• 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

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@usfan I’m still struggling to understand your reasoning. What it looks like to me now is saying that all people have a kind of intuition about some kinds of behavior to practice and some kinds to avoid, which we sometimes codify into laws and rules of conduct. Even though there are disagreements about the details, there’s enough agreement on some points to consider that intuition as a response to some kind of reality, and not entirely generated by each person in pursuit of private interests. Just like our physical senses. As much as we might disagree about details in the world around us, there’s enough agreement on some points to consider those senses as communicating something about some reality. In fact, that might be where the idea of “reality” comes from in the first place: nearly universal agreement on some things that we experience and observe.

It seems to me that that the senses of sight and hearing, and what we see and hear, are as real and as common to all people, as what you’re calling “morality.” I don’t see how that forces a conclusion that there’s some kind of being that “embedded” them in us.

Maybe you’re thinking that humans having that intuition serves a purpose that can’t be denied, and because we are born with it, can only be explained as being put there by some being or being with a purpose. If that’s what you’re thinking, then it looks to me like a variation on intelligent design. Good luck with that. :)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is irrelevant. Whether a moral dilemma is or can take place does not change the instinctive behavior.

Whether something is 'praiseworthy!', or not, is a moral judgment.
Yes of course it is ─ that's the entire point. Some of our instinctive behaviors involve and/or attract moral judgments and some don't. They're not the two different worlds that your argument urges. They overlap all the time.

But since we seem to be agreeing on that now, let's move on.

You say God is the source of morality. You say our sense of morality implies the existence of God.

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say 'God', and why should anyone think 'God' is the source of morality when the origins of morality are already much examined and well explained without reference to 'God'?
 
Why are sociopaths considered an aberration in humanity? Most of them were raised 'moral,' but chose to 'switch off' that part of their psyche, or some other psychobabble theory. Why would there be any morality in humans, if it is not there inherently?

There is 'morality' in other primate groups as it is necessary to negotiate coalitions which are needed for survival.

People like to pretend that the violent part of our nature represents an 'inhumanity' as it is not ideologically convenient for them to accept the violent parts of our nature as being equally 'human' as the good parts.

A male lion will kill cubs, if he can, with no consequence. Theft is a common virtue, in the animal kingdom. How are these human moral platitudes different, from the rest of the animal world, if they are just instinctive? Or, why should we submit to moralizing platitudes from manipulators, and follow their constructs?

Human instincts are more complex, and differ greatly between in group and out group. Group membership is a necessity for survival, and acting against group interests can get you expelled from the group which may prove fatal.

Humans are left in the position that group morality helps them, but that getting away with circumventing group morality may also help them.

Humans have morality because they need to, but it is a complex system of dynamic interactions that can't be reduced or isolated to individual variables.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
@usfan I’m still struggling to understand your reasoning. What it looks like to me now is saying that all people have a kind of intuition about some kinds of behavior to practice and some kinds to avoid, which we sometimes codify into laws and rules of conduct. Even though there are disagreements about the details, there’s enough agreement on some points to consider that intuition as a response to some kind of reality, and not entirely generated by each person in pursuit of private interests. Just like our physical senses. As much as we might disagree about details in the world around us, there’s enough agreement on some points to consider those senses as communicating something about some reality. In fact, that might be where the idea of “reality” comes from in the first place: nearly universal agreement on some things that we experience and observe.

It seems to me that that the senses of sight and hearing, and what we see and hear, are as real and as common to all people, as what you’re calling “morality.” I don’t see how that forces a conclusion that there’s some kind of being that “embedded” them in us.

Maybe you’re thinking that humans having that intuition serves a purpose that can’t be denied, and because we are born with it, can only be explained as being put there by some being or being with a purpose. If that’s what you’re thinking, then it looks to me like a variation on intelligent design. Good luck with that. :)
This is a logical progression, based on an assumption. There are 2 possible universes:

A God made one
A godless one

I am examining the philosophical implications in both. I am not demanding that you live in one or the other, nor am i critiquing anyone's personal beliefs.

I am asking for people to consider the logical implications of each assumption.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

The argument,

Atheists have morals.
Atheists don't believe in God.
Therefore morality cannot come from God!

..is not a rational progression, but a non sequitur. It does not address the source of morality, but only asserts it with no basis, based only on the BELIEFS of atheists.

I submit that humans are easily deceived, in a godless universe, since all theists are deluded into believing in God.

Since we assume the reality of a godless universe, delusion is the only explanation for this widespread belief.

Morality, too, is just a human construct for manipulation and control, and is also a delusion.. in a godless universe.

The conclusion, and most likely explanation is that since humans are so easily deluded, and that since atheists are (presumably! ) human, they share that same propensity for delusion. THAT is the reason some assert dogmatically, 'Atheists are moral too! We're even more moral than religious people!!'

Now if i can got you to transport to a parallel universe.. one that is God made.. we can examine the logical possibilities of morality there, as well.

IF.. God embedded morality in humans, then it is a Real Thing, and not a delusion. That explains the source of morality.

IF.. God did not embed morality, then we still have deluded humans, pretending artificial platitudes are inherent in everyone, guiding their moral choices.

But the ONLY source of morality, as a Real Thing, is an embedding God. Nature can only promote instincts, which are not morals, are often contrary, and express themselves differently.

