Sources of Ethics and Morality

[cardw]

Quote:

Now, now. I'm pretty positive that you are intelligent enough to pick up what I'm trying to say, but I'll explain anyway.

I could guess, but its better that you speak clearly for yourself.

Quote:

If God is indeed a creator, why would it be "immoral" for Him to optimize HIS creation. We are merely "text files" on his hard drive. I know it might be uncomfortable for some to view it that way, but your perceived value and perceived ideas of fairness are irrelevant in that case. The law was not created for God, but for humans. To say that God is somehow constrained by something is to put something that we don't fully understand in a box. Omnipotence has no constraints.

Well the god of the Bible simply sounds like a tantrum throwing 5 year old going around destroying anyone who gets in his way. The only right that god has to do what he is reported to be doing is through power. There is nothing that attracts any kind of respect for this god's wisdom or insight for me. He makes Hitler look like a choir boy.

Quote:

If God indeed exist, I look at the positive side of it and I am thankful for existence with all of the pleasure and fun that comes with it. Even in the most difficult times of my life, I think I'd choose life and experience over non-existence. What says you?

Well, again I'm not debating whether a Creator God exists because for me that is unknowable. I am reasonably sure that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. That god is a made up god by an iron age culture.

[John317]

Well let's take the example of Josiah.

Now Josiah also took away all the shrines of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the LORD[f] to anger; and he did to them according to all the deeds he had done in Bethel. 20 He executed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned men’s bones on them; and he returned to Jerusalem.

21 Then the king commanded all the people, saying, “Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.” 22 Such a Passover surely had never been held since the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. 23 But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this Passover was held before the LORD in Jerusalem. 24 Moreover Josiah put away those who consulted mediums and spiritists, the household gods and idols, all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 25 Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him.

Take those verses in context--

2 Kings 23:4-18 (New King James Version)

Quote:

4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven. 6 And he brought out the wooden image from the house of the LORD, to the Brook Kidron outside Jerusalem, burned it at the Brook Kidron and ground it to ashes, and threw its ashes on the graves of the common people. 7 Then he tore down the ritual booths of the perverted persons[d] that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the wooden image. 8 And he brought all the priests from the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba; also he broke down the high places at the gates which were at the entrance of the Gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were to the left of the city gate. 9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brethren.

10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech. 11 Then he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathan-Melech, the officer who was in the court; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12 The altars that were on the roof, the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, the king broke down and pulverized there, and threw their dust into the Brook Kidron. 13 Then the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, which were on the south of the Mount of Corruption, which Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the people of Ammon. 14 And he broke in pieces the sacred pillars and cut down the wooden images, and filled their places with the bones of men.

15 Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and crushed it to powder, and burned the wooden image. 16 As Josiah turned, he saw the tombs that were there on the mountain. And he sent and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar, and defiled it according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words. 17 Then he said, “What gravestone is this that I see?”

So the men of the city told him, “It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things which you have done against the altar of Bethel.”

18 And he said, “Let him alone; let no one move his bones.” So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came from Samaria.

2 Kings 23: 4-18.

[there buster]

Quote:

Lets say we have a theoretical society that has no moral guidelines.

We would have to 'say' that, because no examples can be cited. Thank you for making the point.

Whether they would survive or not says nothing about the source of morality, only about the consequences of its absence.

[there buster]

Quote:

since David is considered under the moral laws of the Bible it would be the moral law set up for the Jewish nation as a theocracy.

Sorry, mistaken. The laws of the Jewish nation were, by definition, 'civil laws.' The Ten Commandments were an expression of moral and cultic law, but they specified no penalties, which is what you are concerned about.

David was the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, and he failed to carry out the penalty. Both offenses had consequences. However, failure to carry out the penalty in now way nullifies the law. You may drive faster than the speed limit and not be apprehended or ticketed, but that doesn't change the law. Try telling that to the judge: "You didn't fine me all the other times, so that does away with the speed limit." See how far that gets you.

