Foundation for Morals

[ergosum]

Okay, so let's get you people thinking about morality. How can one have an objective view of morality? Is it even possible? Obviously, it is very difficult, since philosophers have attempted this task for centuries -- basing morality on a strong and solid footing that would apply to all peoples in all situations.

Morality cannot be only within the realm of religious beliefs... let alone the Christian religious paradigm of morality.
We all agree (hopefully) that killing another human is WRONG -- whether we are atheists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Protestants, or Hindus, etc.
However, killing is justified --- some would argue --- when it's for a good cause: like fighting a just war, for your country as a soldier, for self-defense, etc.

So, morally: killing is wrong, except in certain situations. How do we arrive at this conclusion? Can only a CHRISTIAN worldview bring us to know this is moral? Can only a religious believe come to know that this is moral? Can an atheist come to understand that killing is wrong? If yes, how? On what grounds?

I guess, I'm asking you to create a foundation that is not subjective, that can be used to build a whole system of morals. Go for it!

[Cam42]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:50 PM']Okay, so let's get you people thinking about morality. How can one have an objective view of morality? Is it even possible? Obviously, it is very difficult, since philosophers have attempted this task for centuries -- basing morality on a strong and solid footing that would apply to all peoples in all situations.

Morality cannot be only within the realm of religious beliefs... let alone the Christian religious paradigm of morality.
We all agree (hopefully) that killing another human is WRONG -- whether we are atheists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Protestants, or Hindus, etc.
However, killing is justified --- some would argue --- when it's for a good cause: like fighting a just war, for your country as a soldier, for self-defense, etc.

So, morally: killing is wrong, except in certain situations. How do we arrive at this conclusion? Can only a CHRISTIAN worldview bring us to know this is moral? Can only a religious believe come to know that this is moral? Can an atheist come to understand that killing is wrong? If yes, how? On what grounds?

I guess, I'm asking you to create a foundation that is not subjective, that can be used to build a whole system of morals. Go for it!
[right][snapback]651564[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

OK....here we go.....from a purely philosophical point of view, this paper is a great explaination.

[url="http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html"]Objective Morality: Based on Scientific and Rational Reasoning [/url]

It is a bit envolved, but a good excercise....read on.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:50 PM']So, morally: killing is wrong, except in certain situations.
[/quote]

Killing is changing the state of any living thing from living to dead. This goes right from using anti-fungal foot cream to using nuclear weapons against population centres.

Murder has a particular legal definiton and only applies to people on people.

Killing can be perfectly ok in many many situations, however murder is always wrong without exeption (Exodus 20).

[ergosum]

Ofcourse, we all know that God (if there exists one) is (or would be) all-powerful and Omnipotent and all that.
However, we also know that God cannot do certain things that are logically impossible. In other words, even God has to obey the fundamental law of logic, which is non-contradiction, that A is A and cannot be A and non-A at the same time.

So, if the entity "God" that we assume independently exists is under the limitation of the principles of logic, then the CONCEPT of "God" ITSELF should also be perfectly and LOGICALLY consistent, without any internal contradictions, or else, the concept "God" would then be rendered illogical and contradictory and therefore false!

So, let's take some concepts of what we understand God is or is not, and see if they make clear, consistent logic:

God is perfectly moral.
Morality is in always doing that which is right.
Doing what is right requires one to know what is right from what is wrong.
God always knows what is right from what is wrong because God knows everything.
But doing what is right and NOT doing what is wrong implies that there is an option to choose from.
Therefore, there should be choices of right and wrong that God can choose to do, from which he picks the right thing to do.
However, God can NEVER pick the wrong thing to do, because He always picks the right thing and because He KNOWS what the right thing is.
But if God can NEVER pick the wrong thing to do, it means he has NO CHOICE in the matter, i.e. He cannot help but pick ONLY the right thing to do. He CANNOT bring himself to do the wrong thing.
But God is all-powerful and can do ANYTHING.
But God cannot go against His own nature -- which is to ALWAYS do the right thing.
Since, He is incapable of ever doing the wrong thing, He is also limited by His own nature in all the things he can do.
Thus, God cannot have the CAPACITY or the potential to do the wrong thing, because that would mean that there exists a possibility for that potential to do the wrong thing, to manifest.
But there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY even, for God to ever pick the wrong thing to do.
Thus, without any choice in the matter, God does not have free-will to exercise both this potentials and then choose his potential to do right all the time.
Since no capacity to ever do wrong exists in God, He is bounded by His nature to always do right -- automatically.
Thus, no free-will, thus no choice, then automatic nature, like instinct.
Thus, is God's actions TRULY moral if there was no deliberate, purposeful, benevolent action in choosing to do only the right over the capacity to do all the wrong?
It cannot be that God cannot have free-will, because God can choose to do ANYTHING.
But I just demonstrated that God has no free-will or independent CHOICE in the matter of doing the right thing or the wrong thing.
Thus, this whole argumentation of God being "perfectly moral" and having "free-will" and being independently "omnipotent" seems to fall flat on its face.
Too many contradictions in the internal concept of God.
But God has to be the MOST SUPREMELY logical and intelligent Being ever!
And God has to obey the principles of logic -- like He cannot commit suicide because it is logically impossible for Him to do so if He is eternal and immortal.

