Instinct, Morality, and Law

[sooda]

Back to the Jefferson quote:

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.

Well, friend.. that did not include Negroes, Indians and women. Stop pontificating and start thinking..

 

[sooda]

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/

God's universe is not so noble.... and you aren't much of a Christian is you can't think.

 

[usfan]

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

Nothing. This is a logical exercise, based on assumptions. You have to transport between these parallel universes.. one God made, the other, godless, to follow the philosophical implications of each. If you cannot, but are stuck in only one universe, i cannot help you.

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

It is the only logical extrapolation. No arguments or facts have been presented to show otherwise.. just assertions of belief:

'I BELIEVE in morality, therefore it is real!'

But in a godless universe, this is just another delusion.

 

[usfan]

God's universe is not so noble.... and you aren't much of a Christian is you can't think.

Yes, thank you for that insightful, topical post..

Stirring in some ad hom, since you won't follow the topic?

 

[Augustus]

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.

You merely rely on the imaginary idea of human exceptionalism, and an artificial distinction between human and other primate behaviour

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.

Or the cognitive functions we call 'morality' are evolutionary adaptations that help us negotiate group relations and are a product of nature and our environment.

Those moralities that best enable group success replace the less effective ones as these cultural groups are the ones that thrive.

 

[usfan]

Or the cognitive functions we call 'morality' are evolutionary adaptations that help us negotiate group relations and are a product of nature and our environment.

That still does not explain their source. How does 'evolution did it!', explain anything? How or why would an amoral, nonsentient biological process instill artificial morals in an amoral universe?

Humans could do that, and THEN you might argue that natural selection 'selected' that tendency toward manipulation as a survival trait, but that is just conjecture, not established fact, and it still leaves morality as a delusion. Human propensity for manipulation and fabrication becomes selected as a positive survival trait. That is a plausible conjecture, but lacks reasoning or evidence. And it still leaves morality as a contrivance in a godless universe.

 

[blü 2]

Nothing. This is a logical exercise, based on assumptions. You have to transport between these parallel universes.. one God made, the other, godless, to follow the philosophical implications of each. If you cannot, but are stuck in only one universe, i cannot help you.

It is the only logical extrapolation. No arguments or facts have been presented to show otherwise.. just assertions of belief:

'I BELIEVE in morality, therefore it is real!'

But in a godless universe, this is just another delusion.

You left out the part that might make your claim meaningful ─ what real thing, what thing with objective existence, do you intend to denote when you say 'God'?

 

[Augustus]

That still does not explain their source. How does 'evolution did it!', explain anything? How or why would an amoral, nonsentient biological process instill artificial morals in an amoral universe?

"Morals" are a part of a set of cognitive tools that enable us to form social groupings and thus survival. You are the one abstracting them from this into something different.

Your question would be better phrased as "why would an amoral, nonsentient biological process result in increased evolutionary fitness over time?"

Humans could do that, and THEN you might argue that natural selection 'selected' that tendency toward manipulation as a survival trait, but that is just conjecture, not established fact, and it still leaves morality as a delusion. Human propensity for manipulation and fabrication becomes selected as a positive survival trait. That is a plausible conjecture, but lacks reasoning or evidence. And it still leaves morality as a contrivance in a godless universe.

You keep on using emotionally loaded terms that oversimplify a complex, dynamic phenomenon. Why do you think something you can observe should be considered a delusion? Why do morals rely on 'manipulation' rather than a process that operates beyond the control of any individual?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence that morality is a positive survival trait. As I said, act exactly how you please at all times and see where it gets you.

 

[usfan]

You left out the part that might make your claim meaningful ─ what real thing, what thing with objective existence, do you intend to denote when you say 'God'?

Nothing. I am not defining a specific God. Everyone knows the concept of God, or a Supreme Being, or Higher Power. No specifics are needed in this hypothetical universe. We just transport in our minds to the different parallel universes.

Why do you think something you can observe should be considered a delusion?

If you can observe it, it is NOT a delusion. We may be unclear on details, but Something is there.

The issue is not what we believe, or even perceive. It is objective reality ..HYPOTHETICAL objective reality, in this case. We transport ourselves to a God made universe, and consider morality under the assumption that this Being embedded it. The, we cross dimensions in our minds, and come to a godless universe, where only naturalism/materialism is in force.

In the God made universe, where morality is embedded by God, the source is clear.

But in an amoral universe of naturalistic randomness, any belief of absolute morality can only be a delusion, with a source of human manipulators.

There can be no other source, even if you speculate that evolution selected this propensity for delusion as a survival trait, which is a very shaky hypothesis, with no evidence.

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence that morality is a positive survival trait.

No, the 'evidence' is that morality can override animal instincts. It is a civilizing trait, that is esteemed universally among humans. But whether it enhances survival, or is a delusion for fools, is dependent on actual reality.

 

[Jim]

That still does not explain their source. How does 'evolution did it!', explain anything? How or why would an amoral, nonsentient biological process instill artificial morals in an amoral universe?