Quote:

Its your example.

Wrong again. You raised the case of Solomon and his wives.

[there buster]

Quote:

And so punishing everyone but David is considered to be just?

Please, tell us on what grounds you consider it unjust?

Quote:

They weren't worshipping "pagan" gods, but were essentially a different denomination of monotheists. What Josiah did was to execute the priests and burn them on their own alters. This is essentially human sacrifice. At the end of this we have this glowing endorsement of Josiah.

My, my. Error upon error.

1. "Different denomination of monotheists." Four words, two major errors. Perhaps a record. First, the entire notion of 'denomination' only exists after the Reformation, and is entirely different than the competing religions of the Ancient Near East. Baptists and Lutherans are Christian denominations, both believing in the deity of Christ. Worshipers of Yahweh and worshipers of Molech share almost nothing in common.

Second, Molech was the male diety in a group of gods which included the female Astarte or Asherah (who is mentioned in 2 Kings 23) and Ba'al. They were not monotheists at all, but polytheists.

2. This is not human sacrifice. This was execution, in accordance with Jewish civil law. These priests were not offered as burnt offerings on Yahweh's altar, but instead their bones were burned on the altars of their own gods. Instead of an offering to any god, this is defiance of the false gods.

You seem to find Josiah's behavior unacceptable. On what grounds?

[there buster]

Quote:

Well the god of the Bible simply sounds like a tantrum throwing 5 year old going around destroying anyone who gets in his way. The only right that god has to do what he is reported to be doing is through power.

Ignoring your mischarachterization, it is clear you disapprove. But why? If there is only 'effective' and 'ineffective,' according to you it works pretty well for God. It's effective for him, so it must be moral by your standards. Yet I sense it is not.

[cardw]

Quote:

Lets say we have a theoretical society that has no moral guidelines.

We would have to 'say' that, because no examples can be cited. Thank you for making the point.

Whether they would survive or not says nothing about the source of morality, only about the consequences of its absence.

Red Herring

Answer the question.

[cardw]

Quote:

Sorry, mistaken. The laws of the Jewish nation were, by definition, 'civil laws.' The Ten Commandments were an expression of moral and cultic law, but they specified no penalties, which is what you are concerned about.

In a theocracy all these laws would be considered given by God including the penalties. Or are you denying that god is the source of these laws?

It would be considered a moral obligation to obey these laws.

[there buster]

The topic of this thread is "Sources of Morality and Ethics."

Neither the survival nor demise of your hypothetical society without morality tells us nothing about the sources of morality and ethics--only about the consequences of their absence.

[there buster]

Your interest in penalties is simply beside the point. As already demonstrated, "failure to carry out the penalty in now way nullifies the law. You may drive faster than the speed limit and not be apprehended or ticketed, but that doesn't change the law. Try telling that to the judge: "You didn't fine me all the other times, so that does away with the speed limit." See how far that gets you.

[cardw]

Quote:

Well the god of the Bible simply sounds like a tantrum throwing 5 year old going around destroying anyone who gets in his way. The only right that god has to do what he is reported to be doing is through power.

Ignoring your mischarachterization, it is clear you disapprove. But why? If there is only 'effective' and 'ineffective,' according to you it works pretty well for God. It's effective for him, so it must be moral by your standards. Yet I sense it is not.

According to me, I have stated that my moral standards are based on the idea that these moral standards would reduce suffering and provide the highest quality of life possible for the most people.

These are some of the goals that I and many others have set in defining a moral standard. In the United States some of the goals are to provide for the opportunity to pursue happiness. This is my definition of morality.

In the absence of anything other than claims and pronouncements of victory, you have no stronger basis for morality.

[cardw]

The topic of this thread is "Sources of Morality and Ethics."

Neither the survival nor demise of your hypothetical society without morality tells us nothing about the sources of morality and ethics--only about the consequences of their absence.