Therefore, God is not real. Contradictions cannot be real. The unreal does not exist. God does not exist.


--- Ergosum.blogspot.com

Edited July 20, 2005 by ergosum

[Cam42]

[quote]But God cannot go against His own nature -- which is to ALWAYS do the right thing.[/quote]

And there is your error. It isn't so much that God can't go against His own nature, but WILL NOT go against His own nature. Subtle, but nevertheless true.

This is an old argument. You are not doing anything new....this is an old argument, and has been proven false many times. I believe that St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas both defeated you centuries ago.

Have you read the link yet? You were not asking a theological question, but a philosophical question. Which do you want to explore the "object moral" or the omnipotence and omniscience of God?

[Aloysius]

one fundamental missing key in your logic is that "wrong" (or "evil") things are an absence of good, not some independent thing.

anyway, I'm really not quite sure how your two posts on this thread are even related

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 21 2005, 01:09 AM']Ofcourse, we all know that God (if there exists one) is (or would be) all-powerful and Omnipotent and all that.
However, we also know that God cannot do certain things that are logically impossible. In other words, even God has to obey the fundamental law of logic, which is non-contradiction, that A is A and cannot be A and non-A at the same time.

So, if the entity "God" that we assume independently exists is under the limitation of the principles of logic, then the CONCEPT of "God" ITSELF should also be perfectly and LOGICALLY consistent, without any internal contradictions, or else, the concept "God" would then be rendered illogical and contradictory and therefore false![/quote]

Fallacy, God cannot be Omnipotent and simultaneously governed by any kind of law, even logic.

[Semperviva]

I'll leave this one to the big boys... hehehe... my brain only works in the realm of ....

the realm of ....

....other realms


or what i mean is.. i should leave this to the big boys, hahha, but i can't help myself...


But there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY even, for God to ever pick the wrong thing to do.


....I thinks its more like this.

[b]God is a certain way or he is not.
He is either all good or he is not God.
[/b]

Thus, without any choice in the matter, God does not have free-will to exercise both this potentials and then choose his potential to do right all the time.

[b]God does not [i]do[/i] right, He is rightness. You seem to be seperating his attributes from His being.[/b]

Since no capacity to ever do wrong exists in God, He is bounded by His nature to always do right -- automatically.
Thus, no free-will, thus no choice, then automatic nature, like instinct.

[b]By nature I cannot live without oxygen. In my being, by nature, its part of the concept and reality of humaness. I could choose not to breathe, but I would then cease to be. The reality of God is to choose Himself. If I choose to not breathe, I self-destruct. If he chooses that which is other than HImself He would cease to be HImself. [/b]

Thus, is God's actions TRULY moral if there was no deliberate, purposeful, benevolent action in choosing to do only the right over the capacity to do all the wrong?

[b]We do not measure God as making moral or immoral choices: only WE are capable of morality or immorality. Since we ARE NOT God, we CAN and do choose that which is other than Himself, hence evil.[/b]

But I just demonstrated that God has no free-will or independent CHOICE in the matter of doing the right thing or the wrong thing.
Thus, this whole argumentation of God being "perfectly moral" and having "free-will" and being independently "omnipotent" seems to fall flat on its face.
[b]
I think the free will in this sense applies only in reference to us, as the concept of free will only really makes sense in OUR choice to choose or reject God. God has[i] freedom[/i], but not free will corresponding to our human will. So it seems to me you are right to say God does not have free will. He is free. But he does not have free will in the way we do.[/b]

Edited July 21, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 20 2005, 04:50 PM']
Morality cannot be only within the realm of religious beliefs... let alone the Christian religious paradigm of morality.


