Is abortion practical?

[Mr Skeptic]

The first thing you would have to do is define what is "Morality for yourself". Is it conformity only to your own personal code? If so then there is no way you could be "immoral" since you would never "defy" yourself or act against your own "morals" - you would simply change them.

 

Which would make it no different than a religion-based moral code. If you do something immoral, you can always change your religion to one where that action is moral. (people who go against their personal moral code usually feel guilty about it, and usually they rationalize it rather than change their moral code. Some people do change their moral code to match their actions, but then some people also change their religion to one that considers their actions moral.)

[AzurePhoenix]

Well you have not only failed to equate societal norms with intrinsic moral principles but now you have introduced a metaphysical belief that intrinsic moral principles are a product of evolution. Intrinsic moral principles are taken to be objective truths. Can you factually demonstrate that evolutionary processes necessarily are capable of and actually do generate behaviors that do lead to objective truth?

 

Game theory only works to demonstrate that societal norms arise from social interactions. Since morality is intrinsic objective truth, if anything you are once again arguing that in a society that does not treat the intrinsic morality as such, has no recognizable moral codes, instead they have social norms that change over time and are subject to suspension for practical reasons.

Evolutionary processes do not generate objective moral truths because there is no such thing as an objective moral truth. All morality is the result of the practicality of social conduct, and are only as intrinsic as a mating behavior is to a particular species of bird.

 

Your definition of moral is clearly at odds with my own. A moral is a moral whether its an eternally absolute characteristic of the universe, or a set of fluidly subjective behavioral guidelines developed for the sake of immediate and or long term practicality. And if all the world decides to declare my definition false and yours correct, then all that means is that there is no morality at all and what you simply call social norms are the best we have to work with as a consequence of the fundamental absence of morals from the universe.

 

What does honestly interest me about your perspective though, is what good is a moral absolute if it doesn't yield to practicality? What purpose does it serve? What would even be an example of a moral absolute? I've certainly never heard of one.

 

It is a definition. Morals are fixed and they are intrinsic.

Only to moral realists / absolutists. You are one, I am not.

 

Where have you demonstrated that this intrinsic sense of right and wrong has society as a source? I don't see any references, no data and no evidence.

Both of us are just repeating ourselves useless, but once more, because there is no universally intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Anyway, you are making the positive claim, not me; the burden of proof is on you to show that absolute morals intrinsic to the fundamental nature of the universe itself exist. Edited October 17, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[swansont]

IMHO, the unborn child shares in the mystery of human life. because human life is a gift from God, it is not ours to dispose of as we please. Ultimately, we do not belong to ourselves but to God who created us from nothing.

 

it is true that the unborn child has but begun to develop, but this is no justification for abortion. The unborn child is not fully developed but niether is anyone on earth. each of us is in a different stage of growth and development on a journey toward final perfection. It is not for us to say that just becuase the unborn child has barely started on the journey of life, we have the right to fail to repect his/her life.

 

If you go down this path you have to acknowledge the somewhere between a quarter and half of all conceptions end in miscarriage. God is the ultimate abortionist.

[pioneer]

If you look at evolution, it is very often connected to reproduction. On the one hand, the urge to breed satisfies this definition of evolution. But abortion creates a paradox, since it goes through the motions but then takes away the fruit that would close the deal for evolution. In theory, it is not much different than the dominate male winning the breeding olympics and then wandering away avoiding breeding. He would leave natural. Ironically, the anti-abortionists are more connected to the spirit of evolution, since they assume it is important to close the evolutionary deal once this natural urge has been set into motion. Using the analogy, they try to get the winner of the breeding olympics to breed.

 

Atheists lip service that they are based on science and evolution. That may be a magician trick. Abortion places something above evolution. Religion has humans not connected to evolution, but is connected to a creative process that separates humans from evolution.

[cypress]

Evolutionary processes do not generate objective moral truths because there is no such thing as an objective moral truth.

 

Then we agree and your original objection is incorrect when you said "Utterly, quantifiably false" indicating that you disagreed with may statement that without a higher authority there is no moral (truth).

 

Your definition of moral is clearly at odds with my own. A moral is a moral whether its an eternally absolute characteristic of the universe, or a set of fluidly subjective behavioral guidelines developed for the sake of immediate and or long term practicality.

 

One cannot properly weasel out of an argument by redefining words.

 

What does honestly interest me about your perspective though, is what good is a moral absolute if it doesn't yield to practicality?

 

I believe morals (if they exist) are practical and I even said so in my original posts, If morals exist, they are practical.

 

What purpose does it serve?

 

They establish a fixed standard against which behavior is measured. Surely you understand the practical value of a standard. Science is full of standard measures.

 

What would even be an example of a moral absolute?

 

Two possible moral absolutes are: Murder (intentional killing without authority and cause) is wrong. Rape (forced, against one's will and choice) is wrong.

 

I've certainly never heard of one. Only to moral realists / absolutists. You are one, I am not.

 

I doubt you have not, but why did you earlier attempt to argue morals exist when your metaphysical belief is that they shouldn't? Is it because through introspection you suspect they do? Your challenge is to factually demonstrate that these objective truths that we understand and identify through introspection are not morals rather they are a product of society norms or perhaps biological processes.

 

Both of us are just repeating ourselves useless, but once more, because there is no universally intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Anyway, you are making the positive claim, not me; the burden of proof is on you to show that absolute morals intrinsic to the fundamental nature of the universe itself exist.

 

My statement is that there can be no morals (moral absolutes) without God. It is very clear from your previous post that you now agree. I offer your agreement as evidence. You believe there are no such things as moral absolutes.

 

Existence of what are thought to be absolute morals is known by introspection. Assemble a randomly selected jury of rational persons free of strong bias and the vote will invariably fall on my side.

 

Morals are fixed? By who?

 

Yes, you are helping to demonstrate my point that morals can only exist if there is a moral being we are accountable to. Without God there are no morals.