Humans could do that, and THEN you might argue that natural selection 'selected' that tendency toward manipulation as a survival trait, but that is just conjecture, not established fact, and it still leaves morality as a delusion. Human propensity for manipulation and fabrication becomes selected as a positive survival trait. That is a plausible conjecture, but lacks reasoning or evidence. And it still leaves morality as a contrivance in a godless universe.

Here’s how I understand your argument at this point. A nearly universal agreement about the immorality of some things seems to indicate that our sense of morality is an inborn response to some real differences in the value or consequences of different kinds of behavior. As I understand it, you think that would be impossible if that sense were not instilled into us by a sentient being with a moral purpose. To put it another way, the only way that there could be any such thing as an objective morality corresponding to our sense of morality, and for that to be an inborn sense, would be if that sense is designed for that purpose and put into us by a sentient being.

If that’s your argument, I don’t see it as a reason for thinking that there really is any such being. I do see it as one of many reasons for including an analogy of ourselves and the world around us as being created by someone, in our ways of thinking.

 

[blü 2]

Nothing. I am not defining a specific God. Everyone knows the concept of God, or a Supreme Being, or Higher Power.

That's to say, we agree that God isn't real, but exists only as the name of a class of various concepts about 'god'.

Therefore there's no real god, no single god, no god capable of inventing morality or imposing it on humans ─ except in human imagination.

If you can observe it, it is NOT a delusion.

If we could observe God, you could show [him] to me; but you can't observe [him] any more than you can observe Donald Duck. (Though at least were we to see a real Donald Duck we'd know who it was, whereas God has no real description.)

The issue is not what we believe, or even perceive. It is objective reality ..HYPOTHETICAL objective reality

The word you're looking for is 'imaginary'.

in this case. We transport ourselves to a God made universe, and consider morality under the assumption that this Being embedded it.

But you haven't told me what this being is. How does it exist? What does it want? Why does it bother. Given it's imaginary, isn't that market already cornered, indeed saturated, for present purposes by Marvel Comics and Donald Trump?

The, we cross dimensions in our minds, and come to a godless universe, where only naturalism/materialism is in force.

Until you provide a satisfactory definition of 'God', real universes can't have one.

But in an amoral universe of naturalistic randomness, any belief of absolute morality can only be a delusion

There isn't absolute morality anywhere. If that's your test, then even by your own measure you live in a godless universe.

And your statement can only be true in your imaginary universe, since we have sufficient clear and hard evidence to say that the human moral tendencies I've listed for you are the product of evolution, whether you find that fact convenient or not.

with a source of human manipulators.

If there are humans in your imaginary universe then there'll be 'human manipulators' ─ that's just something humans and many other species tend to do.

There can be no other source, even if you speculate that evolution selected this propensity for delusion as a survival trait, which is a very shaky hypothesis, with no evidence.

Now you're just indulging sweet dreams, games of let's pretend, some might even say bulldusting, since you wish to deny the evidence for evolved morality to such an extent that you don't even dare to look at it.

 

[Left Coast]

Nothing. I am not defining a specific God. Everyone knows the concept of God, or a Supreme Being, or Higher Power. No specifics are needed in this hypothetical universe. We just transport in our minds to the different parallel universes.

If you can observe it, it is NOT a delusion. We may be unclear on details, but Something is there.

The issue is not what we believe, or even perceive. It is objective reality ..HYPOTHETICAL objective reality, in this case. We transport ourselves to a God made universe, and consider morality under the assumption that this Being embedded it. The, we cross dimensions in our minds, and come to a godless universe, where only naturalism/materialism is in force.

In the God made universe, where morality is embedded by God, the source is clear.

But in an amoral universe of naturalistic randomness, any belief of absolute morality can only be a delusion, with a source of human manipulators.

There can be no other source, even if you speculate that evolution selected this propensity for delusion as a survival trait, which is a very shaky hypothesis, with no evidence.

No, the 'evidence' is that morality can override animal instincts. It is a civilizing trait, that is esteemed universally among humans. But whether it enhances survival, or is a delusion for fools, is dependent on actual reality.

Perhaps this will help clarify - why isn't it a manipulation for God to invent a morality and then "embed" us with it?

 

[usfan]

That's to say, we agree that God isn't real, but exists only as the name of a class of various concepts about 'god'.

Therefore there's no real god, no single god, no god capable of inventing morality or imposing it on humans ─ except in human imagination.
If we could observe God, you could show [him] to me; but you can't observe [him] any more than you can observe Donald Duck. (Though at least were we to see a real Donald Duck we'd know who it was, whereas God has no real description.)
The word you're looking for is 'imaginary'.
But you haven't told me what this being is. How does it exist? What does it want? Why does it bother. Given it's imaginary, isn't that market already cornered, indeed saturated, for present purposes by Marvel Comics and Donald Trump?
Until you provide a satisfactory definition of 'God', real universes can't have one.
There isn't absolute morality anywhere. If that's your test, then even by your own measure you live in a godless universe.