Thought and Reason, is the foundation of morality, not animal instinct.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
when the origins of morality are already much examined and well explained without reference to 'God'?
..but this has not happened. You merely assert the condition of morality as an evolved trait. You do not show how or why 'evolution!' would choose to arbitrarily embed moral absolutes, in an amoral universe.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
There is 'morality' in other primate groups as it is necessary to negotiate coalitions which are needed for survival.
No, there is only instinct. No reasoning or moral dilemmas are wrestled with in the animal kingdom. That is an exclusively human trait, in spite of anthropomorphic projection.

Merely redefining instinct as morality does not address the issue. They are different, often conflict, and overlap, at times, but morality is unique to humanity.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Humans have morality because they need to,
Why? No other animal species needs morality. They work fine with instinct. Why saddle humans with artificial, manipulative burdens for behavior that animals lack? Why not just follow our instincts, and reject all that manipulative mumbo jumbo?

People also believe in God, because they 'need' to, or so the argument goes, if this is a godless universe.

So it is more likely that they do not 'have' morality, but just believe it, as a typical human delusion.
 
Merely redefining instinct as morality does not address the issue. They are different, often conflict, and overlap, at times, but morality is unique to humanity.

I disagree. It's an artificial distinction to see 'morality' as something apart from other aspects of social interaction that are present in many social species.

Why? No other animal species needs morality. They work fine with instinct. Why saddle humans with artificial, manipulative burdens for behavior that animals lack? Why not just follow our instincts, and reject all that manipulative mumbo jumbo?

Act exactly how you like at all times and see where that gets you.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Projecting human emotion, reason, and decision making onto animals is called Anthropomorphism.

Studies that attempt to 'prove!' uniquely human attributes in animals are roundly criticised for anthropomorphic projection.

Chimps have been studied extensively, trying to prove anthropomorphic qualities, when there are other, more reasonable explanations, than 'human like!' projection.

The attempt, here, is to blur the distinction between morality and instinct. But instinct is not morality. There are no 'good and bad!' judgments in instinctive behavior.

Animals might SEEM to exhibit human qualities, but that is merely projection.. anthropomorphic projection.. YouTube videos, showing animals exhibiting human behaviour, are just tricks, trained by conditioned response. Talking animals, oozing human emotion and moral conflict, are Disney films, not biological reality.

There is no 'justice', or 'morality', in any animal society. There is jungle law. Might makes right. There are thousands of studies of animal societies, and any 'human like!' behavior is projected. There is no moralizing taking place, or abstract reasoning.

But in the Brave New World of Progressive mandates, real science must take a back seat to religious belief, and fantasy as reality. Here, animals talk and are just like people. You pick your own identity, regardless of your born biology.

'Morality', if it is real in humans, is not the same as animal instinct, no matter how hard we try to project it upon them. Only humans have this abstract sense of morality. The question is,

Is it real, or imagined?

If this is a godless universe, it can only be another typical human delusion.
If this is a God made universe, it could be embedded by God, for His purposes.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
I disagree. It's an artificial distinction to see 'morality' as something apart from other aspects of social interaction that are present in many social species.
You merely equate morality and instinct, when they are 2 distinct mechanisms in the human psyche.

Or, you anthropomorphize, projecting human morality, reason, and moral dilemmas onto animals, when no such wrestling is taking place.
Act exactly how you like at all times and see where that gets you.
In a godless universe, you get backlash from moralizing, arbitrary values from controlling manipulators.
If morality is God embedded, you have your own conscience to arbitrate right and wrong, independent of corroboration from the collective.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
To claim that God "imbedded morality" is absurd. Many moral people are not Christians.
That is a non sequitur.

If God embedded morality, it will be there, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

If God did not embed morality, then it is a human construct, for manipulation. Beliefs are irrelevant in that universe, as well.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
That is a non sequitur.

If God embedded morality, it will be there, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

If God did not embed morality, then it is a human construct, for manipulation. Beliefs are irrelevant in that universe, as well.

I take it that you believe Adam and Eve literally. How do you account for all the terrible murders,slaughters and burnings carried out by Christians. Did God imbed the slaughter of the Canaanites, Cathars, Templars and maiden Joan of Arc. Was slavery also "imbedded " morality?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Back to the Jefferson quote:
*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*
This is about natural law, not specifically, morality. But they derive from the same source, and Natural Law is based on the universal sense of a common moral code.
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.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
..but this Edithas not happened. You merely assert the condition of morality as an evolved trait. You do not show how or why 'evolution!' would choose to arbitrarily embed moral absolutes, in an amoral universe.
Of course I did. I gave you more than enough information at all times, and as to how evolution works, I gave you a reason why each of the evolved moral tendencies that all humans have, exist because they're functional ─ and NOT because someone had arbitrarily invented them, as you've suggested. Where? Most specifically in #75.

It would be nice if you read my posts in order to understand them and not merely to work out how to reject them, though I freely acknowledge that's a matter for you.

And it would be nice if you didn't use your "You merely assert" refrain (yet again above) when you know, because I've told you repeatedly, that what I say is from scientific enquiries into these questions. But that too is a matter for you.

Now, back to where we were:

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say 'God'?

And what is your evidence, your demonstration, that 'God' is the source of human morality?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
I take it that you believe Adam and Eve literally. How do you account for all the terrible murders,slaughters and burnings carried out by Christians. Did God imbed the slaughter of the Canaanites, Cathars, Templars and maiden Joan of Arc. Was slavery also "imbedded " morality?
:facepalm:
Ok, you got to pitch some anti-christian propaganda.. feel better?

This is completely irrelevant to the topic. A specific religious belief is not the issue, just the implications about morality, in a godless vs a God made universe.

Why can't progressives follow simple reasoning? Why must every topic be a springboard for their anti-christian hostility?
/shakes head/
 
Top