Sources of Ethics and Morality

[Neil D]

fccool, if God embedded the ideas of what is moral in the minds of all mankind from before birth, then how to cannibal societies, to take your example, arise? The claim that morality is universal because it's innate can be contradicted by examples of societies throughout history and geography that, cumulatively, take as moral every precept that we would take as immoral and vice versa.

As a Christain, Bravus, that is easily answered....

It is because of another outside influence that has entered into our society...Sin, or selfishness, or self interest.....As I understand cannibal societies, eating one's enemy is the only sure way that they are never to come back to haunt you...again, this is based upon an erring belief system...

Now, I realize, I may have just blown away every logical premise and upset this dynamics of this debate, but ...that was the answer, as it seemed to me... ...never theless, i would be interested in seeing how cardw, and fccol and ...Ed ...seem to handle this new piece of information..

[phkrause]

Good post Neil.

pk

[Bravus]

I agree that it's a good response, Neil. But it really just moves the whole problem one square: how do we decide which of the bits that societies share are evil and which are divine?

[Neil D]

I agree that it's a good response, Neil. But it really just moves the whole problem one square: how do we decide which of the bits that societies share are evil and which are divine?

Here is where I do make some assumptions from a personal perspective....

I came into the world with nothing....no values, no wealth, nothing....I like to look at it thus, I came into this world with my hands closed, grabbing everything that I could...I leave this world with my hands open, wanting nothing...

Since I came into this world with nothing, I get to decide which items are best for me...And came to the conclusion a long time ago, that 1] I can not live long enough to relearn from every mistake that ever was....2] I have to learn from others.

Since I choose to learn from others, I get to choose which value system that I desire to have....my own or Someone elses...I have found that God provided that value system...It's called the 10 Commandments....I tend to think that everyone has this same value system...but I also know that some think that they have "improved" on that value system....

I have found that by staying close to my new Value System, I don't have nearly as many problems as those who seemed to have improve on it...And I tend to think that societies that live by that Value System have less problems as well... those cannabilistic societys have given up much in thier knowledge of God's value system...That's my opinion....

I wonder how much I have upset this apple cart now....?

[Tom Wetmore]

fccool, if God embedded the ideas of what is moral in the minds of all mankind from before birth, then how do cannibal societies, to take your example, arise? The claim that morality is universal because it's innate can be contradicted by examples of societies throughout history and geography that, cumulatively, take as moral every precept that we would take as immoral and vice versa.

Even the cannibals have standards. They don't just eat everyone in sight. It's OK to eat you enemy but not your own family and friends. What makes the difference? Where did they get the idea that eating a dead relative was bad, but eating a dead enemy has merit, and brings about some benefit to the eater beyond filling their stomach with food? Is there a rational difference, as cardw would suggest? It's not merely a practical idea of survival, because dead relatives are just as good a source of meat as the dead enemy and more convenient and far less risky to obtain.

There seems to be a belief system at work even there that subscribes to an outside mysterious force or standard, even though it seems barbaric to us.

Tom

[Bravus]

Tom, I agree that one pattern we do see in almost all human societies with the possible exception of the fairly recently developed secular humanist ones is some process of ascribing the key social values to a god or other divine guarantor.

I'm not sure, though, whether you're supporting or challenging the idea that it is possible to glimpse the outlines of a universal moral code through a kind of overlaying process where we lay all human societies (represented in this metaphor by something like tree diagrams of key values and beliefs) on top of one another and look at the patterns of similarities. I take that to be a claim that is being made here quite frequently, and it's that claim that I'm exploring with this line of thinking.

[Bravus]

Quote:

Since I choose to learn from others, I get to choose which value system that I desire to have....my own or Someone elses...I have found that God provided that value system...It's called the 10 Commandments....I tend to think that everyone has this same value system...but I also know that some think that they have "improved" on that value system....