It would suggest the "morality" has its source in societal self preservation. There is no external standard but morality is created to provide enough order for society and those individuals in that society to survive. It is simply part of an evolutionary process. There is no rational argument that can provide a basis for the morality you are trying to define. Even C.S. Lewis states this by saying that all other claims of morality fail by the very fact that they try and use a rational basis. This is a debate of definition, not existence or source.

Morality as you are trying to define is a myth and all claims of mysterious insight are simply claims. I would far rather be in a society that examines its moral assumptions for effectiveness than one who blindly follows some set of rules they have decided come from God.

[fccool]

"We base our conduct on what we recognize as useful... the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate - and so we repudiate" Right?

[there buster]

Quote:

my moral standards are based on the idea that these moral standards would reduce suffering and provide the highest quality of life possible for the most people.

then you should have no problem committing genocide on a relatively small group, so the much larger group would no longer have to compete with them.

Quote:

In the absence of anything other than claims and pronouncements of victory, you have no stronger basis for morality.

Because you stand outside the Tao, you can say nothing else. At the same time, as I have demonstrated with your own words repeatedly, your so-called 'morality' simply does not exist. You condemn without reference to any standard whatsoever. You decry genocide, yet your own fuzzy notions can be shown to endorse it.

The Tao transcends culture, opposes preferences, and is recognized in principle even by those outside it, such as yourself. You keep using words such as 'just,' and 'wrong,' and condemn actions as immoral.

Every effort to disprove it, such as the one with Solomon's wives, ends up failing.

Lewis described your position with devastating clarity: "Man lives by bread alone, and the source of bread is the baker's van."

You critique others' morality based on the same Tao you deny exists.

[there buster]

Quote:

It would suggest the "morality" has its source in societal self preservation.

No, it would 'suggest' no such thing. One is a cause, the other an effect.

Let's look at your suggestion.

Morals (unspecified))(cause) result in societal preservation (effect).

Therefore, morals are intended to preserve society.

A person smokes (cause) and gets lung cancer (effect).

Well, obviously, with your logic, the person smoked in order to get lung cancer.

Talk about 'declarations of victory!' You keep asserting the rational basis for your morality despite demonstrations that your 'rationale' doesn't survive scrutiny.

and despite yourself, you can't help but keep appealing to the same moral standards you claim don't exist.

[cardw]

Quote:

my moral standards are based on the idea that these moral standards would reduce suffering and provide the highest quality of life possible for the most people.

then you should have no problem committing genocide on a relatively small group, so the much larger group would no longer have to compete with them.

[cardw]

Quote:

It would suggest the "morality" has its source in societal self preservation.

No, it would 'suggest' no such thing. One is a cause, the other an effect.

Let's look at your suggestion.

Morals (unspecified))(cause) result in societal preservation (effect).

Therefore, morals are intended to preserve society.

This is not my reasoning at all. You are ignoring the empirical nature of learning. Many things we learn often appear as accidents. We can observe an effect and through experimentation can determine the apparent cause.

Its not hard to observe the pain of killing. And initially we might want to ban all killing, but then we are faced with the problem of killing for defense. This requires a much more sophisticated determination of who is preserved. We are forced to make a choice and if we make no choice we can observe that the strongest wins. Now if I wasn't the strongest then I might want to use the strength of my intellect to preserve my life as well as the lives of others who might not have strength. Or I might realize that no matter how strong I was against any individual, I might need to develop a method of controlling larger groups of people. I might choose an elite group to help extend my direct influence even larger. Or I might realize that even though no one else recognizes the benefits of an orderly society, I might choose that this is a calling. We are creative beings and we make up all kinds of things to bring meaning to our lives and motivate us. This includes this thing you are calling morality.

This is obviously a very simplified analysis. I don't have the room to write a book, so there is no way this is going to be exhaustive. But my point is that there a many ways to create morality and to claim that there is a universal Tao without any rational framework brings you back to simply a belief. Belief, to me, is synonymous with preference.