 

Who's morals do we go by? Our own? Isn't that a bit self serving?

 

I agree, it would be self serving. Thus morals, if they exist, must be handed down. If there is no creator then there is no handing down, and there are no morals, only social behaviors and norms.

 

Our morals are similar to pack or troop behavior in other animals, just more complex and often quite self serving to the people who want power.

 

How would you demonstrate that all our principles are changing, self serving social norms as opposed to objective morals? Is this fact or conjecture?

[Moontanman]

 

Yes, you are helping to demonstrate my point that morals can only exist if there is a moral being we are accountable to. Without God there are no morals.

 

Which God? Which Gods morals?

 

I agree, it would be self serving. Thus morals, if they exist, must be handed down. If there is no creator then there is no handing down, and there are no morals, only social behaviors and norms.

 

Funny how these "handed down morals" seem to conform to the societal norms of the times isn't it?

 

 

How would you demonstrate that all our principles are changing, self serving social norms as opposed to objective morals? Is this fact or conjecture?

 

I believe it's demonstrable fact, 100 years ago the morals of society were different than today, 500 years ago they are even more different, 1000 years ago, 3000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? The so called "Handed Down Morals" are nothing but a reflection of the morality of the times.

 

There is not one human activity that has not been Moral at one time or another, these morals are always supposed to be handed down or up or what ever by superior beings of some kind and even rape and murder has been morally supported by one religion of another...

 

I think that humans who are in good mental health have an instinctive feel for right and wrong, of course there are people who do not, they are called psychopaths.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Moontanman

[cypress]

If you go down this path you have to acknowledge the somewhere between a quarter and half of all conceptions end in miscarriage. God is the ultimate abortionist.

 

I don't see that as a problem for his side of the argument. If there is a God, then there are two solutions.

 

1. God is not necessarily directly involved in the physical process of the progression of life on earth. God or no God, the evidence indicates that random accidents occur regularly and there is often little evidence to suggest some force is intervening to prevent them or mitigate the outcomes. Is it immoral to not intervene in an accident even if one could prevent it at a higher cost to themselves or others?

 

2. God has authority to determine who lives on earth and who does not.

 

If there is a God, unless it has been specifically granted to the created, the created lacks the authority to dictate who or what should live and die. Some see ignorance of a creator as justification while others seem to accept there is a creator but claim ignorance of what has been granted. Some seem to accept that they do wrong.

 

Which God? Which Gods morals?

 

Is there more than one creator?

 

Funny how these "handed down morals" seem to conform to the societal norms of the times isn't it?

 

I believe it's demonstrable fact, 100 years ago the morals of society were different than today, 500 years ago they are even more different, 1000 years ago, 3000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? The so called "Handed Down Morals" are nothing but a reflection of the morality of the times.

 

"Handed down morals" if there are any, are, by definition, fixed. If any existed and a particular society takes one and changes it over time, the changed norm is not a moral, it is a social norms, just as you have correctly termed it. I don't see any contradiction in that. I don't see anything funny or strange about it.

 

There is not one human activity that has not been Moral at one time or another, these morals are always supposed to be handed down or up or what ever by superior beings of some kind and even rape and murder has been morally supported by one religion of another...

 

I think that humans who are in good mental health have an instinctive feel for right and wrong, of course there are people who do not, they are called psychopaths.

 

These two statements seem contradictory unless in your first statement you meant social norm instead of Moral and morals. These religions you speak of, are they true and lasting, or have they faded along with the culture? If they have faded, then the practices could not have been based on a fixed moral principle. In your second statement you speak of instinctive feelings for right and wrong as opposed to those promoted by social norms. It is these instinctive feelings that I speak of when I talk of principles obtained through introspection.

 

Are you suggesting that murder and rape (as I defined them, as opposed to the behaviors granted to certain persons by the society's religious authority) are not components of what instinctively is understood as wrong?

[Mr Skeptic]

Then we agree and your original objection is incorrect when you said "Utterly, quantifiably false" indicating that you disagreed with may statement that without a higher authority there is no moral (truth).

 

Ah, so you still stick with the claim that God has no morals. Interesting, I thought you would have changed your mind since you said (the equivalent of) that the first time.

 

One cannot properly weasel out of an argument by redefining words.

 

Then maybe you should use the definition of morals used by the rest of us instead of trying to weasel out of the argument by making your own personal definition.

 

I believe morals (if they exist) are practical and I even said so in my original posts, If morals exist, they are practical.

 

Yet some people's morals are impractical, especially when considering specific circumstances.

 

They establish a fixed standard against which behavior is measured. Surely you understand the practical value of a standard. Science is full of standard measures.

 

 

 

Two possible moral absolutes are: Murder (intentional killing without authority and cause) is wrong. Rape (forced, against one's will and choice) is wrong.

 

Not an absolute. Many people consider intentional killing of an innocent without a (legal) cause to sometimes be the morally correct choice. See for example the Trolley problem. A similar situation occurred on a sinking ship, when someone froze with fear on the escape ladder and one of the passengers killed him so they could escape. He was found innocent in a court of law. Yet another example, some people would consider murder justified and even a moral obligation were they to be horribly wronged (even if the wrong was done by legal means).

 

This last one is a manifestation of our evolutionary history: vengeance is often harmful to the person who seeks it, yet it protects the group because others know that they had better not harm someone from the group. Vengeance is an intrinsic moral principle held by all people that I know of and also the more clever animals, yet many also consider it immoral. So that is an example of a social norm overcoming an intrinsic moral principle.

 

I doubt you have not, but why did you earlier attempt to argue morals exist when your metaphysical belief is that they shouldn't? Is it because through introspection you suspect they do? Your challenge is to factually demonstrate that these objective truths that we understand and identify through introspection are not morals rather they are a product of society norms or perhaps biological processes.

