• 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!

Instinct, Morality, and Law

Thief

Rogue Theologian
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.



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.



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 need to do some more reasoning about this. ;)
and I reason.....
too many copies of a learning device for all of this to be an accident

and the copies have been informed.....by Something Greater
to anticipate further interaction

nothing Greater that you?

I see you need to reason more about this
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
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?
and no repeatable experiment will disprove God

oh deary dear
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
and no repeatable experiment will disprove God

oh deary dear
A repeatable experiment would require a meaningful definition of 'God' ─ but unfortunately all the definitions I have so far only work for imaginary gods.

Perhaps you can provide me with a definition that works for a real god? One that will let me tell whether any real being, thing or phenomenon is God or not?

If so, I'd be delighted to hear it.

If not, well, that would support the view that God is indeed imaginary. Deary me!
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
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?
Yes, keep reasserting your beliefs. Arguments, facts, and reason are highly overrated in a debate forum.. :rolleyes:

Rebuttal? None.
Allusions of some secret knowledge that illuminate your brilliance? Check.
Facts? None.

I've provided reason, arguments, quotes, and what facts there are, concerning this abstract concept we call 'morality.' You can dismiss it all, if you choose, and cling to your unevidenced beliefs.. but this is hardly a debate.
 
Last edited:

usfan

Well-Known Member
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.
I've highlighted some of your moralizing.. the assumption of a common human appeal.. about morality.

You have this 'sense' with no prophet's influence. You judge 'good, better, best' intuitively, and make no appeals to religious texts.

I conclude that this is an inner 'sense', apart from human indoctrination and manipulation. That factor is there, in some things, but it will often go against the inner 'felt' morality in us, as Hitler and Stalin illustrated.

Thanks for the civil discussion, @Jim ..i haven't gotten that much here. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

usfan

Well-Known Member
The basic question is this:

Is morality a Real Thing, or a human construct?

IF.. it is Something there, intuitively, WHERE did it come from? Why? How?

in a godless universe, morality can ONLY be a human construct.. a contrivance for some human agenda. Whether it enhances survivability or not does not change the source. It is still a delusion for human manipulation.

If natural selection 'selected' this human construct, evidence would need to be shown that it actually does enhance survival, not just that it is plausible. Speculation that something might have happened is not evidence that it did. Cause and effect would need to be demonstrated to validate this as a theory.

The historical human consensus is that God, or some unseen Higher Power EMBEDDED, or instilled this moral 'sense' in all humanity. That is the only source of morality, as a Real Thing. That is also why the older philosophers equated a-theist with a-moral, as there is no basis for morality in a godless universe.

So, an atheist who claims to have, 'moral values!', presents 2 possibilities:
1. Delusion. Since, in a godless universe, any belief in God or morality is a delusion, this is a remnant of their cultural programming.
2. They instinctively follow their felt morality because it is real, embedded by God. They are mistaken about their belief in 'no God'.

That is the dilemma, for the rational atheist. They must either reject all morality as a human construct, or admit to delusion.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you can provide me with a definition that works for a real god? One that will let me tell whether any real being, thing or phenomenon is God or not?
Well, in the context of this thread, and the consensus that 'morality' is a Real Thing, and not a human construct, the implication is that if Morality is real, Something or Someone had to put it there. That is evidence for God.. but 'proving God!' is not really the purpose (or subject) of this thread.

Perhaps i could start another thread for that, if there is interest? ;)
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The basic question is this:

Is morality a Real Thing, or a human construct?

IF.. it is Something there, intuitively, WHERE did it come from? Why? How?

in a godless universe, morality can ONLY be a human construct.. a contrivance for some human agenda. Whether it enhances survivability or not does not change the source. It is still a delusion for human manipulation.

If natural selection 'selected' this human construct, evidence would need to be shown that it actually does enhance survival, not just that it is plausible. Speculation that something might have happened is not evidence that it did. Cause and effect would need to be demonstrated to validate this as a theory.

The historical human consensus is that God, or some unseen Higher Power EMBEDDED, or instilled this moral 'sense' in all humanity. That is the only source of morality, as a Real Thing. That is also why the older philosophers equated a-theist with a-moral, as there is no basis for morality in a godless universe.