But don't you think a huge amount of the learning from others occurs while you're too young to be making an active choice? I'd argue that, absent a *massive* conversion experience, most people's central moral values are in place by the age of about 7, and at that stage most kids don't even really recognise in any deep way that they have an existence separate from their parents. What allows you to choose the Ten Commandments, and predisposes you to choose them over Buddhism or Confucianism or the Quran or... was laid down between the time when you came into the world as a tabula rasa (itself debatable) and the time you started making choices independently of your parents.

(Please note that this does not discount the possibility that what you learned from your parents was of divine origin - my point is simply to challenge your account of how your moral framework developed as being too rationalistic and as assuming it happened with you thinking and choosing as an adult.)

[Neil D]

Heheheheh....boy am I gonna have fun with this!!!!!

Quote:

Since I choose to learn from others, I get to choose which value system that I desire to have....my own or Someone elses...I have found that God provided that value system...It's called the 10 Commandments....I tend to think that everyone has this same value system...but I also know that some think that they have "improved" on that value system....

But don't you think a huge amount of the learning from others occurs while you're too young to be making an active choice? I'd argue that, absent a *massive* conversion experience, most people's central moral values are in place by the age of about 7, and at that stage most kids don't even really recognise in any deep way that they have an existence separate from their parents. What allows you to choose the Ten Commandments, and predisposes you to choose them over Buddhism or Confucianism or the Quran or... was laid down between the time when you came into the world as a tabula rasa (itself debatable) and the time you started making choices independently of your parents.....

[fccool]

fccool, if God embedded the ideas of what is moral in the minds of all mankind from before birth, then how do cannibal societies, to take your example, arise? The claim that morality is universal because it's innate can be contradicted by examples of societies throughout history and geography that, cumulatively, take as moral every precept that we would take as immoral and vice versa.

My explanation of course would be that they abide by societal standards that erase God's... that's where the whole concept of sin "nature" comes into play. We are born into sin "nature"... i.e. an environment that overshadows the natural "embedded" morals.

Where would Tarzan derive his morals from? Emotions are the bases for any moral concepts. Without emotions men would be animals... as animals don't possess emotional capacity of men. There is no rational explanation for existence of emotions on both chemical and mental level. Thus I deduce that emotions are pre-programmed responses. Sure the can be "re-programmed" but it does not mean that "pre-programmed" sense of morality is not there from the beginning.

Just because deviations exist, does not mean that standard does not.

[Tom Wetmore]

You bring up a couple of interesting points of comparison to the animal kingdom. I would agree that animals do not have the emotional capacity or range of humans, at least not as we show and feel them or to the same extent. However there is evidence that animals do have emotions and respond in an emotional sense. Elephants have been observed "mourning" over the loss of a family member. Dogs show affection, excitement, anger, fear, etc. And many animals "read" human emotions much more effectively than humans. A dog can sense your fear and responds and take advantage of it accordingly. A horse will sense the apprehension, or fear of a novice rider and respond, or take advantage of it.

The other point less directly is that animals appear to have value systems and rules of ethical conduct. Some appear to be instinctive, but others are learned from their parents, or others of their animal community. Animals of higher intelligence such as apes and dolphins seem to make value choices more readily.

What would be the source of the system of order in the animal kingdom?

[there buster]

Quote:

From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn.

This is what I have been saying. The beginning point is preference, desire, want, etc.

non sequitur

He is saying you can never get an "ought" from an "is." You leap several conclusions to declare your premise, which is the beginning point is "preference, desire, want," which is not only disconnected logically from the other statement, but is demonstrably false.

Many moral standards are precisely what we do not want. We want to take whatever we want. We want lie when it is to our advantage.

Moral precepts actually are designed to rein in our wants and desires. So saying they are 'preferences' or 'wants' is absurd on the face of it.

Quote:

Again, this what I have been saying. The beginning point is preference, desire, want, etc.

No, he is NOT saying what you are saying. And again, the notion that we 'want' morality is absurd, and contradicted by human behavior every day.