 

Morals do exist even though they are not absolute. Morality is a necessity of anything that can be self-aware: they have to have a way to choose the good/beneficial and reject the bad/harmful. Some of these are hardwired, which can be problematic for when the conditions change (for example our taste for food, which is part of our hard-wired moral system that we ought to take care of our bodies, but is not somewhat obsolte).

 

There is however no way to logically justify any morals without making the assumption of the morals you wish to justify, or something equivalent. Fortunately many of us share some of the same basic hardwired morality, and so we can deduce morals compatible with that. But if you have a psychopath, who does not share our hardwired empathy, you can convince him not by logic but by threat of force.

 

My statement is that there can be no morals (moral absolutes) without God. It is very clear from your previous post that you now agree. I offer your agreement as evidence. You believe there are no such things as moral absolutes.

 

And yet how can we get morals from God if you have said (twice already) that God has no morals (since he can't get them from a higher authority as you said was necessary for Him to have any morals)?

 

Existence of what are thought to be absolute morals is known by introspection. Assemble a randomly selected jury of rational persons free of strong bias and the vote will invariably fall on my side.

 

No, that wouldn't be absolute then. Absolutes apply to everyone, bias or no, 100%, not majority vote.

[Moontanman]

 

Is there more than one creator?

 

 

Well, as a matter of fact there are people do think so, but not everyone acknowledges the same creator.

 

"Handed down morals" if there are any, are, by definition, fixed. If any existed and a particular society takes one and changes it over time, the changed norm is not a moral, it is a social norms, just as you have correctly termed it. I don't see any contradiction in that. I don't see anything funny or strange about it.

 

As I said there are no human actions that have not been justified by morality usually by one religion or another.

 

 

 

These two statements seem contradictory unless in your first statement you meant social norm instead of Moral and morals. These religions you speak of, are they true and lasting, or have they faded along with the culture? If they have faded, then the practices could not have been based on a fixed moral principle. In your second statement you speak of instinctive feelings for right and wrong as opposed to those promoted by social norms. It is these instinctive feelings that I speak of when I talk of principles obtained through introspection.

 

There are some religions even older than the Christian one and yes they are still around, true and lasting? What do you mean by this? The religion that was SOB enough to kill anyone who disagreed with them, the religion that destroyed civilization after civilization? Even to go so far and destroy the cultures by destroying all the records and forcing them to speak another language? Which religion would this be?

 

Are you suggesting that murder and rape (as I defined them, as opposed to the behaviors granted to certain persons by the society's religious authority) are not components of what instinctively is understood as wrong?

 

Actually i do believe that Murder and Rape are Immoral but there are as you know always exceptions, most religious texts are full of these exceptions, I think that's very telling.

[swansont]

I don't see that as a problem for his side of the argument. If there is a God, then there are two solutions.

 

1. God is not necessarily directly involved in the physical process of the progression of life on earth. God or no God, the evidence indicates that random accidents occur regularly and there is often little evidence to suggest some force is intervening to prevent them or mitigate the outcomes. Is it immoral to not intervene in an accident even if one could prevent it at a higher cost to themselves or others?

 

2. God has authority to determine who lives on earth and who does not.

 

If there is a God, unless it has been specifically granted to the created, the created lacks the authority to dictate who or what should live and die. Some see ignorance of a creator as justification while others seem to accept there is a creator but claim ignorance of what has been granted. Some seem to accept that they do wrong.

 

 

 

 

1 flies in the face of "human life is a gift from God," and for 2, why have the sperm and egg meet in the first place, if the zygote is going to be spontaneously aborted?

[cypress]

Ah, so you still stick with the claim that God has no morals. Interesting, I thought you would have changed your mind since you said (the equivalent of) that the first time.

 

Not hardly. It is irrelevant that you fail to grasp what it means to be God.

 

Then maybe you should use the definition of morals used by the rest of us instead of trying to weasel out of the argument by making your own personal definition.

 

I would think that you would want to use the definition used by the community of philosophers. I provided a link to establish this common meaning.

 

Yet some people's morals are impractical, especially when considering specific circumstances.

 

There can be no conflicting morals. You continue to confuse morals with social norms.

 

Not an absolute. Many people consider intentional killing of an innocent without a (legal) cause to sometimes be the morally correct choice. See for example the Trolley problem. A similar situation occurred on a sinking ship, when someone froze with fear on the escape ladder and one of the passengers killed him so they could escape. He was found innocent in a court of law. Yet another example, some people would consider murder justified and even a moral obligation were they to be horribly wronged (even if the wrong was done by legal means).

 

And again social norms. It is clear that you fail to understand what I said. Clearly you fall on the side of those who believe there is no god and there are no [invariant] morals. I agree that if there is no God then there can be no [invariant] morals. You are arguing for one aspect of my case. Thank you for that.

 

This last one is a manifestation of our evolutionary history: vengeance is often harmful to the person who seeks it, yet it protects the group because others know that they had better not harm someone from the group. Vengeance is an intrinsic moral principle held by all people that I know of and also the more clever animals, yet many also consider it immoral. So that is an example of a social norm overcoming an intrinsic moral principle.

 

How can you establish vengeance has a root in evolutionary history? It sounds like an opinion rather than fact. Also it is not clear that [acting out for] vengeance is an intrinsic principle that all people hold. My introspection indicates that acting out for vengeance is wrong, and as far as I know that is not a belief that I learned from society. How would you demonstrate that I am mistaken?

 

Morals do exist even though they are not absolute.

 

By redefining the word morals as you have done.

 

And yet how can we get morals from God if you have said (twice already) that God has no morals (since he can't get them from a higher authority as you said was necessary for Him to have any morals)?

 

I can only assume you don't understand or don't want to understand the concept of a God in the context of morality. I suggest you read the link provided earlier and follow that with the copious online papers and discussion on this point.

 

Furthermore my argument is that without God there can be no morals. If as you (incorrectly, it believe) argue, God can have no morals to give, that does not contradict my argument.

 

 

No, that wouldn't be absolute then. Absolutes apply to everyone, bias or no, 100%, not majority vote.