So, an atheist who claims to have, 'moral values!', presents 2 possibilities:
1. Delusion. Since, in a godless universe, any belief in God or morality is a delusion, this is a remnant of their cultural programming.
2. They instinctively follow their felt morality because it is real, embedded by God. They are mistaken about their belief in 'no God'.

That is the dilemma, for the rational atheist. They must either reject all morality as a human construct, or admit to delusion.
False dichotomy.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, in the context of this thread, and the consensus that 'morality' is a Real Thing, and not a human construct, the implication is that if Morality is real,
As I said, the scientific consensus is that the basic behavioral tendencies of our morality (which I listed earlier) are evolved traits, along with our mirror neurons and conscience, and the rest of our morality comes from upbringing, culture, education and experience. I was sort of hoping that might have sunk in by now ...
Something or Someone had to put it there.
Evolution (for the main part) and upbringing (&c ) for the rest may, I should think, be regarded as something, since they're not nothing.
That is evidence for God.
But that's where we were ─ what real thing do you intend to denote when you say 'God', and why would our evolved and acquired tendencies of moral behavior need to be sourced to 'God' at all?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Evolution (for the main part) and upbringing (&c ) for the rest may, I should think, be regarded as something, since they're not nothing.
And, like i said, which also should be obvious:

IF.. natural selection 'selects' certain traits, it does not explain the origin. These artificial, man made 'values' are human constructs.. that is the only explanation of their origin, since, in a godless universe there is Nobody to instill them.

And, these man made constructs can only be called delusions, in a godless universe, since they are presented by a human controller, for a human agenda. That they allegedly improve survivability (an unbased assumption), is incidental, and does not change their source.

Human construct.
Embedded by God.

Those are the only logical possibilities for morality.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Natural Law

This is perhaps the Central Theme of the Enlightenment. Man is endowed with Rights, inherently, not granted by human power.

it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Life, Liberty, and Property. These are the Basic Rights of Man, summarized by the Enlightenment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.. ~Thomas Jefferson

Natural law is the basis for almost all human rights declarations, since the 18th century. From wiki:

..natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948..)of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the European Union.

It is the basis for almost all perceptions of human rights, in contemporary culture. It is not always credited with the ASSUMPTION of human rights, but it is always there.

Again from wiki:
Natural law (Latin: ius natural, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to natural law are also found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas
.

Natural law is an extrapolation of universal morality:

IF... God or some Creative Power has imbued morality into mankind, as evidenced by the universal acceptance of conscience, THEN.. it follows that this same endowment would include rights, as well as obligations. If murder is 'wrong', then each person has a 'right' to life. If property is a 'right', then theft is 'wrong!'. Morality and natural law are 2 sides of the same coin.

But both morality and natural law are contingent on an Embuing Power. A godless universe has no such power, but only human law and animal instinct. Morality and natural law are human constructs, for manipulation, in a godless universe.

In a godless universe, there is nothing inherently 'wrong!' about murder, or theft, or exploiting anyone.. there are only human laws for those things, passed to manipulate people.

Theft, murder, rape, and exploitation are virtues, in the natural world, and enhance survival. They are also common to man, especially in a lawless, chaotic society.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And, like i said, which also should be obvious:

IF.. natural selection 'selects' certain traits, it does not explain the origin. These artificial, man made 'values' are human constructs.. that is the only explanation of their origin, since, in a godless universe there is Nobody to instill them.
Ahm, it explains their origins very well ─ they're behavioral tendencies which favor survival and breeding. Child nurture and protection are found right across the animal kingdom, including some fish, some amphibians, many reptiles, virtually all birds, and necessarily all mammals. Dislike of the one who harms promotes majority disapproval of disorder in the group. Like of fairness and reciprocity promotes order, good relations, and cooperative action between members, as well as rewarding contributors to group welfare. Respect for authority also supports organization and cooperation; and group loyalty is basic to solidarity. Feeling good about self-denial may be one of the props of altruism.

In other words, morality is functional. It's there because it works. If it didn't aid survival and breeding then it would receive no reinforcement through better breeding results and tend to die out.
And, these man made constructs can only be called delusions, in a godless universe, since they are presented by a human controller, for a human agenda.
Nope. At no point are they designed by humans ─ they're selected for by evolution, in that they work. See above.