We all agree (hopefully) that killing another human is WRONG -- whether we are atheists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Protestants, or Hindus, etc.
However, killing is justified --- some would argue --- when it's for a good cause: like fighting a just war, for your country as a soldier, for self-defense, etc.

So, morally: killing is wrong, except in certain situations. How do we arrive at this conclusion? Can only a CHRISTIAN worldview bring us to know this is moral? Can only a religious believe come to know that this is moral? Can an atheist come to understand that killing is wrong? If yes, how? On what grounds?

I guess, I'm asking you to create a foundation that is not subjective, that can be used to build a whole system of morals. Go for it!
[right][snapback]651564[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This is true, morals, value, ethics, are not only "within the realm of" religious beliefs. If you hold a gun to any man's head he will generally believe there is something not right with this scenario, Catholic, Baptist, Shinto, or Wiccan. So you are right... morality is not subject to a particular religion.

More specifically, as mentioned above in another post, killing is not the highest evil, although stamping out life is AN evil, but just not the greater evil, it is never never something one should value unless its germ life you kill, lol, but killing of an innocent human being is the highest evil in this example, which is then defined as murder.

You agree to this as an atheist. Everyone values his own life to a degree, especially when faced with[b] the idea of losing it[/b]. All men can comprehend the idea of death, loss of life, losing the good of life which we define as "evil," evil being the lack of a due good. The idea of evil seems to be that which we consequentyl base our concept of good upon. Once we come to know that we can lose a good, such as life, we then know what evil is...and when we see this possibility of loss -we deem it evil- and avoid it- hence morality for all mankind comes from a realization of a [b]loss of good [/b]and hence trying to attain the good and avoid the lacking of this good. So objectively morality seems to come from the concept of evil.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Semperviva

[Aloysius]

you are applying rules to God that he created for us.

God is the source of all goodness, nothing is "good" without Him. He created it all, He chose to create good. Good does not exist apart from Him. wrong, or evil, is a negation of good. it is always slavery, something that restricts freedom.

because "free will" and "freedom" don't mean that you can choose to do either good or bad things. free will is the POWER to do the GOOD thing because only by the GOOD thing are you not enslaved and trapped devoid of anything good.

[Nathan]

Atheism and morality are contradictory; morality is 100% rooted in the belief of God, or gods. Without that belief -- the belief in a higher power, the belief that life has meaning and we are not just a random speck of dust -- there is no morality. If we don't matter, nothing matters. Atheists will argue against this, that they too have morality even without the belief in God, but the morality they carry is the same one as their God-fearing counterparts; it's just a weaker, faded version.

If atheists truly and completely lived out the implications of their views, they would be like wild beasts, doing whatever they wanted to whomever. Some of them have, of course -- we call them murderers. However, the power and effect of the Western Judeo-Christian morality on the vast majority of our atheists has yet to be completely flushed out.

[ergosum]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Jul 21 2005, 08:05 AM']Atheism and morality are contradictory; morality is 100% rooted in the belief of God, or gods. Without that belief -- the belief in a higher power, the belief that life has meaning and we are not just a random speck of dust -- there is no morality. If we don't matter, nothing matters. Atheists will argue against this, that they too have morality even without the belief in God, but the morality they carry is the same one as their God-fearing counterparts; it's just a weaker, faded version. 

If atheists truly and completely lived out the implications of their views, they would be like wild beasts, doing whatever they wanted to whomever. Some of them have, of course -- we call them murderers. However, the power and effect of the Western Judeo-Christian morality on the vast majority of our atheists has yet to be completely flushed out.
[right][snapback]652297[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


HAHAA! Of all the posts on here, I chose to respond to this one because I find this sooooo absurdly naive that it's hilarious!
Oh boy! So misguided.
Anyway.... so you say, "belief in a higher power.... life has meaning and we are not just a random speck of dust" --- ha! my friend, that is EXACTLY what you are!! A random speck of dust -- if you believe in God, that is.
Believing in a Supreme Being, especially the Judeo-Christian version of the "Supreme" Being REQUIRES that utmost humility of mind and spirit, requires the renunciation of all your ego, requires the acceptance of nothingness, of being the last. For those among you who is the least of men on earth, shall be the greatest and glorified in heaven!