 

Yes, but in surveys, people lie and people make incorrect statements. Surveys are evidence of intrinsic absolutes, but not proof, and they can be incorrect. Thus a survey provides an indication that we have intrinsic principles. I'm not sure why you take exception to this idea, since in the post I am responding to you said as much directly.

 

1 flies in the face of "human life is a gift from God,"

 

Why should we limit the meaning of life in this saying to the short time prior to spontaneous abortion?

 

 

and for 2, why have the sperm and egg meet in the first place, if the zygote is going to be spontaneously aborted?

 

If there is no intervention, why shouldn't we expect them to meet? If there is intervention why should we pretend we are capable of understanding and perceiving the interveners purpose?

[Mr Skeptic]

Not hardly. It is irrelevant that you fail to grasp what it means to be God.

 

It is necessarily true that God has no morals if what you said was true (and also if there is no higher authority than God). It is really a simple deduction of the form,

If A then B

Not A.

Therefore not B.

 

So unless one of those assertions is false, then you have claimed that either God has no morals or there is an authority higher than God. So which is it, or do you wish to retract your claim that there can be no morality without a higher authority?

 

I would think that you would want to use the definition used by the community of philosophers. I provided a link to establish this common meaning.

 

I went with the dictionary definition, not something that you say shows up somewhere in some online document. Morality is a system to tell right from wrong, according to the dictionaries, with no mention of eternal anythings.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amorality&btnG=Search&lr=

 

There can be no conflicting morals. You continue to confuse morals with social norms.

 

Some people get their morals from social norms, others from really really old social norms which they say belong to some god they believe in, others try to deduce their own moral principles. Whichever way it is done is entirely arbitrary, even if the process is subsequently assigned to a god.

 

And again social norms. It is clear that you fail to understand what I said. Clearly you fall on the side of those who believe there is no god and there are no [invariant] morals. I agree that if there is no God then there can be no [invariant] morals. You are arguing for one aspect of my case. Thank you for that.

 

And with a god there also cannot be intrinsic morals. There aren't intrinsic morals, and neither believing in nor actually having a god can change that. Invariant morals can be made without a god -- all that needs be done is not change them, eg base them off a book.

 

Nevertheless, we humans have some hardwired aspects related to morality, such as empathy and vengeance. But there is no reason we must base our morality off of that either; they are intrinsic to most human bodies but that does not make it a logical necessity that would be true for all.

 

How can you establish vengeance has a root in evolutionary history? It sounds like an opinion rather than fact. Also it is not clear that [acting out for] vengeance is an intrinsic principle that all people hold. My introspection indicates that acting out for vengeance is wrong, and as far as I know that is not a belief that I learned from society. How would you demonstrate that I am mistaken?

 

Well, via game theory and various modeling systems it can be shown to be an advantageous adaptation (but only if the target of the vengeance can understand it). Natural selection would then have a tenancy to spread this adaptation. For most people that would be good enough, but for actual proof you'd have to study the evolution of anger which happened a really long time ago, and how it switches to the more long-term vengeance in species able to understand long-term effects.

 

Anger is intrinsic to all humans, and the impulse is to do or wish harm on the target of the anger. Vengeance is simply the delaying of this retribution for a more convenient time, rather than lashing out right then and there like a dumb animal. Now that we have a legal system that can address wrongs more or less fairly, personal vengeance is looked down upon by society, at least for the most part, in favor of socially mediated vengeance. Though to my knowledge all people feel anger and might desire vengeance, many of us are taught that these are bad things and we should not succumb to this impulse. For example, the Bible teaches against taking vengeance, which would only be necessary to teach against if people took vengeance (like they do). With training we can for the most part overcome these impulses, but if you look at young kids you can see it much more clearly.

 

By redefining the word morals as you have done.

 

It doesn't even matter who has the right definition, that would just make it that we are saying different things. I am saying there is no logically necessary way to choose morality, such that morality must be arbitrarily chosen, where by morality I mean "a system for telling right from wrong". What are you saying? That there can be no eternal things god said are right and wrong without an eternal god to say they are?

 

I can only assume you don't understand or don't want to understand the concept of a God in the context of morality. I suggest you read the link provided earlier and follow that with the copious online papers and discussion on this point.

 

Furthermore my argument is that without God there can be no morals. If as you (incorrectly, it believe) argue, God can have no morals to give, that does not contradict my argument.

 

Ok, but our society/legal system is a higher authority than an individual, so are you saying that we can have morals without god (who doesn't have any anyways) by having our higher authority be society? And like god, our society (our highest authority) can make their own morals?

 

Yes, but in surveys, people lie and people make incorrect statements. Surveys are evidence of intrinsic absolutes, but not proof, and they can be incorrect. Thus a survey provides an indication that we have intrinsic principles. I'm not sure why you take exception to this idea, since in the post I am responding to you said as much directly.

 

What we have are some biologically based morals. However, logically that does not make them any better. If we had different biology we would have different biologically intrinsic morals, but could still choose any other moral system. No choice of morals is a logical necessity, and god cannot be a part of such a system if there were (unless said god were also logically necessary). This is because logical necessity is not based on reality, but will be true in all realities.

[swansont]

 

 

Why should we limit the meaning of life in this saying to the short time prior to spontaneous abortion?

 

That seems to be the limit of the discussion, since we're talking about abortion.

 

 

 

If there is no intervention, why shouldn't we expect them to meet? If there is intervention why should we pretend we are capable of understanding and perceiving the interveners purpose?

 

 

If there is no intervention, how can God have authority over who lives or dies?

[cypress]

That seems to be the limit of the discussion, since we're talking about abortion.

 

If the discussion topic dictates the limits of what should be cited, then your citation of the saying that "human life is a gift from God" is also out of bounds.

 

 

If there is no intervention, how can God have authority over who lives or dies?

 

 

Is it necessary that authority must intervene?

 

It is necessarily true that God has no morals if what you said was true (and also if there is no higher authority than God). It is really a simple deduction of the form,

If A then B

Not A.

