morals vs. religon part 2

[polysciguy420]

Ok. There seems to be some confusion as to what was meant by my earlier thread. Let’s see if I can clear this up a little bit.

First I argued that religion was made out of utility as opposed to any inherent truth found in any religious doctrine.

Secondly, based on this, I asserted that absent the existence of a higher power (let’s say “God”) what incentive do humans have to be bound by “morals”
Morals are considered to transcend human reason, meaning that they are universal, the truths of morals are supposedly independent of human reason. In other words, humans can discover moral truths, but they do not themselves create them. For example, killing is considered to be against the moral code of humanity. A person can believe that killing is ok, but regardless of what they personally believe killing is against the moral code of humanity.

What I was arguing in an earlier thread was the point that absent of a higher power, how can it be logical that people subscribe to a moral code that supposedly transcends human thought if it was human thought that created it in the first place. In other words, without God or another higher power setting the rules for us to discover, who’s to say that anybodies morals are any better or worse than anybody else’s. It just may happen that my morals happen to place a constraint on the happiness of others, but absent of a higher power acting as arbitrator, who’s to say my actions are immoral? Without higher power my morality would be judged by other humans only, and the opinions of other humans has never been proof positive that something is right or wrong.

Is my position more clear now? lol

[polysciguy420]

1. however

I can note that, for practical purposes it doesn't matter if a person is right or wrong in a universal sense when it is popular opinion that the person is against the established moral order of the time. Whether that person is right or wrong, they will still face the consequences of their actions.

[Peacetrain]

2. Nope you are still muddy

[polysciguy420]

3. tsk tsk

it seems self explanitory 2 me...I don't see where I'm being hard to follow. Let's try it this way. Where does human morality originate? Within humans themselves or from a power higher than humans? If it is within humans themselves, how does human morality differ from human opinion? If it is from a higher power (i.e. God) how can you have morals independent of Religion?

[rrneck]

10. how does human morality differ from human opinion?

It doesn't.

Morality is just human opinion developed over thousands of years as a result of human cognitive ability. It is an epigenetic development that exists above the genetics but beneath culture. That's what makes it seem like some higher power is giving some moral code, when in fact we are reacting to our own genetic development.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Hmmmm, hadn't thought of it that way

but your reasoning makes sense. Animals that live in groups have evolved ways to get along with each other that comes from genetic programming. Why would it be any different with humans?

It is likely perceived differently, because our brainpower has given us the ability to change our environments in ways that practically no other animal can do. We can fashion a way to deal with beating with fists, but when you stick a club, or even a crude axe in a human hand, it needs a whole different approach to respond to that. A submission gesture that will keep one from getting killed by fists (which take multiple blows to slay) has no chance of working when one swipe of an axe can render the victim unconscious and unable to display submission.

I like where you've taken me on this...

[rrneck]

13. Thanks, but I wish I could take credit for it.

Here's what I've been reading lately:

Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson
Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved by Frans De Wall
The Lucifer Effect by Phil Zimbardo
The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution by Denis Dutton

The theory of mind is a tricky thing. A club or ax has power indeed. And the knowledge of that power has an impact on whether or not it gets used and by whom.

One of my favorite movies of all time is The Lion in Winter. It has tons of good dialog, but here is one of my favorite quotes:

Prince Geoffrey: I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it.
(smiles)
Prince Geoffrey: We're a knowledgeable family.

[stray cat]

4. There really is no basis for an absolute moral code if its a human invention

However, even animals can sense when something is unfair.

[polysciguy420]

5. ok!

That's the type of answer I was looking for. You understand what I was getting at, and I agree with your conclusion. Sheesh *slaps forehead*

[jacksonian]

6. Morality is a collective decision, not an individual one

the truths of morals are supposedly independent of human reason.

Just because morals lie outside of the realm of individual choice does not make them outside of reason. One could posit that a "cumulative reasonableness" is indeed the process behind evolving a moral code.

Why, if morality was received wisdom, would it evolve at all? Things have changed in moral thought in last 2,000 centuries. If it existed as predermined truth, why and how would this happen?

the opinions of other humans has never been proof positive that something is right or wrong.

People can determine, in a cultural sense, right and wrong about a host of things. Science can 'prove" things that would otherwise be "unprovable" by consulting only received wisdom.

You see, there's the rub. Does this received wisdom condemn homosexuality or not? Only the knowledge of people can resolve this issue. Morality is much more than commandments written in stone, it is a living, evolving system of human rules born of messy rationality

[polysciguy420]

7. but what you are describing

are human opinions. An opinion is an opinion rather it be on a collective or an individual scale. I do agree that certain "climates of opinions" exist within any given period in time, but I'm not sure as to how these collective opinions turn into moral truths. Just because everybody is of the belief, or opinion that killing or anything else deemed immoral on a "collective" scale is wrong, does not make the action wrong independent of the opinions who deem the action wrong. Do you get what I'm saying? Just because there may be a collective agreement on a particular issue, how do you prove the collective has come to the correct or "RIGHT" conclusion PROOF POSITIVE as oppossed to just majority rule or a collective opinion that may change at some point in the future.

[jacksonian]

8. It still takes thought to understand

>>>because everybody is of the belief, or opinion that killing or anything else deemed immoral on a "collective" scale is wrong, does not make the action wrong independent of the opinions who deem the action wrong.<<<

But why do people, collectively or otherwise, have these opinions? It is NOT a scenerio where all possible outcomes are equally possible. There is, rationally, a process that makes killing not as optimal an outcome as not killing for a vast number of "reasons". And the collective process that leads to a taboo has to, in some sense, conform to this rational reality that killing is not good. There really is no basis for believing it is some sort of societal dice roll that "no killing" came up this time but might not the next.

And remember, morality is more than, much more, than kill or not to kill. That is an easy determination, but there is a lot of gray in other areas where only thought and reason is a guide.

[Democracyinkind]

9. Read some Kant, Habermas, Gilligan, Kohlberg or Mill.

There is a ton of schools of thought to subscribe to that propose moral systems that are not based on religion.
I recall reading another thread with a similar message, I suppose that was the one mentioned. Many people posted examples of Moral systems that do not rely on Churches/god/religion. Didn't that kind of settle the debate?


BTW.Even the freepers have one: Ayn Rand. Totally godless. Though she's not a philosopher and no one in possession of a degree in philosophy has ever accepted the notion that her work constitutes a moral system.

[cosmik debris]

11. This is just nonsense

"For example, killing is considered to be against the moral code of humanity."

Killing is sanctioned by most governments on the planet. Why do you think they have standing armies? It is to kill their enemies.

The evidence is that killing is part of the moral code of humanity.

At least that is the lesson of history and religion.

[ZombieHorde]

14. "what incentive do humans have to be bound by “morals”"

I think about which type of world I would like to live in, then I try to act and vote accordingly.

[Why Syzygy]

15. You're not talking about "morality". You're speaking of "justice".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=201564