Quote:

Well, if C.S Lewis, in mentioning the Tao, means a moral reference given by God, j. . . . So many points you make seem to assume that a lack of proof means that God did it. t

You're the one who keeps introducing God. I'm not certain how many times I will have to repeat that I AM NOT APPEALING TO GOD before you get it.

Quote:

There is a reason you won't answer the questions I put forth. The reason is as soon as you answer them, it becomes apparent that you are in exactly the same position as everyone else when it comes to claiming superiority for this myth of external referenced morality.

Stop attributing motives. You are so far from correct that it boggles the mind, but if I explain why I'm not responding to these questions, everyone will have a fit.

Besides, if, after at least three repetitions that I AM NOT APPEALING TO GOD as the source of morality, why should I expect you would actually understand any answer I give you?

[cardw]

Quote:

He is saying you can never get an "ought" from an "is."

Well we can't get there rationally.

"Ought" has a subjective basis. Now we can select from a number of subjective motivations. This list is in no way complete, so don't use some isolated exception to declare the whole thing wrong.

1. I want

2. I have to, otherwise I'll get punished or isolated

3. I love

Quote:

Many moral standards are precisely what we do not want. We want to take whatever we want. We want lie when it is to our advantage.

Well I didn't mention specific moral standards because you haven't given me any that you consider universal.

I think we can ask people if they would rather live in a moral society or an immoral society in general. I believe most people would rather live in a society where it was considered immoral to steal and kill. There must be some advantage to being moral, otherwise if everyone is motivated slavishly to doing evil we would see a much different society.

Quote:

You're the one who keeps introducing God. I'm not certain how many times I will have to repeat that I AM NOT APPEALING TO GOD before you get it.

Well then what are you appealing to? The Tao? And if you are appealing to the the Tao, what do you consider the source of the Tao?

Quote:

Stop attributing motives. You are so far from correct that it boggles the mind, but if I explain why I'm not responding to these questions, everyone will have a fit.

Smoke and mirrors dude. No matter what your motivations are, the fact is you haven't answered these questions.

Quote:

Besides, if, after at least three repetitions that I AM NOT APPEALING TO GOD as the source of morality, why should I expect you would actually understand any answer I give you?

So far you haven't actually given any specific answers. You have just told us what you are NOT doing.

[cardw]

Quote:

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

You can not derive the above without an external reference. I don't think anyone would argue that for the simple reason of how we acquire knowledge. Even as you learn language you have to trust that the person who is teaching you got it right.

Well all we have to do is ask where did this external reference come from. You say it comes from God and I will ask how. And you will say the Bible and I will say how do I know the Bible comes from God and not a collective agreement of men trying to form a society. And I will also ask how do I know that I am understanding what the Bible says. You will say faith and the Spirit of God. And I will ask, how will I know if the Spirit I am listening to is telling me the correct way to understand the Bible and you will say the Bible will tell me.

I'm not representing this as an accurate representation of your thoughts, but as an example of the circular regression this type of dialog takes.

Quote:

What you are talking about is kind of going the way of pluralism... or not? Thousand flies can not possibly be wrong... type of thing. If you are not, then how do are you determined for such view of morality to work without tyranny of enforcement.

In practical terms morality is either enforced by a state or I can see an advantage to incorporating moral guidelines to my life and choose to learn how to do that. The self help movement is quite active in our society and shows like Oprah wouldn't hold the draw they do unless there was something attractive about a loving society.

And, unfortunately, a few people doing violence can quickly destroy a peaceful orderly society. It is a very difficult problem.

Quote:

You may allude to God being a tyrant who enforces his morality with an iron fist, but I don't see Him breaking down your door if you don't pay the dues (if he does exist).

Well, I don't say that some unknown Creator God is a tyrant since I don't see any interference in this world. I do say that the God of the Bible is easily demonstrated to be a tyrant. They are not the same thing to me. I am agnostic when it comes to God in general, but I am atheist when it comes to the God of the Bible, much like you are an atheist when it comes to Zeus.

