Sources of Ethics and Morality

[cardw]

Quote:

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.

No, you assumed that. You have to make my position categorical to counter it. If you note I have stated that morality is a myth so I'm not trying to establish morality, only the source of the myth and the motivations to attribute morality to a god and the obligation implied as a method of control. I am not making statements of universal laws and morality. You are answering as if I am. I am presenting an evolutionary process not a authoritative one.

I have clearly stated that my position is based on preference motivated by what I have learned is a better quality of life and you have continued to imply that yours is not, but is based on the Tao, a secret concept that only a select enlightened can dialog on. Though this position is not to imply that there is a god, but morality is given by god.

The only defense you have given for your position is the observation that moral laws exist in all cultures or more accurately all cultures claim to have moral laws in that they at least enforce them. But this observation doesn't give us any reason to assume that these are actually moral laws given by a god since these ideas are certainly within the capability of people to conceive by themselves.

Quote:

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.

Well, it seems that its Ok for God to order his people to kill women and children. This seems to be a moral code that is consistent with being a ruler. I didn't say that this was a moral code. I was talking about the origin of moral code and you have assumed that I was presenting some universal law.

No one has a universal moral code because there are always exceptions that require the code to be modified or expanded on to include more situations. We see this as law becomes more and more complex. This is why morality is really a myth. And it is why you refuse to provide an answer to why have morality because you would have to admit that morality, as an idea, has its source in a much more human process.

Quote:

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.

Again, exaggeration. That seems to be all you have is misrepresentation and exaggeration.

[there buster]

Quote:

And it is why you refuse to provide an answer to why have morality because you would have to admit that morality, as an idea, has its source in a much more human process.

Amazing. I have provided the answer as to 'why have morality.' Your question is the equivalent to 'why have gravity?' In both cases we have no choice. You apparently lack the organ to detect morality.

Quote:

to the corrupted man, the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible.6 He may be hostile, but he cannot be critical: he does not know what is being discussed.

Every post you make demonstrates that is your position.

All of world history, all the sages and philosophers of all time must be wrong, so that you can be right. Don't think so.

And since you claim there is no universal morality, all that remains are your personal preferences, which can be of no interest to anyone else, except as a matter of curiosity.

But even that palls, because, as it turns out, they're only a sort of Mammy Yokum philosophy, "Good is better than evil because it's nicer." Yawn.

[cardw]

Quote:

And it is why you refuse to provide an answer to why have morality because you would have to admit that morality, as an idea, has its source in a much more human process.

Amazing. I have provided the answer as to 'why have morality.' Your question is the equivalent to 'why have gravity?' In both cases we have no choice. You apparently lack the organ to detect morality.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Amazing. I have provided the answer as to 'why have morality.' Your question is the equivalent to 'why have gravity?' In both cases we have no choice. You apparently lack the organ to detect morality.

Originally Posted By: cardw

...You cannot test or observe morality in any kind of predictable way... And I know anatomy rather well and there is no morality detecting organ that I know of... Just because we feel bad about something doesn't mean we have a moral organ.

Uhhh... How do I say this politely? ... ... Moral organ... Organ for moral judgment? (Judgment - The process of detecting morality or making moral choices...)

Hmmm... How about the BRAIN!! Yes, that's it! A significant part of human anatomy.

And yes, modern science has been testing and measuring and observing morality. And rather predictably science has compiled quite strong evidence that the brain is the organ of choice for that very purpose. They even can pinpoint rather precisely what regions of the brain are involved in making moral judgments.

Here from NIH - Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements

From UNC - The Emotional Basis Of Moral Judgments

From Science Today - Brain Imaging Study Sheds Light On Moral Decision-Making

From Harvard - The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment

And in the popular press - Study Finds Brain Injury Changes Moral Judgment

If you believe that a Supreme Being had a hand in the creation of man, include the brain in that grand design effort. Allegedly, that same Character explained it thusly - Love your neighbor as yourself. It has been suggested by someone around here that that idea is descriptive of an important human emotion - Empathy.

It would seem we are hard wired by the Creator to make moral choices - a rational process from a Divine Source. Of course, if you have lost a belief in a Creator... Evolution of the brain, the single most complex organ - Give that some rational thought...

So what was the question again?

[BSW]

I always thought ethics and morality were an offspring of enviroment. As a christian in this dispensation, understanding context of the Devine is enlightenment, as it were, and it is this that allows me to control behavior. It is when my personal control (ethical morality) becomes oppressive and controlling of anothers liberty that a line would be crossed, notwithstanding, this "type" of so called ethics and morality for the "greater good" is exactly what murdered my Savior.

Of course we know this type of behavior will rise its ugly head again.

"The miracle-working power manifested through spiritualism will exert its influence against those who choose to obey God rather than men. Communications from the spirits will declare that God has sent them to convince the rejecters of Sunday of their error, affirming that the laws of the land should be obeyed as the law of God. They will lament the great wickedness in the world and second the testimony of religious teachers that the degraded state of morals is caused by the desecration of Sunday. Great will be the indignation excited against all who refuse to accept their testimony." {GC 590.2}

Ethics and Morality have always been subjective, in my opinion.

