We ALL Have a Universal Moral Code In Us

[Schouwenaars]

 

 

 

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care.

And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. 

The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision...

 

And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? 

 

And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure?

 

Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. 

Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

 

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better:

To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or

To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions?

 

I don't remember you answering this question.

 

I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong?

You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer.

 

That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with. And it doesn't mean that if actions might be not 'bad' from origin, that you should do them.

 

Raping is hurting other people. And hurting your own people is not very helpfull. Survival is also based on trust on each other. And i don't think you build a relation of trust if you rape that person.

For nowadays of course it doesn't really have a big infuence on the survival of the whole human rase. But not hurting people is an instinct that comes from the far away generation who survived because they had the same instinct. Because they were able to multiply, we still have the same instinct. Of course there are always people who don't have that instinct. But that's because everyone is different.

 

 

"That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with."

....and which one are you most happy with? Living a rational life and embracing what you espouse and living it out, or living a moral life by pretending that your actions are actually right or wrong?

 

What about those you interact with? Would you prefer them to treat you as if there isn't really any right or wrong? That the only difference between eating pork or eating you is a vestigial evolutionary legacy that no longer applies? Or would you prefer that they consider their actions toward you as having real moral significance?

 

In terms of rape: you're still not answering my question. Suppose it were possible to rape someone in such a way that it has no effect on human survival, would it be wrong?

You've sidestepped this question by simply assuming things about rape which aren't necessarily true. Let me give you an example: I read once about a dentist who used to rape his female patients while they were under anaesthesia in his dental practise. Apparently he had done this many times and was never caught because the women didn't know they were raped.

He didn't hurt anybody and didn't break any trust either. The victims simply didn't know that they were victims.

 

Is this wrong? Why? How did it affect the survival of mankind?

 

You should first realise that because i say morality isn't absolute does not mean everything is allowed now. We now have moral rules inside us wich we have to folow. The only thing we discuss is where they come from and why.

 

About the rape question, i thought i explained that, but i will try it again for you.

Rape is hurting people.

Hurting people was bad for survival long time ago.

The ones who didn't hurt people, were more likely to survive and pass there DNA.

In that DNA is then the 'not hurting' thought, if i can describe it like that.

Now we still have that thought inside us because we have the DNA of the ones who survived.

Because of this, some rape is wrong, although it doesn't effect the survival of our species now.

Then look at it at a larger scale: if everyone would rape, then it is a matter of survival, even now.

Because of this, the dentist has done wrong.

 

I hope i made it clear finally.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

 

 

You should first realise that because i say morality isn't absolute does not mean everything is allowed now. We now have moral rules inside us wich we have to folow.

Why do we "have to follow" these moral rules inside us?
Are you aware of Hume's Law? How do you get from "we behave a certain way" to "we ought to behave a certain way"?
Hume's Law is also called the IS / OUGHT problem.

 

 

 

The only thing we discuss is where they come from and why.

No, the title of this thread isn't about where morals come from and why. The title is a question about the essence of morality.

 

 

 

About the rape question, i thought i explained that, but i will try it again for you.

Only if you mean by "explained it already" that you've restated your initial assumption without any justification and without dealing with my counter examples.

 

 

Rape is hurting people.

In the case of the dentist where nobody was physically or emotionally hurt, since they weren't even aware that it had happened.

Again what you're doing is answering a question I didn't actually ask. My entire point with the dentist rape example is that you need to deal with the situation where rape doesn't hurt people.

 

 

 

Hurting people was bad for survival long time ago.
The ones who didn't hurt people, were more likely to survive and pass there DNA.
In that DNA is then the 'not hurting' thought, if i can describe it like that.

This is what's referred to as a just-so story. You're basically making up a story which matches your view, but that hardly constitutes anything more than well....story telling.

Be that as it may.

For starters you're assuming that rape is contra-survival, but if I were to ask a socio-biologist why human beings commit acts of rape, they'll very likely appeal to a very similar survival story that you're appealing to.

 

Secondly, you're assuming that the "do not hurt others" thought that we inherited from the apes is correct, but what about the other thoughts that we supposedly inherited from the apes, such as the "apes from different tribes must be crushed" thought?

 

You're committing the same morality smuggling excercise that happened in jerryR34s article. If we're going to base our moral heritage on what animals do, when we can't pick and choose the behaviors we like and simply dismiss the others.

 

Lastly we're still left with Hume's law. Saying we've inherited thoughts doesn't say anything about whether people OUGHT to have them or not.

 

 

Now we still have that thought inside us because we have the DNA of the ones who survived.
Because of this, some rape is wrong, although it doesn't effect the survival of our species now.

Then look at it at a larger scale: if everyone would rape, then it is a matter of survival, even now.
Because of this, the dentist has done wrong.

Why should we look at it at a larger scale? You've given us a rule which states that to evaluate an action we should extrapolate the action to the whole population of mankind and if a large scale performance of the action results in a loss of survivability then we have a moral wrong? But you haven't given any justification for why we should apply this rule.

