all efforts to prove that there is, as part of the smoke, dust and mirrors hiding the light of God from people, and even repelling them away from it.

No problem. This is not really about beliefs, but the logical conclusions that derive from the beliefs, especially regarding morality.

What people specifically believe isn't the subject, but the philosophical nuances of these concepts.

Following the reasoning , not declaring beliefs, is the goal, here. It seemed to me that was what you did.

Why do people 'feel' morality, or a conscience? Where does this come from?

There are 3 basic possibilities:

1. God did it
2. Evolution did it
3. It's not real, but a delusion.

I see no logical (or scientific) reasons to equate morality with instinct. They conflict too much, in the human animal, and seem to be separate things, operating within the human.

So the Big Questions, regarding morality are:

• Is it real, or contrived?

• If real, where did it come from? How and why is it there?

 

[usfan]

Instinct:
*a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Instinct is not a moral choice, guided by a conscience or some inner 'sense' of morality. It is a reflex.. a response to something that requires no cognitive action.

To equate morality (or conscience) as instinct destroys both terms, and leaves us in an undefined muddle of Orwellian relativity.

Rights are either,
1. Granted, by a human authority
2. Inherent, by God, e.g., Natural Law

Inherent morality is the BASIS for human rights in western civilization.

Murder, an 'immoral' act, provides the basis for right to life. If murder is not immoral, then there is no inherent right to life.

Morality is logical because of the commonality of human conscience. We all feel this inner 'sense' that murder, theft, fraud, assault, etc, are 'wrong!', so we can nod together in consensive unison when a moral appeal is made.

In a godless universe, no such consensus exists. Morals are human constructs, to manipulate people. What you 'feel' is wrong, another can assert as right, and there is nothing objective or absolute to arbitrate between the assertions. Human power is the only absolute, and that depends on the beliefs (or decrees) of those in power.

For example, Stalin and the Russian regime decided it was 'good' to eradicate certain people, who did not meet the standards of the 'New Soviet Man.' Those eradicated felt that was 'bad', no doubt. But with no human authority powerful enough to dispute Stalin's decrees, his definition of 'good' prevailed. Only if you premise a Higher Authority, Who endowed Natural Rights in humanity, can you judge Stalin as 'wrong'. Over 10 million people were 'cleansed' by Stalin, for the good of the collective. Other communists in the last century also eliminated undesirables in their goal of 'evolving' the New Man!', who would meet their social engineering ideals.

So, the 'moral sense' of murder being 'wrong!', depends on the ideological basis. The godless universe of Stalin and other social engineers can justify murder as 'good!', for the higher goal of an evolved society. But the Natural Law basis of western civilization says that murder is wrong, since humans are equally Created by God. Genocide and ideological purging is viewed as 'evil!', in such a worldview, not 'good!', as it is in the collectivist, social engineering worldview.

 

[Jim]

So the Big Questions, regarding morality are:

• Is it real, or contrived?

• If real, where did it come from? How and why is it there?

I want to say what I think about the second question. I think that the purpose of the laws and prescriptions given by some prophets is to help bring out the best possibilities in life, for all people.

 

[Jim]

Why do people 'feel' morality, or a conscience? Where does this come from?

There are 3 basic possibilities:

1. God did it
2. Evolution did it
3. It's not real, but a delusion.

I see no logical (or scientific) reasons to equate morality with instinct. They conflict too much, in the human animal, and seem to be separate things, operating within the human.

So the Big Questions, regarding morality are:

• Is it real, or contrived?

• If real, where did it come from? How and why is it there?

I think that some laws and rules of conduct are better than others, for bringing out the best possibilities in life for all people. I think that the best laws and rules of conduct for that purpose are the ones most recently prescribed by some people like the ones that are called “prophets” in the Bible. I think that there’s a kind of intuition about that which is part of human nature, which can help us recognize the best laws and rules of conduct, but I don’t think that intuition by itself tells us precisely what all the best laws and rules are. That intuition might have some influence sometimes on the laws and codes of conduct that people invent, besides the ones prescribed by those prophets. In metaphorical terms, I can see that it might make some kind of sense to say that our intuition about that is “embedded” in us by God.

 

[blü 2]

Why do people 'feel' morality, or a conscience? Where does this come from?

There are 3 basic possibilities:

1. God did it
2. Evolution did it
3. It's not real, but a delusion.

I see no logical (or scientific) reasons to equate morality with instinct. They conflict too much, in the human animal, and seem to be separate things, operating within the human.

So the Big Questions, regarding morality are:

Is it real, or contrived?

If real, where did it come from? How and why is it there?​

​

Dear oh dear, do I have to tell you all over again that these matters have been investigated and the answers I've mentioned to you have been demonstrated by repeatable experiment?