1. 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!

Logic won't allow it... Moral law must exist, if we appeal to a standard of "better" for humanity.

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Just_me_Mike, Oct 29, 2010.

  1. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    Anyone up to the challenge?
     
  2. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,436
    Ratings:
    +70,302
    Religion:
    Atheist
    What challenge? If you want to prove moral law must exist, then please proceed.
    Then I'll see what I think of your reasoning.
     
  3. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Chatte Féministe

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    11,368
    Ratings:
    +6,182
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Moral law may only exist in hypothetical and categorical imperatives, possibly.
     
  4. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Chatte Féministe

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    11,368
    Ratings:
    +6,182
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    I think he's correctly arguing that anyone who says X is better for humanity (which I'm assuming is equivalent to "We ought to do X") is implicitely assuming the existence of moral law.
     
  5. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    Wow, just wow. The key word that I used in detail on another thread today was "ought" and no one got that.
    Maybe only certain brains get it :shrug:
    You just made my day, but I still think a break is in order for me ... You rock as usual...
     
  6. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,436
    Ratings:
    +70,302
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Ah...then I'd make such an argument based upon morals shared by whomever
    I'm presenting the argument to. Otherwise, I wouldn't be very convincing.
     
  7. tigrers99

    tigrers99 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    92
    Ratings:
    +8
    Humanity recognizes 3/4 (if not more) the same morality- what is morally good and what is morally bad. The militant Atheist argued for years that morality was (is) man-made and is used for social cohesiveness. Over the last few years though, secularists have been trying to prove that morality is a result of natural Evolution. That the lower primates (gorillas, chimps, etc.) exhibit morality themselves. Thus 'proving' that universal morality is not transcendent as the Theists and Apologists have been affirming. The secularists have named this new study Social Biology . I would think that it would be very difficult to defend Social Biology in debate because it violates some key tenets of the Theory of Evolution. It would also be easier for the Theist and Apologist to make the case that God gave these lower primates a portion of His morality.
     
  8. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,686
    Ratings:
    +15,107
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    There isn't much of a relationship between the existence of a hypothetical moral law and the possibility of improving humanity's future.

    I happen to believe that a moral law does indeed exist, or at least can be constructed fairly easily, but that is only relevant to the description and teaching of moral values, not to their very existence and development proper.

    "Wild" development of moral values, regardless of whatever one understands as being moral law, can and does work to some extent.
     
  9. CarlinKnew

    CarlinKnew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +102
    Unless they're merely stating their opinion about what is best for humanity. In other words, "we ought to do X because I think the result of X is good".
     
  10. PolyHedral

    PolyHedral Superabacus Mystic

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    6,339
    Ratings:
    +326
    How? I'd have thought it works perfectly alongside evolution if you know that memes evolve just as much as individuals.
     
  11. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Chatte Féministe

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    11,368
    Ratings:
    +6,182
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Yep, which is a hypothetical imperative. That's one possibility.
     
  12. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    However there really isn't opinion in the matter. If we were discussing opinion than nothing means anything.
    The evidence is moral value does appear to get better as we observe history. I realize this is hard for some to understand (not implying you at all) but it is important to understand why I am saying this.

    Some people point to the witch hunts and similar events and say were their moral values good? Others might say about them hunting the would be witches, it was moral to them, which means morals are subjective. Thus, when we stopped burning people, it is easy to point and say our morals changed, but they really didn't.
    What changed was we no longer believed there were witches. Because if we did, we might still be doing the same thing today.

    It is for reasons like this I say the argument can be made that morals don't change, in fact can't change.
     
  13. CarlinKnew

    CarlinKnew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +102
    Better according to what standard? Yours? Your culture's? The standard that's most popular today? If we could go back in time and bring our ancestors to the present, perhaps they would say that moral value appears to get worse as we observe history. Why would your judgment be more accurate than theirs?
    Maybe we'd try to deal with witches diplomatically if we believed they existed today. Who knows.
    What reasons? That perhaps we'd be burning witches today if we believed they existed? That's a long shot from supporting the argument that morals don't change.
     
  14. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    Neither of the above, I am saying it is Law, and there is good reason to say so. It is a law unique to human beings.

    A big misconception is thinking that as we look farther back through time, cultures are so much different in terms of morals. It is simply a lie to say such things, and anyone who spends anytime researching the morals of older cultures will find some difference, but not polar opposites as some might ignorantly suggest.

    Are you interested in hearing the argument for this?
     
  15. CarlinKnew

    CarlinKnew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +102
    Well you said moral values improved throughout history. What standard are you basing that on? What "Law" do you claim to have an understanding of?
    Sure. Maybe you can start with slavery.
     
  16. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    If you look carefully I said it "appears" that morals improve. I didn't say they do. There is a difference.

    Sure we can start here. I can't help but comment though, in effort to save us both time. There is a huge difference in advancing our knowledge and calling it moral advance.

    Example we would not call a man morally advanced for removing his mousetraps from his house, if in deed he believed there to be no mice present.

    I just don't want to get twisted with what we are talking about here.

    Slavery in many forms, well legalized slavery was entirely a matter of education. Moral principles have remained the same, as our knowledge of facts changed. Does that make sense?
     
  17. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    Bump to Carlin? You finished?
     
  18. thedope

    thedope Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    370
    Ratings:
    +18
    There can never be a universal morality in form but in content, it can be distinguished as a desire for integrity, displaying a range of intensity from the instinct for self preservation at one extreme to gratitude at the other. For humans, this is based on one's model of integrity.
     
  19. CarlinKnew

    CarlinKnew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,690
    Ratings:
    +102
    Right, you said moral values appear to have improved throughout history. What standard are you basing that on?
    No, because it wasn't entirely a matter of education. Slavery mostly ended because of war and political movement. Some people still believe that slavery is moral and that certain races deserve less respect than others.
     
  20. Just_me_Mike

    Just_me_Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,706
    Ratings:
    +468
    Because we observe and say they get better. We can only do that if there is something between good and bad morals. Otherwise their is no standard, which would be fine if that is what we observe, but it doesn't fit what we see.

    Your not thinking your replies through to their conclusions. If someone still believed slavery is moral, it has NOTHING to do with morals, or moral law, it has to do with education. Are you not able to follow that rabbit trail?
     
Loading...