Therefore not B.

 

So unless one of those assertions is false, then you have claimed that either God has no morals or there is an authority higher than God. So which is it, or do you wish to retract your claim that there can be no morality without a higher authority?

 

A third possibility is that the assertions apply to the created but don't necessarily apply to a moral God. Additionally in my base assertion I don't make any characterizations of this higher authority so you seem to be assuming that this higher authority is not accountable. I don't make that assumption.

 

And with a god there also cannot be intrinsic morals. There aren't intrinsic morals, and neither believing in nor actually having a god can change that. Invariant morals can be made without a god -- all that needs be done is not change them, eg base them off a book.

 

And yet still nobody here has even attempted to demonstrate that what you say is factually correct.

 

Natural selection would then have a tenancy to spread this adaptation. For most people that would be good enough, but for actual proof you'd have to study the evolution of anger which happened a really long time ago, and how it switches to the more long-term vengeance in species able to understand long-term effects.

 

Do you have evidence for this truth claim, or is it similar to the previous conjectures?

 

It doesn't even matter who has the right definition, that would just make it that we are saying different things. I am saying there is no logically necessary way to choose morality, such that morality must be arbitrarily chosen, where by morality I mean "a system for telling right from wrong". What are you saying? That there can be no eternal things god said are right and wrong without an eternal god to say they are?

 

If that were what I said then those who took exception to my original statement would be silly to have claimed it is false.

 

Ok, but our society/legal system is a higher authority than an individual, so are you saying that we can have morals without god (who doesn't have any anyways) by having our higher authority be society? And like god, our society (our highest authority) can make their own morals?

 

I don't see how society could insert an intrinsic (what you call biologically based) sense of right and wrong into my being so I would have to disagree.

 

What we have are some biologically based morals. However, logically that does not make them any better. If we had different biology we would have different biologically intrinsic morals, but could still choose any other moral system.

 

I'm pretty sure this is not an establish fact either.

[Mr Skeptic]

A third possibility is that the assertions apply to the created but don't necessarily apply to a moral God. Additionally in my base assertion I don't make any characterizations of this higher authority so you seem to be assuming that this higher authority is not accountable. I don't make that assumption.

 

Then we agree and your original objection is incorrect when you said "Utterly, quantifiably false" indicating that you disagreed with may statement that without a higher authority there is no moral (truth).

 

That would make your assertion false, if it doesn't apply to God. Are you going to abandon that claim or restate it in a way that you think is true?

 

And yet still nobody here has even attempted to demonstrate that what you say is factually correct.

 

Sure. The proof is in the very quote you question (proof by example). So I proved it and you couldn't find any objection to it, do you give up?

 

Do you have evidence for this truth claim, or is it similar to the previous conjectures?

 

Which part, the one where I explain the basics of biology to you, or the part where we talk about what "most people" would accept? Either way, that would have to be in a different thread.

 

If that were what I said then those who took exception to my original statement would be silly to have claimed it is false.

 

So your statement is that your statement is not what I suggested, and that you don't want to clarify it for some reason?

 

I don't see how society could insert an intrinsic (what you call biologically based) sense of right and wrong into my being so I would have to disagree.

 

And I don't see how God could either. At least society will eventually be able to alter our biology. In any case, I was not saying that society makes our intrinsic biologically based morals, but rather the opposite, that our society is based more or less on them.

 

I'm pretty sure this is not an establish fact either.

 

Sure it is. And you seem to have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

---

 

In fact, your whole post is "I disagree with you but I don't have any reason to do so." Which is fine, but you could have just said it all in one sentence.

 

---

 

Oh, and in case you wanted an example of how god-based morals are not invariant, here's an example:

Indeed, the author Paul did not advocate that the law was abolished, rather he claimed it was fulfilled just as Jesus claimed was his task. This is one of the common misinterpretations those who claim Paul is at odds with Jesus' teaching stumble all over. If one is under the law, and it is not yet accomplished, then it would stand to reason that it should be difficult to enter the kingdom. However, once the law is fulfilled, the law is no longer a barrier to entering the kingdom. Seems straightforward. All that is left is to understand how Jesus intended to fulfill the requirements of the law.

Good bye old rules, hello new rules.

[needimprovement]

Actually i do believe that Murder and Rape are Immoral but there are as you know always exceptions, most religious texts are full of these exceptions, I think that's very telling.

Natural law refers to the laws that are built into the nature of life itself, and thus are knowable to all people in all societies. Murder, your example, is universally condemned in all societies, because it is know to reason that murder is a direct attack on the value of of human life. This universality of natural law holds true in spite the fact that different societies give very different interpretations to what it means to murder. For example, in our society we hold that killing out of vengeance is murdder. Other societies permit killing another out of vengeance, and no more consider it murder than we do in judging the morality of killing in self-defense.

[swansont]

If the discussion topic dictates the limits of what should be cited, then your citation of the saying that "human life is a gift from God" is also out of bounds.

 

 

 

Since that was a boundary set in place by the OP, I think not.

[needimprovement]

If abortion is practical, murders should not be jailed. it works on the same principle

I'd really love for you to explain that logic.

We can solve this argument once and for all by making murder a practical. Explain any difference.

[AzurePhoenix]

Then we agree and your original objection is incorrect when you said "Utterly, quantifiably false" indicating that you disagreed with may statement that without a higher authority there is no moral (truth).

the particular quote i disagreed with was

Indeed, there is no morality if there is no accountability to a higher authority.

You did not say moral (truth), you said morality. You said there can be no morality (unspecified,) I pointed out that evolution adequately accounts for morality (relative/subjective/variable). From there you argued impotently that the word itself doesn't apply to our use of it, an argument which serves no purpose since regardless of whether you call subjective morals morals or social norms or freaking skittlemonkeys, what they are referred to as has no bearing on the implications or veracity of the concept itself. My argument has remained perfectly consistent. Your habit of clumsily and ineffectively attempting to twist what others say to suit your smug fantasy of your inerrancy is juvenile, and grew tedious many threads ago.