You are slightly more creative in that you have called this thing the Tao and only you know the secret codes to understand it. Which means that reason can never reach you, because according to C.S. Lewis morality has no basis in reason. This is just another way to say your position is irrational.

[cardw]

"We base our conduct on what we recognize as useful... the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate - and so we repudiate" Right?

We base our conduct on a lot more than that. Our motivations are wonderfully complex.

[fccool]

Thus, let me see if I can see this correctly. You are trying to derive sets of morals from motivations? By definition, morality is a "rule". What is the purpose of deriving rules from motivations, if the purpose of the rules is to curb the unwanted motivations?

Give me a specific moral example of how it would work in a real world. For example, what is the overwhelming motivation that would lead us let's say not to have adultery (that is, if you agree that adultery is immoral) if I have a motivation to have adultery?

What is the overwhelming motivation that would lead us not steal, if my motivation is that of kleptomaniac?

In Christian ethics, it's quite the opposite. The motivation exists within and is guided by the boundary of the moral law. What you suggest is our motivation to dictate the moral law?

You've mentioned that our motivations are complex, and perhaps in many cases are unique. Does it mean that what's moral for me would not be moral for you? How do you come up with a standard that definition of morality calls for? If standard is individual desires (motivation is essentially a desire), then how moral would it be? Would it be based on convenience?

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, but you have yet to explain how it works on a practical level (outside of several general statements that you've made).

So, please... explain. Let's say we have a group of a 100 people that would like to decide a set of moral rules for that group. How would we do that?

[there buster]

Quote:

This is just another way to say your position is irrational.

Well, I have to admit you have a sense of humor. After every reason you put forth is disproved with contrary evidence, you have the temerity to call my position irrational. Now that's a hoot!

[cardw]

Quote:

Thus, let me see if I can see this correctly. You are trying to derive sets of morals from motivations? By definition, morality is a "rule". What is the purpose of deriving rules from motivations, if the purpose of the rules is to curb the unwanted motivations?

Well that is one way of looking at rules. And I would point out that we make household rules for particular purposes that are motivated by such things as a desire for order, preservation of property, maintaining good health, etc. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Quote:

Give me a specific moral example of how it would work in a real world. For example, what is the overwhelming motivation that would lead us let's say not to have adultery (that is, if you agree that adultery is immoral) if I have a motivation to have adultery?

Well the short answer is to ask you if you have ever been affected by divorce? There is quite a lot of motivation to preserve marriage and fidelity. One of the motivations is to prevent pain. There are a number of other motivations including the preservation of family, maintaining emotional security, and other larger societal motivations.

Also, one tends to eventually become shunned once too many partners are burned. This seems to be part of the human fabric.

Quote:

What is the overwhelming motivation that would lead us not steal, if my motivation is that of kleptomaniac?

Well there are always individual exceptions, but the kleptomaniac tends to lose friends and the trust of others. Morality tends to express itself within the group and interactions with others tends to present the need to form social laws. These may be enforced by all kinds of different pressures that range from social disapproval and isolation to civil punishment.

Quote:

In Christian ethics, it's quite the opposite. The motivation exists within and is guided by the boundary of the moral law. What you suggest is our motivation to dictate the moral law?

Well even Christians pick and choose from the bible which laws they consider important. We have no choice but to interpret what these mean and the Bible certainly doesn't demonstrate a consistent application of these laws. I see no way that you can demonstrate that the moral laws of the Bible didn't come from the culture and, instead, came from a god.

Quote:

You've mentioned that our motivations are complex, and perhaps in many cases are unique. Does it mean that what's moral for me would not be moral for you? How do you come up with a standard that definition of morality calls for? If standard is individual desires (motivation is essentially a desire), then how moral would it be? Would it be based on convenience?

Well, again, what we call morality is a form of group consciousness. And you might notice that these laws tend to be more important to those persons who have lived longer and have experience.

Studies show that people will respond more to group pressure than to appeals to their altruism. For example a sign in a hotel room that asked you to re-use you towel to help the environment would be less successful than a sign that said most of the people in this hotel re-use their towels. An even more successful sign would say that most of the people that stayed in this particular room re-used their towels.

