Sources of Ethics and Morality

[cardw]

Quote:

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

"Thou shalt not covet."

This law essentially bans desires. It is often applied more specifically in desiring something someone else has. I'm not sure how this is evidence that this idea had to come from a god.

I can imagine that some priest came up with the idea that everything would be better if we simply stopped having desires and convinced enough people that it would be good to codify this idea.

[there buster]

Quote:

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.

This is the second time you have made this false claim. The observation has nothing to do with numbers. The point, once again, is that these precepts transcend culture.

Quote:

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.

Wrong again. see above. They are not assumed, they are observed.

Quote:

I see no other way unless you are claiming to be out of your mind.

Repeatedly, your thinking is limited to binary choices. It never seems to occur to you that there might be more alternatives.

While it is true that we must process things through our minds, is does not follow that they only exist there, or that they only have meaning there. Your thinking repeatedly fails to recognize that there may be things we fail to recognize. That does not make them disappear.

Morals and ethics are a sterling example in your case.

[there buster]

Quote:

his law essentially bans desires. It is often applied more specifically in desiring something someone else has. I'm not sure how this is evidence that this idea had to come from a god.

Because violations of it are almost always undetectable by any human agency. It is humanly undetectable and uneforceable. It is one thing that sets the 10 Commandments apart from any other ancient law. They deal with deeds, as do all the other Commandments. This one alone deals with the secret desires of the heart, something only God can read.

Quote:

I can imagine that some priest came up with the idea that everything would be better if we simply stopped having desires and convinced enough people that it would be good to codify this idea.

Your imagination is not evidence of anything, except how limited your imagination is. It also is a completely ahistorical notion. Ancient priests concerned themselves with cultic matters, not with general ones, and certainly not with inner motivations. The prohibition on covetousness is singular among ancient codes.

And no, 'singular" is not an appeal to numbers.

[cardw]

Quote:

The observation has nothing to do with numbers. The point, once again, is that these precepts transcend culture.

Your observation for our reference...

Quote:

It is observed that these principles exist across cultures. Every culture has some definition of 'right' and 'wrong' which do not equal "effective" and "ineffective," but which are wrong for their own sake.

Just because every culture has principles does not automatically say that some Tao is their source or that they have a common source. It may say that they came up with similar solutions to the same problems.

Just because every culture uses wheels doesn't mean that every culture has some transcendent wheel god that passed this down to them.

If you come to a conclusion based on this observation it is a conclusion that you have to leap to.

Quote:

Repeatedly, your thinking is limited to binary choices. It never seems to occur to you that there might be more alternatives.

There are other alternatives but they are not based in reason if you abandon binary choices. If you believe that logical reasons can be established outside of binary choices then you have abandoned reason.

Quote:

While it is true that we must process things through our minds, is does not follow that they only exist there, or that they only have meaning there. Your thinking repeatedly fails to recognize that there may be things we fail to recognize. That does not make them disappear.

Well, like I said, as far as our experience is concerned, reality only exists within our perception. I'm not sure how you can escape your own mind. There is no way that I know of to verify the existence of anything outside of our own perception since we are using our perception to view it.

And just because there is a probability that there are things we fail to recognize doesn't mean that morality is one of those. The point of failing to recognize something is that we don't know about it. So since it hasn't even appeared within our perception means that we wouldn't even know if it disappeared.

Quote:

Morals and ethics are a sterling example in your case.

Well if these are outside of our perception, why even claim they exist?

[cardw]

Quote:

his law essentially bans desires. It is often applied more specifically in desiring something someone else has. I'm not sure how this is evidence that this idea had to come from a god.

Because violations of it are almost always undetectable by any human agency. It is humanly undetectable and uneforceable. It is one thing that sets the 10 Commandments apart from any other ancient law. They deal with deeds, as do all the other Commandments. This one alone deals with the secret desires of the heart, something only God can read.

[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.

But it would say something about the motivation to create moral guidelines...

Survival

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: ichabod

Quote:

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

"Thou shalt not covet."

This law essentially bans desires. It is often applied more specifically in desiring something someone else has.