Quote:

I can certainly see a pluralist State derived morality doing just that, and at times even justifying it by means of "religiously derived" morality. And these people make the same claim that you do... that the goal is the happiness for everyone... even the ones who are suffering. How do you reconcile your idea with what is already happening in the world?

Like I said before, it is a complex and difficult problem, but not one were we haven't seen some success in this world. If you are looking for perfection then we would have to appeal to some mythical god since we don't know what perfection is or if it exists, but I think we can demonstrate progress and examples of success.

Quote:

Your view assumes that all people would want the same thing absent any religious concepts. Am I right? If I'm wrong, how do you deal with defiant ones, and what moral high ground would you apply to condemn their views and actions?

I don't assume that. I recognize that people are different. I choose to classify them as more and less mature. I think higher understandings of morality require higher intelligence. And by intelligence I don't simply mean problem solving, but also emotional intelligence. These would include insight and wisdom as well as other less definable aspects of what it means to be human. These don't require the god of the Bible and based on some of the behaviors of the god in the Bible, I think we would want to transcend the ethics of the god of the Bible.

[cardw]

Quote:

What would be the source of the system of order in the animal kingdom?

This is an excellent question.

I had an experience working with a group of about 60 horses. One morning I came and found one dead horse laying in the middle of the large holding area. There was one horse at one end of the pen and all the other horses were at the other. And whenever this one horse moved toward the herd, they would move as far away from him as possible.

When we examined the dead horse we noted that he had died from his forehead being crushed. It was apparent that he had been kicked in the forehead. Now the horses will jockey for position by biting or kicking, but they hold back from their full force. This horse had been hit by a much harder blow. A full size horse is 1600 pounds and possesses extremely powerful strength.

It became obvious that we would no longer be able to mix the isolated horse with the herd. They would nip at him and were basically shunning him. It didn't appear that they were afraid of him, but they had decided that he could no longer be in the herd. If one were to given human terms to the situation, they considered him a murderer and were punishing him.

We had to send him back to our horse supplier. There was obviously some type of social code being enacted here. Now one could appeal to morality, but I think there are a number of rational explanations that could be presented to answer this behavior as well. One example might be that the horses had learned through some process that survival of the herd depended on them not killing each other and if one of them began that type of behavior one solution would be to shun the offender. This was a punishment that didn't require them to kill, but served to keep them safe.

I don't believe horses think this through, but use a form of emotional intelligence to form their behaviors. What I have observed is that humans have minimized their emotional intelligence and it is rationalism in the absence of intuition that seems to present some of the most cruel and violent behaviors. That is why I appreciate it when Jesus refers to empathy as the basis for behavior, not rules or threats. To me, this is a recognition of an inner "goodness" that we can reference through our empathy.

The other advantage of this use of empathy is that we don't need a state to enforce this. The horses didn't have a state or laws or some external moral code. It appeared to me that their behavior came from an internal source.

I think we are still learning how to balance our rational abilities with our emotional consciousness. I think it is very difficult to even present that things are "good" or "bad" because these are artificial designations that, to me, are unsubstantiated short cuts to give us an "explanation" for suffering.

The main reason that I don't believe these to be true is that I have observed people that many of you would consider to be "evil" shift their behavior through a combined emotional and intellectual education process. I won't debate that this might include some unknown creator god, because I don't think that is knowable, but I'm sure it didn't involve the god of the Bible.

[Bravus]

Neil - you are, of course, a thinking and reasoning adult now (at least most of the time ). I was simply saying you weren't at the age of 3 and 4, unless you're some kind of freak (I mean, some other kind of freak).

Is that OK as an apology?

More seriously, my teen daughters are choosing their own ethical and moral frameworks, and they do differ in some details from ours, but the underlying principles are very similar. I'd say that people in their teens largely either accept their parents' values largely intact or entirely reject them and create a framework in opposition. Some later come to a more reasoned approach to selecting values from their parents and from other sources. But the basic underlying values are largely set in place by the familial microsociety and the broader society (points 2 and 3 in my past a couple of pages back), while much of the discussion here has focused on points 1 and 4.