 

In essence you're basing your claim that the dentist raping people was wrong based on a story you told about survival despite survival  no longer mattering and then making up a rule to apply the survival test to a larger scale (because, it seems, you've realised that it doesn't work on a small scale)

 

Forgive me, but that seems a little self-serving to me. In one instance you're claiming morality is basically what actions promote survival, and when you're given a counterexample, you're shifting the goal post to say morality is about what actions, when applied on a large scale, promote survival. Why the large scale application is necessary, you haven't stated.

 

But let's test the theory that we must apply actions to a large scale and if they have a negative survival effect, then they're immoral:

 

Some people choose not to have children. If mankind as a whole chooses not to have children, then mankind will go extinct, therefore choosing not to have children is immoral. Do you agree?

 

Here's another

 

Some people think that there are no real moral right or wrongs, that it's just an illusion based on our evolutionary heritage. If everybody thought that there is no such thing as right or wrong, but that it's just an evolutionary heritage, how would that affect mankind? I'll leave the conclusion for you to think about.

 

Which bring me to my other question, which you still haven't answered in any way that isn't vague or dismissive.
Since you believe there is no real right or wrong, do you think it's better to pretend it does exist and lead a moral, albeit irrational life? Or would you say it's better to be rational and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions?

 

 

I hope i made it clear finally.

I hope this isn't an attempt to try the "I'm going to pretend I've already dealt with this and act exasperated, thereby making my interlocutor seem dim-witted" tactic? I'm confident that this isn't the case, because you seem like a reasonable and open-minded person.

[jerryR34]

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

 

 

You should first realise that because i say morality isn't absolute does not mean everything is allowed now. We now have moral rules inside us wich we have to folow.

Why do we "have to follow" these moral rules inside us?

 

This begs the question of why you follow moral rules. 

[LuftWaffle]

 

Hi Schouwenaars,

 

 

 

You should first realise that because i say morality isn't absolute does not mean everything is allowed now. We now have moral rules inside us wich we have to folow.

Why do we "have to follow" these moral rules inside us?

 

This begs the question of why you follow moral rules. 

 

The reason I try to follow moral rules is really simple: I wish to please God.

 

Shifting the question to me, doesn't solve the problem for you, and my question wasn't why a person follows moral rules, but rather why a person ought to follow moral rules.

[siegi91]

Hi Schouwenaars,

You should first realise that because i say morality isn't absolute does not mean everything is allowed now. We now have moral rules inside us wich we have to folow.

Why do we "have to follow" these moral rules inside us?

This begs the question of why you follow moral rules.

The reason I try to follow moral rules is really simple: I wish to please God.

Shifting the question to me, doesn't solve the problem for you, and my question wasn't why a person follows moral rules, but rather why a person ought to follow moral rules.

Hallo Luftwaffe, are you German too?

How do we know what we ought to do?

Edited August 6, 2015 by siegi91

[LuftWaffle]

hi siegie91,

 

Apologies for only responding now, I don't visit this forum as often as I used to anymore.

No I'm not German, I chose the avatar as somewhat of a joke, although there is a long story behind it. I live in South Africa.

 

Your question is an epistomological one, which should be distinguished from the ontology of morality. Let me put it this way: asking how we know what objects in our universe are red or green is not the same as asking questions about the nature of colour itself.

Even a blind person who has no idea of what the colours of things are can still make a true statement about the nature of colour.

 

In the same way, asking me how one knows what we ought to do has no bearing on whether or not some actions are really wrong or merely an illusion based on personal preferences or societal conventions.

In short "WHY" questions are not "IF" questions, and this entire thread deals with the "IF" aspect of morality, namely "IF there are such things as moral obligations and moral values."

Most atheists are forced to deny this because they're aware of what it would entail, even as I'm sure you've seen if you read this thread, their own language betrays them time and time again, because they act as though morality is true and speak about morality as if it's objective. In a sense they find themselves denying morality when it comes to academic discussions but affirm morality when they feel strongly about some civil rights issue, crime or free speech etc.

 

But to answer your question, I think human beings posses a moral sense and it is this faculty that allows us to assess the morality of certain actions, much like human beings possess a sense of sight that allows them to assess light waves. How exactly this faculty works I do not know however, it's not an interest I have. I'm not 100% clear on how eyes work either.

[RustyAngeL]

ok, another than survival then:

 

suppose there is a man and he likes killing people, just for fun.

in himself, he thinks it's good.

while we think it's bad.

 

then moral is a matter of opinion.

the man will be depicted as bad, because the majority of the other people think it's bad.

 

imagine now that the other people think the same as that man.

then that act will be good, as well as the man, because majority wins.

 

now moral is also a matter of majority.

It is all about the all about how we lives as believers in Jesus.  When we stand firm in God through Christ morality is no longer a question.  There are  no gray areas in the Bible it is either right or wrong.  You are either with Christ or you are against Him.  We can't make up  things as we go along.  When we live in Christ your choices will always or shoud always line up with the Bible.  So morality is not a yes or no  answer it should always be what God says.