 

One cannot properly weasel out of an argument by redefining words.

If by redefine you mean use valid variations on the word that may differ from your own, I'll have to disagree. I find that more accurate and intellectually honest than just inventing fantasy definitions or pretending that real, alternative definitions don't exist when they conflict with the one I'm blindly biased towards, or are wrong just because I wish they weren't valid.

 

I believe morals (if they exist) are practical and I even said so in my original posts, If morals exist, they are practical.

Then how are they meaningfully, applicably different than variable, subjective morals? Or does their origin just make them honorarily special for no practical reason?

 

They establish a fixed standard against which behavior is measured. Surely you understand the practical value of a standard. Science is full of standard measures.

And that standard is survival value. Surely you understand that the requirements for the overall long-term success of such a complex association as a population of organisms in an ever-changing ecosystem requires the behaviors of those organisms to shift and adapt to better overcome the protean circumstances that can negatively impact the group's success. Fixedness in the face of out-competitive change is a maladaption and direct route to extinction.

 

Two possible moral absolutes are: Murder (intentional killing without authority and cause) is wrong. Rape (forced, against one's will and choice) is wrong.

Any moral can be arbitrarily believed to be an absolute if you presuppose the existence of moral absolutes, whether murder is wrong or that making guacamole without liberal amounts of cayenne pepper and lime is wrong. The nigh-ubiquitous negative regard for murder and rape held by humans are adequately explained by the practical negative impact they have on a group, and as a result, the success of the individuals within the group. The empathy many or most humans show for one another can be explained in part as an adaptation to help us maintain this advantageous group structure, as you are less likely to harm another if you can empathize with them.

 

Game theory even accounts for sociopaths who aren't bound by empathy for one another, and do not follow moral norms, as part of a behavioral arms race. It's expected, inevitable actually, that some individuals will adapt within a group to exploit the general social norms to their own advantage and increase their success. However, their success is kept in check by the fact that the wider, cooperative social behaviors adapt to counter them (this is why most sociopaths are more subtle than the serial killing psychopaths they're portrayed as popularly; it wouldn't do to draw attention, and retribution, upon yourself). If the "moralists" failed however, the amoralists would rapidly dominate the population until everyone was amoral. However, if everyone is exploiting everyone else, it rapidly becomes advantageous to be able to depend on a group of others you can trust, and moral behaviors re-establish themselves. If a social group was entirely moral however, in its naivete, it'd be ripe for the picking by the first amoral mutant. The most evolutionarily stable strategy is for a few subtle amoralists to exploit a larger, largely moral society that's ready to be a little amoral back if it can catch them in the act. Amoral from the socially benevolent point of view that is, in that the predominate behaviors of cooperation, empathy, and pity have to be overridden to do a practical thing in direct opposition to what would otherwise be considered optimal for group success under normal circumstances, exemplified by the capital punishment debate in the US.

 

I doubt you have not, but why did you earlier attempt to argue morals exist when your metaphysical belief is that they shouldn't?

When you say that I argue that morals exist but believe they shouldn't, you are implying the consistent use of term "morals" when you know full well to make the distinction that I recognize the existence of variable, subjective morals with demonstrable practical value, and deny the existence of absolute, metaphysical ones.

 

Is it because through introspection you suspect they do?

Actually, when I introspect I tend to realize that it'd be very easy to slip into nihilism in response to the ultimate purposeless of the material, uncreated universe, if I were too stupid to simply accept and appreciate the cards we've been dealt by that very same universe.

 

Your challenge is to factually demonstrate that these objective truths that we understand and identify through introspection are not morals rather they are a product of society norms or perhaps biological processes.

done

 

My statement is that there can be no morals (moral absolutes) without God. It is very clear from your previous post that you now agree. I offer your agreement as evidence. You believe there are no such things as moral absolutes.

Actually, I am certain that the existence of a God of almost any sort would not resolve the moral absolute problem. I'm sure you've heard of the Euthyphro dilemma, which Skeptic has been addressing, just as I'm sure you've ignored it or thrown a pretzel of bad logic at it and declared it vanquished.

 

Existence of what are thought to be absolute morals is known by introspection. Assemble a randomly selected jury of rational persons free of strong bias and the vote will invariably fall on my side.

I feel that murder is bad. I'm bred and further influenced by my upbringing to do so. But I'm also perfectly aware that I could be motivated to want to commit it under certain circumstances, even not feel about about having committed it. Upon objective examination of that premise, I recognize objectively why murder would usually be bad in most circumstances. So long as you are assembling a jury of humans taken out of many of today's pervasively religious societies, deeply rooted, subtle biases will prevail over true objectivity, just as they've mangled any semblance of your own.

 

All introspection is is considering what you feel or examining information that originated externally. Relying on what you feel can only cripple objective analysis, while externally obtained information can be erroneous or incomplete.

 

Yes, you are helping to demonstrate my point that morals can only exist if there is a moral being we are accountable to. Without God there are no morals.

-

I agree, it would be self serving. Thus morals, if they exist, must be handed down. If there is no creator then there is no handing down, and there are no morals, only social behaviors and norms.

(Absolute) morals cannot exist, even with a god. (Practical, variable, subjective) morals do exist regardless of whether or not there is a god, and even if there were a god somehow capable of making non-arbitrary absolute morals themselves exist, then without some sort of retribution for breaking those moral codes variable evolved morals would supersede the absolute ones in importance. However, if breaking God's absolute morals did result in retribution, particularly retribution greater than the costs of following them, then they only matter for the same exact reasons that variable, evolved societal norms do. It doesn't matter where they come from, only that it's in our best interest to not gamble with the retribution of breaking them. Which is equally self-serving.