It's more than simply desiring what someone has. Coveting, as Paul points our in Romans chapter seven, is simply the desires of our sinful natures. That means we are born self-centered & selfish (see Ps 51:5). We are born bent-to-self and no matter how hard one tries to straighten himself out and do "good" all he can produce is egocentric works outside a mature relationship with Christ.

So "coveting" simply means "self-seeking". None of us are free of this. Everything we've done - be it education, sports, charity, etc. have been done with "self" in mind. Agape, the very opposite of "iniquity", is doing the right thing for unselfish reasons.

Traditional SDA have watered down the true meaning of what it means to "covet" in an attempt to be viewed as God's remnant, commandment keeping people. They take God's law, which is as Holy as God is Holy, and redefine it to rules then can keep and then exclaim to God, "Look, we are keeping your law! You owe us heaven."

Rob

[cardw]

Quote:

So "coveting" simply means "self-seeking". None of us are free of this. Everything we've done - be it education, sports, charity, etc. have been done with "self" in mind. Agape, the very opposite of "iniquity", is doing the right thing for unselfish reasons.

I don't see anything wrong with self interest. It is only the means by which we attempt to obtain the things we are interested that I believe creates problems.

The other problem is that a person who is trying to be good is still working toward self interest. It may not be something material, but most of us would like to be thought of a "good" people.

There really isn't any way to define "good" in the absence of self interest because there are things to be gained no matter what side of the equation you are on.

I see that Christians often value the putting down of self as a virtue, which in itself is seeking a reputation of humbleness, which brings us back to self interest.

And just because a person has self interest doesn't mean that they don't care about other people. I think the development of empathy is really all we can achieve and even this has benefits to self because it connects us one to another.

I think that informed self interest is an important part of healthy society. In its absence I think there would be a far less interesting world to live in and I believe that altruism has part of its motivation in self interest. I know that I have learned to appreciate that my world is a much better place when I make sure those that live in it with me are provided for and encouraged. I also enjoy helping and encouraging others. A life of selfishness is miserable.

Does that make me a good person? No, because there is no way to do anything that doesn't benefit self in some way, whether that be reputation or the gaining of something tangible. Goodness doesn't exist in reality.

I think the closest anyone can be to becoming "good" is to simply stop judging whether oneself and others are good or bad and live life with awareness. Another way to put it is to say that humbleness is not thinking low of oneself, its not thinking of oneself at all.

[Robert]

I see that Christians often value the putting down of self as a virtue, which in itself is seeking a reputation of humbleness, which brings us back to self interest.

But agape, by definition, is free of all traits of "self". Agape goes outward - it never returns to the one reflecting it. The moment it does then it becomes bent-to-self or iniquity. 1 Cor 13:3 is a good illustration of this.

Rob

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I see that Christians often value the putting down of self as a virtue, which in itself is seeking a reputation of humbleness, which brings us back to self interest.

But agape, by definition, is free of all traits of "self". Agape goes outward - it never returns to the one reflecting it. The moment it does then it becomes bent-to-self or iniquity. 1 Cor 13:3 is a good illustration of this.

Well, the definition might be some one's ideal, but I think it would be hard to determine if this actually exists. To me it serves as a nice romantic notion, but I think "self interest" is needed.

A love that goes outward but never returns seems rather disconnected with other living beings. When this is implemented as an ideal, the one always giving tends to become worn out and resentful. I don't believe that this is a healthy ideal in practice.

[there buster]

Quote:

And how does this provide evidence that this commandment has its source from a god?

QED. Only God can read desires. Yes, ancient wisdom literature discourages covetousness. But the 10 Commandments were the foundational law (please note: law, not advice) of Israel. The prohibition against coveting was not a law anywhere else because--only a supernatural being (hint: God) can read intentions.

Quote:

What is so complex about this idea that no person could actually think of this?

I find it difficult to believe this is a serious statement. It's like the kid who thinks the concept of "zero" is obvious. Many truths are obvious after they are articulated.

The leap from deed to intention may be obvious to you--but then, you can't seem to distinguish between advice (wisdom literature) and law.

Quote:

And I think its ill informed to assume that the only goal of non Jewish ancient culture was exclusively cultic matters and did not reflect on inner motivations.

There you go again. No one said any such thing.