And your statement can only be true in your imaginary universe, since we have sufficient clear and hard evidence to say that the human moral tendencies I've listed for you are the product of evolution, whether you find that fact convenient or not.
If there are humans in your imaginary universe then there'll be 'human manipulators' ─ that's just something humans and many other species tend to do.
Now you're just indulging sweet dreams, games of let's pretend, some might even say bulldusting, since you wish to deny the evidence for evolved morality to such an extent that you don't even dare to look at it.

..nevermind. you are stuck in a dimension, unable to extend to another. You seem to perceive every thread as a 'Proof of God!' debate. Perhaps i will accomodate you with a simpler, less abstract thread, that does not require considering other possibilities.

Would a 'Proof of God!' thread be more to your liking? You could use all those pent up talking points you seem so eager to present, and they would be topical!

 

[usfan]

Perhaps this will help clarify - why isn't it a manipulation for God to invent a morality and then "embed" us with it?

It would not be a human manipulation, but a 'guide' from the Creator, Who, presumably, would know what is best for us..

A human manipulation cannot pretend to have this omniscience, and is just another person's belief.

 

[Left Coast]

It would not be a human manipulation, but a 'guide' from the Creator, Who, presumably, would know what is best for us..

A human manipulation cannot pretend to have this omniscience, and is just another person's belief.

Ah okay, so when humans invent a morality it's a "manipulation," but when your God invents a morality, it's a "guide."

The difference you say is that God is omniscient, so therefore he knows what is "best" for us. Best how? What standard is he using?

 

[usfan]

A nearly universal agreement about the immorality of some things seems to indicate that our sense of morality is an inborn response

In a God made universe, that is a logical conclusion.

you think that would be impossible if that sense were not instilled into us by a sentient being with a moral purpose.

yes. In a godless universe, there is only animal instinct, which is often contrary to morality.

the only way that there could be any such thing as an objective morality corresponding to our sense of morality, and for that to be an inborn sense, would be if that sense is designed for that purpose

Yes. Someone gets it! I am not talking about beliefs, but logical conclusions, from different hypothetical realities.

OBJECTIVE morality, is the key word, here. Relative morality is an oxymoron. It is not morality at all, but is based on whim, preference, expediency, or some other artificial platitude.

I don’t see it as a reason for thinking that there really is any such being.

..No intent to convince anyone of belief. Just logical extrapolations from the assumptions of belief.

Many people, who believe in a godless universe, don't believe in Absolute morality. It is a relative thing, aka, 'situation ethics', or expediency, or self interest. So they are following the conclusions of their beliefs. Even some theists don't believe in absolute morality. They do not believe that God has embedded morality, but it is a human construct.. for manipulation or some human agenda.

The irrational part comes from those who believe in a godless universe, but also absolute morality, or a universal sense of right and wrong. There is no source for that, and it can only be explained as a holdover delusion, from cultural influences. Since humanity is prone to delusion, in a godless universe, that tendency would extend to every human. Atheists would not suddenly get a pass..

Belief does not nullify one's humanity.

 

[usfan]

Ah okay, so when humans invent a morality it's a "manipulation," but when your God invents a morality, it's a "guide."

The difference you say is that God is omniscient, so therefore he knows what is "best" for us. Best how? What standard is he using?

1. Pick whatever term you like. But 'Standards' from a Creator would seem to be more reliable than standards from another human being.. .. especially some agenda driven ideologue..
2. His standard? isn't that obvious?

 

[Left Coast]

1. Pick whatever term you like. But 'Standards' from a Creator would seem to be more reliable than standards from another human being.. .. especially some agenda driven ideologue..

Why is that? You said it's because he knows what's best for us. What does best mean? How does he define it?

2. His standard? isn't that obvious?

Cute, but that doesn't really answer the question, I think you know that. What criteria did God use to determine what he would define as moral and what he would define as immoral?

 

[blü 2]

..nevermind. you are stuck in a dimension, unable to extend to another. You seem to perceive every thread as a 'Proof of God!' debate.

It's a proof-of-God because you're attributing morality to a product of your imagination, no?

Perhaps i will accomodate you with a simpler, less abstract thread, that does not require considering other possibilities.

I don't mind considering other possibilities. Sometimes I don't even mind considering impossibilities either. But you keep ruling out evolution as the source of much of human moral tendency, and you do so to bring your God into this universe.

Would a 'Proof of God!' thread be more to your liking?

It would necessarily start with the question, Proof of what, exactly? And the trouble is that no one has a meaningful answer.

 

[Jim]

Yes. Someone gets it! I am not talking about beliefs, but logical conclusions, from different hypothetical realities.

Is your point in this thread that it’s illogical to deny that we are created by a sentient being, with morality in us as part of its purpose, and to think at the same time that there is some kind of absolute morality? To put it another way, it’s illogical for anyone who thinks that there is such a thing as an objective morality, and that our sense of morality is a response to that, to deny that we are created by a being that has perfect knowledge of that morality, and gives us that sense to enable us to recognize and follow it.

As I understand it, you would agree that even if that’s true, it’s no reason to think that belief or lack of belief in that being, has anything to do with how much or how well a person lives in accordance with that absolute morality. Am I understanding you right?