[needimprovement]

(Absolute) morals cannot exist, even with a god. (Practical, variable, subjective) morals do exist regardless of whether or not there is a god, and even if there were a god somehow capable of making non-arbitrary absolute morals themselves exist, then without some sort of retribution for breaking those moral codes variable evolved morals would supersede the absolute ones in importance. However, if breaking God's absolute morals did result in retribution, particularly retribution greater than the costs of following them, then they only matter for the same exact reasons that variable, evolved societal norms do. It doesn't matter where they come from, only that it's in our best interest to not gamble with the retribution of breaking them. Which is equally self-serving.

the moral laws which derive from our nature are given by the Creator and written in every human heart so every human has a knowledge of them, I am speaking of the universal law summarized in the decalogue. There is also a morality of obedience to laws of just human government, whether of states or human organizations which bind citizens of those states or members of those organizations, and of course to the Church who has Christ as her head, binding on members of that Church. So even someone with no personal knowledge of or relationship with God has a moral sense and also a "common sense" to know that if those universal laws are broken there will be consequences, personally and for society. Whether or not you label that sin, disorder, psychosis or whatever, the reality of those consequences is apparent and indeed forms the basis for much of world literature, and the older myths and legends of all societies.

 

Actually, I am certain that the existence of a God of almost any sort would not resolve the moral absolute problem. I'm sure you've heard of the Euthyphro dilemma, which Skeptic has been addressing, just as I'm sure you've ignored it or thrown a pretzel of bad logic at it and declared it vanquished.

 

I feel that murder is bad. I'm bred and further influenced by my upbringing to do so. But I'm also perfectly aware that I could be motivated to want to commit it under certain circumstances, even not feel about about having committed it. Upon objective examination of that premise, I recognize objectively why murder would usually be bad in most circumstances. So long as you are assembling a jury of humans taken out of many of today's pervasively religious societies, deeply rooted, subtle biases will prevail over true objectivity, just as they've mangled any semblance of your own.

Two truths cannot contradict each other and both be true. Either a.) one is true and the other is false; or, B.) neither are true because there is no such thing as objective, unalterable truth.

 

Solution B.) is contrary to human experience. If B.) were the correct solution, then we would have to conclude that Hitler, Stalin, Paedophiles, Rapists & Murderers are not necessarily authors of evil, but rather they were human beings like you and me pursuing "their truth" as they saw it, and who am I to tell them that they are wrong to do it. If we reject the existence of an objective truth, then we reject the existence of right & wrong and good & evil. Yet, everyone I have ever met has had a sense of right and wrong, and their has always been large areas of agreement between people about what is right, and what is wrong. In fact, even most criminals recognise that what they are did what wrong, it is simply that they chose to do it anyway.

 

The rejection of truth empties this life of all meaning, it reduces life to being a series of sensual experiences, after which one dies, and it is as if that person never existed, at least once s/he is forgotten within 50 yrs, or so.

 

Therefore, I would encourage you to hold position a.) - there is an objective truth. However, for there to be an objective truth, there must have been an author of that truth. Humans couldn't have evolved into an objective truth, it must have come from outside humanity, from above, therefore, if you hold a), then it follows that there must be a God.

 

If God exists and has authored one truth, then presumably he has revealed this to us - there would be no point concealing the truth from us.

 

As a Catholic, I believe that God has revealed his truth to us in Jesus Christ (cf. John 14.6), and that to proclaim his message of truth with clarity throughout every age he established one Church (cf. Matt. 16.18), and that this Church continues to guard and proclaim the deposit of Faith revealed by Christ.

.

Edited October 18, 2010 by needimprovement

[Moontanman]

Natural law refers to the laws that are built into the nature of life itself, and thus are knowable to all people in all societies. Murder, your example, is universally condemned in all societies, because it is know to reason that murder is a direct attack on the value of of human life. This universality of natural law holds true in spite the fact that different societies give very different interpretations to what it means to murder. For example, in our society we hold that killing out of vengeance is murdder. Other societies permit killing another out of vengeance, and no more consider it murder than we do in judging the morality of killing in self-defense.

 

So what constitutes murder is entirely subjective and any Moral code that prohibits murder is simply the morals of that society and have nothing to do with a God given moral? So if society can adjust it's morals to allow murder then why not abortion? BTW, no murder is not always a moral problem in all societies, even your Catholic inspired world view is full of justifiable murders. There is no god giving morals, all morals are part of what a society considers moral at any one time. Your Religion simply hijacks the morals of the society and does it best to control that society through control of morals. Religion is nothing but a means of control by power hungry individuals and seems to be particularly interested in the control of the reproductive systems of the people under their control. No birth control allowed, all sex acts must be able to produce children and all children must be born. It would be much easier for me to get behind the notion of restricting abortions if birth control as touted as a good idea when people have sex but no your church cannot allow sex with birth control. That seems totally disingenuous to me.

 

Then of course there is the idea of whose god to follow, Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Gaea, Monotheistic, Pantheistic, it's very confusing and no way to really tell which on is the real one or even if there are many. Whose God's Morals do we follow? Who decides?

 

We can solve this argument once and for all by making murder a practical. Explain any difference.

 

 

In exactly what context are you using the word practical? The above quote makes no sense...

 

the moral laws which derive from our nature are given by the Creator and written in every human heart so every human has a knowledge of them, I am speaking of the universal law summarized in the decalogue.

 

 

Can you back up this outrageous assertion with anything other than your own self serving religious views?

 

 

There is also a morality of obedience to laws of just human government, whether of states or human organizations which bind citizens of those states or members of those organizations, and of course to the Church who has Christ as her head, binding on members of that Church. So even someone with no personal knowledge of or relationship with God has a moral sense and also a "common sense" to know that if those universal laws are broken there will be consequences, personally and for society. Whether or not you label that sin, disorder, psychosis or whatever, the reality of those consequences is apparent and indeed forms the basis for much of world literature, and the older myths and legends of all societies.

 

Not to mention the new myths and legends like catholicism and all other monotheistic religions.