Quote:

You seem to be claiming a lot without presenting much in terms of evidence.

I have presented plenty of evidence, which you refuse to recognize. You claimed genocide was ineffective, I gave you a counter example. THis sort of thing has happened repeatedly, and you simply change the ground of your claim.

In the meantime, you continue to condemn things without any basis whatsoever, except you don't 'prefer' them. It is possible you are wiser than all the sages and philosophers of all time, but I remain skeptical.

[there buster]

Quote:

I don't see anything wrong with self interest. It is only the means by which we attempt to obtain the things we are interested that I believe creates problems.

The other problem is that a person who is trying to be good is still working toward self interest. It may not be something material, but most of us would like to be thought of a "good" people.

There really isn't any way to define "good" in the absence of self interest because there are things to be gained no matter what side of the equation you are on.

Ayn Rand did this schtick, only better.

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

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

But it would say something about the motivation to create moral guidelines...

Survival

Let's see:

If societies that have moral guidelines survive,

that would be evidence that survival motivated them to have moral guidelines.

Circular reasoning.

IF they were 'motivated' to have moral guidelines in order to survive, then they would have to possess--in advance--knowledge that setting such guidelines would cause their society to survive.

But they cannot be motivated by an outcome which they do not know. And if they know the end from the beginning, such foreknowledge would be a significant competitive advantage.

I'm sorry if you consider that ridicule, but when the reasoning is ridiculous, it's difficult to make it appear serious.

[cardw]

Quote:

If societies that have moral guidelines survive,

that would be evidence that survival motivated them to have moral guidelines.

Circular reasoning.

Let me make it simple for you.

Only an idiot couldn't figure out that killing other members of one's tribe would be counter to survival.

[Robert]

I think it [agape] would be hard to determine if this actually exists.

[there buster]

Quote:

Let me make it simple for you.

Only an idiot couldn't figure out that killing other members of one's tribe would be counter to survival.

I don't know what idiots think. I bow to you on that. I do know that history disproves your assertion.

For example: (by the way, since you declare that I make claims without proof, I must note that what follows is what is called 'evidence')There have been a number of cultures where assassination was the usual path to rule. In the Ottoman empire, when the Sultan died, the heirs then commenced to killing one another until only one survived (Do I need to point out that siblings--and nieces and nephews--quality as 'members of one's tribe). Suleiman the Magnificent, for example, rose to power by murdering his older brothers and their children. That was the custom. As ruler, he ruthlessly killed his enemies.

Not only did he survive, he is still considered the greatest ruler of the Ottoman Empire, and his reign of nearly 50 years is looked upon as the Golden Age of the Empire. And the Empire lasted another 300 years.

Let me make it simple for you. Your assertion is simply wrong.

[Amelia]

*GP

I am really saddened by the use of a word like "idiot" when posting to another member. I wish I would never see that word used again. It really is counter productive.

If a person can't find positive words to express themselves coherently, then maybe they shouldn't post at all.

Admin Amelia

P.S. I haven't been reading all the posts in this thread. So If I missed other derogatory words used, consider this post referring to those words too. DON'T USE THEM!

[cardw]

Quote:

For example: (by the way, since you declare that I make claims without proof, I must note that what follows is what is called 'evidence')There have been a number of cultures where assassination was the usual path to rule. In the Ottoman empire, when the Sultan died, the heirs then commenced to killing one another until only one survived (Do I need to point out that siblings--and nieces and nephews--quality as 'members of one's tribe). Suleiman the Magnificent, for example, rose to power by murdering his older brothers and their children. That was the custom. As ruler, he ruthlessly killed his enemies.

And yet, where is the Ottoman empire today? There is a difference between short term gains and long term gains. A ruler has to keep killing his enemies because he has chosen that particular path. And what quality of life is it to live in paranoia of being killed? And murder was still wrong within the Ottoman empire because what they called the immorality of murder had already been established. So this has nothing to do with the origin of what men have called moral laws and codes.

Quote:

Not only did he survive, he is still considered the greatest ruler of the Ottoman Empire, and his reign of nearly 50 years is looked upon as the Golden Age of the Empire. And the Empire lasted another 300 years.