[Woody]

Quote:

The problem is that your argument was an ad hominem attack, rather than evidence. You presumed to tell me what my motivation was.

The reason I don't answer your questions is because your arguments do not rise to the level of error.

They are simply naked assertions, repeated over and over. The number of logical fallacies in your arguments renders them incoherent.

Your example of options isn't merely incomplete, it's irrelevant. Of course, it's possible that you are correct, and all of the great thinkers of all time are wrong-- naw, not really.

I'm not going to waste more time going over the basics again and again until you demonstrate that you are amenable to reason and logic.

And in the end, it doesn't matter. You claim "ought" is subjective. Then no one has any reason to care what anyone else says they "ought" to do, least of all someone who openly declares that his standard of morality is subjective. Okay. Your morality is subjective. Then don't expect anyone to give a hoot about your so-called 'moral' pronouncements. Your moral "preferences" are as relevant to anyone else as your preference of chocolate or vanilla. Too trivial to trouble about.

This should be interesting. I've never heard of an argument over the word 'ought' before.

[Neil D]

Aw Red, I thought you knew sumation arguements for grownup,,

[Liz]

More seriously, my teen daughters are choosing their own ethical and moral frameworks, and they do differ in some details from ours, but the underlying principles are very similar. I'd say that people in their teens largely either accept their parents' values largely intact or entirely reject them and create a framework in opposition. Some later come to a more reasoned approach to selecting values from their parents and from other sources. But the basic underlying values are largely set in place by the familial microsociety and the broader society (points 2 and 3 in my past a couple of pages back), while much of the discussion here has focused on points 1 and 4.

The reason for this is that their prefrontal lobe of the cerebral cortex is not fully developed until the age of 18. After the age of 18 they have the capacity for rational reasoning and then adopt the values of their parents or society at large.

[Neil D]

The reason for this is that their prefrontal lobe of the cerebral cortex is not fully developed until the age of 18. After the age of 18 they have the capacity for rational reasoning and then adopt the values of their parents or society at large.

I am sorry, Liz...but my experience doesn't agree with this....I know a few too many grownups, some are older than I am , whose ...[what didju call it?] "prefrontal lobes of the cerebral cortex" and a couple of other lobes [ahem] that we will not mention were over developed....and, if I remember correctly, those people weren't adopting any values but thier own....

'nuff said....

[Neil D]

Neil - you are, of course, a thinking and reasoning adult now (at least most of the time ). I was simply saying you weren't at the age of 3 and 4, unless you're some kind of freak (I mean, some other kind of freak).

Is that OK as an apology?

[Liz]

'nuff said....

So I can't argue with you? ROFL Puleeeze.

What I am talking about is biological. And if your "people" were not following the norm, then either they had a smaller prefrontal lobe or alcohol was involved.

[Woody]

I do have to admit that I've been reading more about 'apologizes' today than I have in months on this forum. What is it with all this 'niceness'.?

[Bravus]

'apologies'

(Oops, I apologise - that tic is getting me again)

[Woody]

'apologies'

(Oops, I apologise - that tic is getting me again)

No. You misunderstand. I am not talking about apologies. I am talking about apologizes. That Aussie is havin a little trouble with spellin. (Just a little more tic for ya)

[Neil D]

I do have to admit that I've been reading more about 'apologizes' today than I have in months on this forum. What is it with all this 'niceness'.?

We have to model it for all the users and a few moderators who don't know how to be nice..and who dont know how to appologize and who don't know how to accept a gracious appology...

...after all, we don't want to embarrass anyone....especially those moderators who are a bit ....well you know, don'tcha Red....

...and we don't want to break any of the new rules...and name names and describe behaviors....

and by doing it this very generic way, various people might see themselves and work somthing out........Right? right....

...Ok, Red...time for you to appologize.....Why? because you just need to...besides, it's good for your soul...