Quote:

So, please... explain. Let's say we have a group of a 100 people that would like to decide a set of moral rules for that group. How would we do that?

Well, 100 people is probably too small of a group to start from scratch. What we are looking at, I believe, is the evolution of our understanding of successful group interaction. Moral laws are always being tested and refined. Many things we consider immoral today were moral in the past and other things considered moral today were considered immoral in the past.

And from my observation, even Christians have many individual variations of what they consider to be moral or not moral. Morality does vary from individual to individual by default. And there are those acts that any group considers to be too far and the group responds to that imaginary line when its being crossed.

These are obviously complex developments that have occurred over many years in various ways in different cultures.

[cardw]

Quote:

This is just another way to say your position is irrational.

Well, I have to admit you have a sense of humor. After every reason you put forth is disproved with contrary evidence, you have the temerity to call my position irrational. Now that's a hoot!

[there buster]

It's fascinating how precisely you match Lewis' description. Every statement reveals you are totally at sea.

Quote:

This is basically a presupposition that there is a single source for all value that objectively exists somewhere. He is declaring this to be true by necessity, not by reason. In fact he goes on to declare that its impossible to establish through reason.

Quote:

The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for;it to move in.

You keep confusing one term with another. It is not a 'presupposition' that there is a single source of value. It is a conclusion based on observation that these values transcend culture. It's very much like scholars of ancient texts who see similarities in tales and conclude they had a common source. The conclusion might be false, but it is not a presupposition.

Then you quote him saying we could not 'invent' a new value as evidence that they cannot be established through reason. This is equally fallacious. We cannot 'invent' new elements for the periodic table, but through reason have deduced the elements that exist. Using your logic, the periodic table is 'irrational," because we cannot invent a new element.

Quote:

so by definition it is humanly irrational.

Finally, you miss a basic definition. "Irrational" is contrary to reason. "Arational" is "outside of reason." Morals are not contrary to reason, indeed, it is your attempt to produce them through reason.

As this post repeatedly demonstrates, your position is contrary to reason, thus irrational. Lewis' position, I believe, is that morality must either be considered "rationality itself," or it is "arational," outside of reason. But then, he addresses precisely what you are trying to do.

Quote:

The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible. We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved (though they can support themselves by no reason of the sort that Gaius and Titius demand) are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself; or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of 'rational' value behind all the sentiments we have debunked. The Innovator will not take the first alternative, for practical principles known to all men by Reason are simply the Tao which he has set out to supersede. He is more likely to give up the quest for a 'rational' core and to hunt for some other ground even more 'basic' and 'realistic'.

[there buster]

Quote:

moral laws of the Bible didn't come from the culture and, instead, came from a god.

"Thou shalt not covet."

[cardw]

Quote:

keep confusing one term with another. It is not a 'presupposition' that there is a single source of value. It is a conclusion based on observation that these values transcend culture. It's very much like scholars of ancient texts who see similarities in tales and conclude they had a common source. The conclusion might be false, but it is not a presupposition.

Well the observations that you have made have appealed to the number of people who have held the same values, but you have refuted your own observation by stating that a majority cannot provide morals.

So it is still a presupposition without a valid observation.

Quote:

Then you quote him saying we could not 'invent' a new value as evidence that they cannot be established through reason. This is equally fallacious. We cannot 'invent' new elements for the periodic table, but through reason have deduced the elements that exist. Using your logic, the periodic table is 'irrational," because we cannot invent a new element.

No, the periodic table is based on elements we can see, not ideas that we make up in own minds. You have to establish that the first value actually exists before you can make new ones. The establishment of the first value is simply assumed, not observed, not established through reason, nor is it even known to actually exist in reality.

Things only have meaning when we give them meaning. Everything we experience is through our own minds and it is our own mind that gives things meaning. I see no other way unless you are claiming to be out of your mind.