Wow a whole 50 years, and yet how effective was this method for the heirs that didn't live. I can see how this method was very effective for the survival of one's family. Before you can declare that this method is great we have to determine what we mean by great.

Your example is evidence of a very simplified analysis of the evolution of what we call moral law. It is only an example of the effective use of force. The Ottoman empire might be judged as great in power, but I think we would have to look at the quality of life for its citizens to really determine if the goals I have advocated would be applicable to declaring the Ottoman empire a great place to live.

If I was a member of a tribe of 20 people, killing one person would have a tremendous effect. It would become apparent eventually that some sort of restriction on killing be made for the benefit of the community's survival. Now there are many different types of force that one could bring to bear to enforce such a law. Physical force would probably be the first instinct, but soon the application of psychological means would prove to be more efficient and more effective.

If I can convince people that there is a god somewhere ready to punish them if they don't follow a code that I want to be kept, that might prove to be more effective than beating or threat of imprisonment. I could step that up by teaching that not only is this god going to punish you in this life, he is going to punish you for all eternity. We have already seen how powerful a motivator this belief has been.

Your arguments are only one dimensional. This is a very complex process that appeals to the Tao or God or definitions or technicalities of language simply smack of reductionism.

[cardw]

*GP

I am really saddened by the use of a word like "idiot" when posting to another member. I wish I would never see that word used again. It really is counter productive.

If a person can't find positive words to express themselves coherently, then maybe they shouldn't post at all.

Admin Amelia

P.S. I haven't been reading all the posts in this thread. So If I missed other derogatory words used, consider this post referring to those words too. DON'T USE THEM!

Don't be afraid to address me directly.

I didn't call ichabod an idiot. I was referring to a fictitious tribal member who couldn't seem to figure out that killing his fellow tribesmen would eventually reduce his chances of survival.

[cardw]

Quote:

But that's because we live in a world that is dominated by self-interest. If you think about "everything in the world" is based on this principle. So the moment you lose all self-interest that moment you start living in a cardboard box. Christ's life gives evidence to this.

Jesus acted in self interest. He rested. He set boundaries. And it was in his own interest to prove the Devil wrong. I would assume that his goal was to win the war. This would be acting in self interest. He was a creator. Creation would include some self interest.

There are mixed motivations possible for many of Jesus' actions. I would hope that Jesus had some self interest.

[Robert]

Jesus acted in self interest.

No there was no self-interest in Christ's life. That's because agape has no "self" in it. Our human love (which is merely self-love) is why death reigns.

Rob

[there buster]

Quote:

And yet, where is the Ottoman empire today? There is a difference between short term gains and long term gains. A ruler has to keep killing his enemies because he has chosen that particular path. And what quality of life is it to live in paranoia of being killed? And murder was still wrong within the Ottoman empire because what they called the immorality of murder had already been established.

The Ottoman Empire lasted for longer than most. And no, your history, as usual, is wrong. Suleiman did not have to keep killing his enemies, because very early on he eliminated them. He did not live in paranoia of being killed. He was revered.

And no, what he did was not considered immorality at that time. But that's irrelevant. The problem is that you keep proposing 'rational' moral standards, and I keep presenting historical evidence that demonstrates your rationale is mistaken.

You can't simply make up history to fit your preferences.

Quote:

Wow a whole 50 years, and yet how effective was this method for the heirs that didn't live. I can see how this method was very effective for the survival of one's family. Before you can declare that this method is great we have to determine what we mean by great.

Your example is evidence of a very simplified analysis of the evolution of what we call moral law. It is only an example of the effective use of force. The Ottoman empire might be judged as great in power, but I think we would have to look at the quality of life for its citizens to really determine if the goals I have advocated would be applicable to declaring the Ottoman empire a great place to live.

It's amazing someone can be so comprehensively mistaken. Read the history books. He was called "Suleiman the Magnificent" in the West. In his own realm, he was revered as the Lawgiver. The reason for such accolades was that the quality of life in his empire was admired both by those within and without.

The '50 years' comment is breathtakingly foolish. He reigned without rival for the length of his natural life. He took the 'crown' at 26, and reigned until he died a natural death at 76. Yeah. "A whole fifty years" is quite a long reign for any monarch. Apparently he would have to live to be 126 to impress you. Meanwhile, among those who know history, 46 year reign is indeed impressive.