 

 

 

The rejection of truth empties this life of all meaning, it reduces life to being a series of sensual experiences, after which one dies, and it is as if that person never existed, at least once s/he is forgotten within 50 yrs, or so.

 

For you maybe but why is not believing your way the rejection of all truths? How can it reduce life to nothing but a series of sensual experiences? And how does embracing these "truths" change the fact that when you're dead you're dead and 50 years from now only the famous will be remembered at all and the faceless throngs will not be remembered no matter who's truths they embraced.

 

Therefore, I would encourage you to hold position a.) - there is an objective truth. However, for there to be an objective truth, there must have been an author of that truth. Humans couldn't have evolved into an objective truth, it must have come from outside humanity, from above, therefore, if you hold a), then it follows that there must be a God.

 

Bullshit, but if so who's god?

 

If God exists and has authored one truth, then presumably he has revealed this to us - there would be no point concealing the truth from us.

 

But God does nothing better than hiding the truth from us hence the discrepancies between the bible and reality.

 

As a Catholic, I believe that God has revealed his truth to us in Jesus Christ (cf. John 14.6), and that to proclaim his message of truth with clarity throughout every age he established one Church (cf. Matt. 16.18), and that this Church continues to guard and proclaim the deposit of Faith revealed by Christ.

.

 

You are welcome to believe what ever you want as long as you don't require me to follow your truth but then that what the catholic church is all about isn't it? Making others follow your truth by means of control and fear???

[cypress]

the particular quote i disagreed with was You did not say moral (truth), you said morality. You said there can be no morality (unspecified,)

 

OK , fair enough I could have been more clear and would have had I realized that the term morality was confusing.

 

 

I pointed out that evolution adequately accounts for morality (relative/subjective/variable).

 

Can you validate that this is true? I have not seen any valid demonstration that behavior is a product of evolutionary processes nor have I seen any demonstration the intuition or thought or any other aspect of what may make up our intuitive sense of right and wrong is either.

 

If by redefine you mean use valid variations on the word that may differ from your own, I'll have to disagree. I find that more accurate and intellectually honest than just inventing fantasy definitions or pretending that real, alternative definitions don't exist when they conflict with the one I'm blindly biased towards, or are wrong just because I wish they weren't valid.

 

In your initial response to my post you said, "Morals can be and are derived from the interpersonal interactions between the individuals that make up any social group." What you are describing are social norms as opposed to a sense of right and wrong derived from introspection. Others in this thread also speak of morals as if they were social norms and my comments address the spectrum of alternative viewpoints including your original description. If this is not what you meant when you said the quoted words than I misunderstood you just as you did misunderstand my words.

 

Then how are they meaningfully, applicably different than variable, subjective morals? Or does their origin just make them honorarily special for no practical reason?

 

While I agree there are social norms and those can and do change over time, I don't see anywhere that it has been established that our sense of right and wrong obtained through introspection is variable or subjective. It is meaningful because if they are fixed, that implies one thing. If they are variable that implies another.

 

And that standard is survival value. Surely you understand that the requirements for the overall long-term success of such a complex association as a population of organisms in an ever-changing ecosystem requires the behaviors of those organisms to shift and adapt to better overcome the protean circumstances that can negatively impact the group's success. Fixedness in the face of out-competitive change is a maladaption and direct route to extinction.

 

I can see that some behaviors would shift but I don't see that survival necessarily requires shifting of ones sense of right and wrong. I doubt you claim that moral beliefs deterministically fix behaviors.

 

Any moral can be arbitrarily believed to be an absolute if you presuppose the existence of moral absolutes, whether murder is wrong or that making guacamole without liberal amounts of cayenne pepper and lime is wrong. The nigh-ubiquitous negative regard for murder and rape held by humans are adequately explained by the practical negative impact they have on a group, and as a result, the success of the individuals within the group. The empathy many or most humans show for one another can be explained in part as an adaptation to help us maintain this advantageous group structure, as you are less likely to harm another if you can empathize with them.

 

Your explanation is a stawman that adds no more to the discussion than if I were to proclaim that a creator adequately explains our full set of moral beliefs. I offered these as two possible examples of moral beliefs unchanged over time and your response does nothing to demonstrate they are actually variable or subjective.

 

Game theory even accounts for sociopaths who aren't bound by empathy for one another, and do not follow moral norms, as part of a behavioral arms race. It's expected, inevitable actually, that some individuals will adapt within a group to exploit the general social norms to their own advantage and increase their success. However, their success is kept in check by the fact that the wider, cooperative social behaviors adapt to counter them (this is why most sociopaths are more subtle than the serial killing psychopaths they're portrayed as popularly; it wouldn't do to draw attention, and retribution, upon yourself). If the "moralists" failed however, the amoralists would rapidly dominate the population until everyone was amoral. However, if everyone is exploiting everyone else, it rapidly becomes advantageous to be able to depend on a group of others you can trust, and moral behaviors re-establish themselves. If a social group was entirely moral however, in its naivete, it'd be ripe for the picking by the first amoral mutant.

 

Another strawman argument. This one by virtue of the assumptions, constructs a tautology that guarantees your desired outcome, but this time in a way that supports my proposal that morality seems fixed over time.

 

When you say that I argue that morals exist but believe they shouldn't, you are implying the consistent use of term "morals" when you know full well to make the distinction that I recognize the existence of variable, subjective morals with demonstrable practical value, and deny the existence of absolute, metaphysical ones.

 

Good then we understand each other.

 

Actually, when I introspect I tend to realize that it'd be very easy to slip into nihilism in response to the ultimate purposeless of the material, uncreated universe, if I were too stupid to simply accept and appreciate the cards we've been dealt by that very same universe.

 

I'll try to avoid meeting up with you in a dark alley.

 

done

 

Failed.

 

(Absolute) morals cannot exist, even with a god. (Practical, variable, subjective) morals do exist regardless of whether or not there is a god,

 

I must be having a slow night. Where have you established that either of these statements is factually correct?