(The secondary aspects of morality are indeed subject to human design ─ the socially correct way to dine together, ceremonies for births, marriages, deaths, rules for excretion, gift-giving, and so on. However, although the practices vary between cultures, they tend to focus on the same areas, which may well imply some more general evolved tendencies at work.)
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Child nurture and protection are found right across the animal kingdom
..which is an instinct. This thread makes a distinction between instincts and morality. If you are correlating them, why do natural instincts and morality often clash?

Muddying the distinction between instinct and morality is a goal post fallacy, and dodges the issues.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
I'll repeat what i said earlier:

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.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
I will repost an example of the distinction between morality and instinct:

Thou shalt not steal'

Let's examine this moral imperative.

Moral value? Yes
Animal instinct? No
Human Law? Yes

This is a good example of a moral belief, that has been codefied into Law, in almost every human society. In every animal setting, theft is a virtue.. it enhances survival, and better thieves have better chances of survival.

But in humanity, this has been declared a 'sin!', or a criminal act. Religions, throughout the human experience condemn theft, and all human societies that have any law respect the basic right of property.

The Enlightenment philosophers waxed long and eloquently on the essentials of 'Natural Law', and summarized it thusly:

Right to Life
Right to Liberty
Right to Property

The BASIS for this 'moral', is that it is a God given right, to your property, and any who take what is another's is guilty of a crime.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The basic question is this:

Is morality a Real Thing, or a human construct?

IF.. it is Something there, intuitively, WHERE did it come from? Why? How?

in a godless universe, morality can ONLY be a human construct.. a contrivance for some human agenda. Whether it enhances survivability or not does not change the source. It is still a delusion for human manipulation.

If natural selection 'selected' this human construct, evidence would need to be shown that it actually does enhance survival, not just that it is plausible. Speculation that something might have happened is not evidence that it did. Cause and effect would need to be demonstrated to validate this as a theory.

The historical human consensus is that God, or some unseen Higher Power EMBEDDED, or instilled this moral 'sense' in all humanity. That is the only source of morality, as a Real Thing. That is also why the older philosophers equated a-theist with a-moral, as there is no basis for morality in a godless universe.
There’s something that’s escaping me here, but I can’t find words for it. I’ll try substituting a temperature scale and a sense of hot and cold, in the place of a moral code and a sense of morality, in what you’re saying.

Is hot and cold a Real Thing, or a human construct?
If it is something there, that we are all sensing, where did that capacity come from, to be able to sense hot and cold? Why? How?

In a godless universe, temperature can only be a human construct.. a contrivance for some human agenda. The only way that our sense of hot and cold can be a response to something real outside of us is if God, or some unseen Higher Power embedded, or instilled this sense of hot and cold in all humanity. That is the only way that temperature could be measuring something real. There is no basis for measuring temperature in a godless universe.
Would you agree with that?
So, an atheist who claims to have, 'moral values!', presents 2 possibilities:
1. Delusion. Since, in a godless universe, any belief in God or morality is a delusion, this is a remnant of their cultural programming.
2. They instinctively follow their felt morality because it is real, embedded by God. They are mistaken about their belief in 'no God'.

That is the dilemma, for the rational atheist. They must either reject all morality as a human construct, or admit to delusion.
I don’t identify as an atheist, but I don’t see those as the only possibilities for anyone, and I don’t see any dilemma for anyone, just because they reject the idea of a creator god. I don’t think that rejecting the idea of a creator god does anything to stop or prevent anyone from being just as motivated as anyone else, to practice a moral code inspired by whatever sense of morality we all have in common.

Apart from all that, part of my moral code is that I would reject any way of thinking that associates atheism with rejection of morality, as false and delusional, no matter how convincing it might look to me.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
..which is an instinct. This thread makes a distinction between instincts and morality. If you are correlating them, why do natural instincts and morality often clash?
Not all instincts are to do with morality. Some, like infant nurture, or males stepping in front of the females when someone starts shooting, or getting angry at defaulters, are instincts which have a moral aspect to them. Do you seriously say they're not instinctive? Do you seriously say they have no moral aspect?
Muddying the distinction between instinct and morality is a goal post fallacy, and dodges the issues.
No, that kind of rigid division simply doesn't work when you look at our society in action.
 
Top