As for the goals you have advocated, why should anyone on Earth care?

They're incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory, and just pure fantasy.

The Ottoman Empire of Suleiman's time was considered 'a great place to live' by his contemporaries. That's a real world assessment.

The life and reign of Suleiman, who assassinated his older brothers and their children, disproves your position that "killing his fellow tribesmen would eventually reduce his chances of survival" was wrong. Dead wrong.

Every rationalization you attempt fails under the evidence.

[cardw]

Quote:

Every rationalization you attempt fails under the evidence.

Well, like many things you state, this is an exaggeration since you don't address every rationalization and since most of these apparent failures are only so by your declaration. And even your declarations are exaggerations.

Comprehensively mistaken, breathtakingly foolish,pure fantasy, etc.

Exaggerations are no substitute for honest reasoning. What it tells me is that you have no idea how to substantiate any kind of rational framework for your own position, so you simply continue to ridicule mine. And even if you would address my reasons in an honest manner, making me wrong would not make your position rational.

And secondly, you are taking a single instance and generalizing it to the whole. You are also not taking into account his changes in methodology during his lifetime. Generalizations are not rationalizations.

He obviously must have stopped killing people at some time since to continue killing one's own people would eventually begin to work toward his demise. His success cannot be attributed to killing alone. In fact his greatest societal success occurred after he had completed his conquering and began to use law as his best "weapon" of establishing order.

Again you demonstrate an inability to follow and combine more than one line of reasoning at a time. I have been using examples of how morality is made up due to circumstances of survival among small groups. And then you site an example using an empire. The variables that you need to address are staggering. You take an empire and apply only a single criteria. That is extremely dishonest.

It is interesting how morality becomes much more grey when we begin to address larger cultures. Where is this great Tao when we apply it to Suleiman and the Ottoman empire? When we observe large cultures it becomes apparent that there is no such thing as morality since rulers set up different standards to solve problems of survival. This demonstrates a rational process going on. And because of this rational process we call Suleiman great. And yet you would consider this assessment of greatness a moral judgement if we were talking about God. Because, if I bring any negative judgment against that god of the Bible you argue that I have no basis. Well I would have no basis for this god's greatness either.

And this is why the god of the Bible is not held to the same standards as humans. It is simply reflecting the practice of rulers not being held to the same standards as their subjects.

Evidently the Jews had to start killing on a large scale and used "god" to justify this and they needed a god that was not subject to their own moral law to order them to kill, so they could carry out genocide.

God and morality are inventions we use as tools and the morality you are talking about only exists in your own imagination. You may be able to point out exceptions, but you don't even have general framework of what morality is other than some indirect reference to the Tao and its imaginary properties. And according to you only a select group can even talk about the Tao. To me that is the same as appealing to god's mysterious ways.

I appeal to the transcendent as well, but I don't call it rational because its unknowable in a rational sense. You are implying that the transcendent is a rational process and a superior process without producing any rational framework for it. And yet you are critical that I have a rational theory for morality. And because inconsistency has no value for you, there doesn't even seem to be a point in which you could be challenged.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Jesus acted in self interest.

No there was no self-interest in Christ's life. That's because agape has no "self" in it. Our human love (which is merely self-love) is why death reigns.

Rob

Well, since I know of no way to determine if agape exists, I have my doubts about its presence and its connection with death.

If God gets jealous, that seems to indicate a fairly strong self interest.

[there buster]

Quote:

And secondly, you are taking a single instance and generalizing it to the whole.

Oops, no, wrong again. You made a categorical statement. I gave a counter example. By the rules of logic, all it takes is a single counter example to disprove such a statement.

Quote:

He obviously must have stopped killing people at some time

I see. So your position would be that murdering some of one's own tribe is all right, so long as you stop some time. Aside from that being different than your original claim, it is also inconsistent, which you claim invalidates a moral standard.

Quote:

so you simply continue to ridicule mine.

Demonstrating that they are ridiculous is not the same as ridiculing them. Make a consistent, respectable argument, and it will be recognized. So far, as Lewis indicated, your position has not risen to the level of error.