Peace

[fccool]

Everything is subjective , because it is processed through a brain of a subject. BUT, if you except that there is an objective reality (or truth) outside of your subjective mind... then you have to accept a possibility of the subjective and objective interlap.

Now, I think that the reason that the thread has gone for as long as it did is because the subject is different. Icabod is talking about the objective morals, and cardw is talking about subjective ones.

What the above argument really boils down to:

cardw: There is no God of the Bible

icabod: There is a God of the Bible

If there is a God of the Bible as a creator of us as souls(not simply a mixer of the chemicals), then it's safe to assume a certain hardwired rules and limits on our brains and bodies. We were built as a functioning units with ability to reason which did not need to be developed. And, goes without saying, if there is a God of the Bible, then you'd have to assume that Bible is true.

If there is no God of the Bible, then it is safe to assume that our morality is derived from our evolutionary goals and needs to function and survive. In which case you'd have to assume that Bible is not true.

Any other arguments will go in circles for limitless ages, as you try to reason with certain assumptions in mind that result in circular reasoning ( I.E. supporting premise with a premise), mainly because of the subject matter:

Morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.

[there buster]

Quote:

Again, this demonstrates that all you have is misdirection, misrepresentation, exaggeration, and ridicule.

Interesting that you want to characterize my arguments rather than present evidence and make your own.

Quote:

Well, evidently it is of interest to you since you have spent so much time on this.

Well, actually, no. I made the mistake that when I saw the title of the thread "Sources of Ethics and Morality" that I did not realize you believed you were such a source.

I assumed (again, my mistake) that you were serious.

In addition, there are far too many whose morality generally matches your own, as Lewis described 60 years ago: "It will be seen that comfort and security, as known to a suburban street in peace-time, are the ultimate values: those things which can alone produce or spiritualize comfort and security are mocked. Man lives by bread alone, and the ultimate source of bread is the baker's van: peace matters more than honour and can be preserved by jeering at colonels and reading newspapers."

Finally, there is your mistaken notion of narrative, an assumption which you will no doubt deny. There are three basic types of narrative. 1) Where the protagonist struggles with obstacles, and is changed. 2) Where a protagonist and antagonist struggle with each other, and one or both are changed. Far more common, and less recognized, is the type three narrative, which I will simply designate the Daniel 6 narrative. In that narrative, neither protagonist nor antagonist is changed.

Put simply, this debate is not about you, or me. Adieu.

[there buster]

Quote:

Everything is subjective , because it is processed through a brain of a subject.

I'll remember that. Gravity doesn't exist objectively; I just think it does. HOw about if I think I can levitate?

Quote:

cardw: There is no God of the Bible

icabod: There is a God of the Bible

Wow! Four times--NOW FIVE-- I have made it plain that I HAVE NOT APPEALED TO GOD AS THE SOURCE OF MORALITY AND ETHICS. Nor have I argued that "There is a God of the Bible."

Where do people get this stuff?

[olger]

"Everything is subjective..."

Fcool when you make this statement above, that statement either includes itself or excludes itself. If it includes itself that means that your statement is not always true. If it excludes itself then your statement is positing an absolute, while denying that absolutes exist. You simply cannot make a statement like that that “everything is subjective” and yet affirm that statement at the same time.

regards,

oG

[cardw]

Quote:

From UNC - The Emotional Basis Of Moral Judgments

Well, this idea certainly would not be acceptable to ichabod since he would say that 'they're only a sort of Mammy Yokum philosophy, "Good is better than evil because it's nicer." Yawn.'

I think that has been my point all along, that morality has its basis in a much more human system of discovery. And since emotions play a role I would say that the word preference would be closer than objective in describing moral systems and their goals.

Quote:

If you believe that a Supreme Being had a hand in the creation of man, include the brain in that grand design effort. Allegedly, that same Character explained it thusly - Love your neighbor as yourself. It has been suggested by someone around here that that idea is descriptive of an important human emotion - Empathy.

It would seem we are hard wired by the Creator to make moral choices - a rational process from a Divine Source. Of course, if you have lost a belief in a Creator... Evolution of the brain, the single most complex organ - Give that some rational thought...

Like I said before I am atheist in terms of the god of the Bible. And as far as determining the creator, its goals, its nature, etc. that, to me, is unknowable. To me, God becomes the word that is used once we get to the unknown.

Quote:

So what was the question again?

The question that I asked was, "Why be moral?" And as soon as we get to the unknown then its god or in ichabod's case the "Tao."

[cardw]

Quote:

Again, this demonstrates that all you have is misdirection, misrepresentation, exaggeration, and ridicule.

Interesting that you want to characterize my arguments rather than present evidence and make your own.

You don't have an argument to characterize. All you have is an appeal to the "Tao." That's not an argument.

[cardw]

Well, maybe its because you don't have an argument and people are getting this from the implications of your statements.

We can clear this up real quick.

Do you believe that the God of the Bible exists?

Do you believe that this God or any god is the ultimate source of morality?

I know you have stated that it is the "Tao" but this "Tao" looks strangely similar to an appeal to god. Or at least implies that God set the "Tao" up, which is really the same as stating that God is the source of morality and ethics.

I know its hard to express any of your own ideas, so resist the temptation to simply quote C.S. Lewis like the Bible.