[siegi91]

hi siegie91,

Apologies for only responding now, I don't visit this forum as often as I used to anymore.

No I'm not German, I chose the avatar as somewhat of a joke, although there is a long story behind it. I live in South Africa.

Your question is an epistomological one, which should be distinguished from the ontology of morality. Let me put it this way: asking how we know what objects in our universe are red or green is not the same as asking questions about the nature of colour itself.

Even a blind person who has no idea of what the colours of things are can still make a true statement about the nature of colour.

In the same way, asking me how one knows what we ought to do has no bearing on whether or not some actions are really wrong or merely an illusion based on personal preferences or societal conventions.

In short "WHY" questions are not "IF" questions, and this entire thread deals with the "IF" aspect of morality, namely "IF there are such things as moral obligations and moral values."

Most atheists are forced to deny this because they're aware of what it would entail, even as I'm sure you've seen if you read this thread, their own language betrays them time and time again, because they act as though morality is true and speak about morality as if it's objective. In a sense they find themselves denying morality when it comes to academic discussions but affirm morality when they feel strongly about some civil rights issue, crime or free speech etc.

But to answer your question, I think human beings posses a moral sense and it is this faculty that allows us to assess the morality of certain actions, much like human beings possess a sense of sight that allows them to assess light waves. How exactly this faculty works I do not know however, it's not an interest I have. I'm not 100% clear on how eyes work either.

Thanks for answering.

I like your analogy with the sense of sight, because it correspond ontologically more or less with what I believe is my sense of morality.

Maybe where we do not agree, is that I believe that both senses are reducible to mental states, that are reducible to mental substates, that are ....(several layers here) .... reducible to neuronal behavior. And stop right there, if we neglect all the physics that closes the chain.

In other words, I think it makes sense to feel right or wrong even if they have no fundamental meaning that go beyond our biological and physical imprint.

What do you think of the idea?

Siegi

Edited August 13, 2015 by siegi91

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Siegie91,

 

It might surprise you, but I totally agree with you that our perceptions can be reduced to mental states, but I don't think that proves that the thing being perceived is a mere mental state, so in a sense the question about moral ontology still remains.

 

Think about it this way: I can reduce a photograph to photons reacting with light sensitive chemicals to etch an image onto paper, but in no way does this prove that the object of the photograph doesn't exist in reality.

Suppose one took a picture of a sunset, does reducing to process down to chemistry prove that there is no sun, and no earth spinning around an axis to create the phenomenon of a setting sun, of course not.

Suppose I don't take a photograph but I just look at it with my eyes. You could say that my perception of a setting sun can be reduced to mental states triggered by stimuli from  optic nerve, but does that somehow prove that there is no corresponding reality of an actual setting sun?

 

Likewise just because moral values are assessed by subjects and the assessment is a mental process of sorts doesn't mean those moral values do not correspond to a reality beyond the mind of the assessing subject.

 

For this reason I have no problem agreeing that morality is assessed through mental states, just like colours. The question however still stands, are moral values and duties mere illusions or do our moral assessments correspond to a reality beyond us.

Do you think they are illusions?

 

[siegi91]

Hi Siegie91,

 

It might surprise you, but I totally agree with you that our perceptions can be reduced to mental states, but I don't think that proves that the thing being perceived is a mere mental state, so in a sense the question about moral ontology still remains.

 

Think about it this way: I can reduce a photograph to photons reacting with light sensitive chemicals to etch an image onto paper, but in no way does this prove that the object of the photograph doesn't exist in reality.

Suppose one took a picture of a sunset, does reducing to process down to chemistry prove that there is no sun, and no earth spinning around an axis to create the phenomenon of a setting sun, of course not.

Suppose I don't take a photograph but I just look at it with my eyes. You could say that my perception of a setting sun can be reduced to mental states triggered by stimuli from  optic nerve, but does that somehow prove that there is no corresponding reality of an actual setting sun?

 

Likewise just because moral values are assessed by subjects and the assessment is a mental process of sorts doesn't mean those moral values do not correspond to a reality beyond the mind of the assessing subject.

 

For this reason I have no problem agreeing that morality is assessed through mental states, just like colours. The question however still stands, are moral values and duties mere illusions or do our moral assessments correspond to a reality beyond us.

Do you think they are illusions?

 

 

I think we can, with probably some abuse of language, define two sets of things, with different ontologies, that can be the object of matter of our mental perceptions.

1) internals. These are the thing that live and die with us. A typical example is physical pain. I don't think that a perception of pain  is the gateway to an external thing like pain, that can exist without organisms with a nervous system. The day the last of such organisms die, is the day that pain disappears. I neglect here possible extensions of pain in the hereafter

2) externals. These are the things you are referring to. Like the moon. Things that will still exist even in the absence of mental states caused by observing them. I neglect here some non realist interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I think morality belongs to 1) and, probably, you think it belongs to 2). Which is fine, the subject of morality is still unsolved after thousands of years of thought.

So, you ask me if they are illusory in my worldview. I would say that it is as illusory as me having a strong migraine.

 Siegi