Listen, just follow the link to my blog and read all about it. "Why do we need morals?" "Morality of an Atheist" and many other useful posts that might enlighten you.
ergosum.blogspot.com


Oh, and to make a few points about other posts:

Umm, no. Anselm and Aquinas were not able to explain away my arguments so easily. To say that God "WILL NOT" go against His nature is an easy cop-out.... it is like me saying, "Oh yeah, I can move that mountain, but I "WILL NOT"... because I "CHOOSE NOT TO".

God does not "WILL" to not kill Himself, or come to a state of NON-EXISTENCE, because God CANNOT CANNOT, simply CANNOT DO IT! It is IMPOSSIBLE for your concept of God to be able to commit suicide!! Just like, no matter how much I fool you into believing that I can move that mountain, I CANNOT, I just simply CANNOT do it.

And another point: coming up with whatever definitions you want of "evil"... i.e. absence of good, state of non-being, blah blah blah... still does not take away from the argument that God is INCAPABLE of attaining that, choosing that, or arriving at that state of "evil" or "wrongness", however you define it.

[Nathan]

Pal, I don't have the time to waste on your bull$hit ideas. Perhaps if I found the inane scribblings of angry, misguided teenagers enlightening, even mildly entertaining... but I don't.

I was you in high school.

[Jaime]

Hitler (just getting him out of the way folks)

Edited July 21, 2005 by jaime

[Nathan]

LOL.

[ergosum]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:04 PM']OK....here we go.....from a purely philosophical point of view, this paper is a great explaination.

[url="http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html"]Objective Morality: Based on Scientific and Rational Reasoning [/url]

It is a bit envolved, but a good excercise....read on.
[right][snapback]651586[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I read your E---N----T-----I-----R----E article! And honestly, the first thing I want to say to you is: learn the art of brevity!

Okay. Now, with regards to your paper... at best, all your paper does is scratch the surface of moral foundations. Really, you have no system of morality or objective foundation to base standards of morality upon... nothing of that sort is proposed in the paper.

You mention the need for an understanding of objective morality and say that you have the answer. But throughout your entire paper I found more evidence of your moral theory being based on logical positivism and subjectivism than anything else! There is absolutely no objective moral footing that I could identify in the paper.

How does one come up with "distinguishing characteristics"? Is it possible for different people to read different things into an action and therefore come up with different values for "distinguishing characteristics"?
And clearly, WHAT is your definition of morality? Is intention in the realm of morality or is only ACTION? You don't state anything clearly.

What is the "objective" stance on abortion according to your moral theory? Is it okay to abort 5 mins before birth? 10 mins? 30 mins? 7 days? Eventually, you have to answer... objectively... without any grey area... what your stance on abortion at any given time of pregnancy based on your moral system... and remember, objective means, that should apply to all peoples at all times across all cultures!

There's so much more... I won't say much. Your paper falls far short of doing anything to build an objective foundation for morals. You don't even clearly define WHY we need morals... why should we even engage in this task... what are values.... and how do we create values (or are they not created by intrinsic) and how does morals arise from values or vice versa.

[Cam42]

[quote]Umm, no. Anselm and Aquinas were not able to explain away my arguments so easily. To say that God "WILL NOT" go against His nature is an easy cop-out.... it is like me saying, "Oh yeah, I can move that mountain, but I "WILL NOT"... because I "CHOOSE NOT TO".

God does not "WILL" to not kill Himself, or come to a state of NON-EXISTENCE, because God CANNOT CANNOT, simply CANNOT DO IT! It is IMPOSSIBLE for your concept of God to be able to commit suicide!! Just like, no matter how much I fool you into believing that I can move that mountain, I CANNOT, I just simply CANNOT do it.[/quote]

The burden of proof is upon you, not the Church. Prove me wrong.

Here is Thomas' argument:

1. Argument From Motion.
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion.

2. Causation Of Existence.
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things.

3. Contingent and Neccessary Objects.
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.

4. The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection.
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured.

5. The Agrument From Intelligent Design.
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.

If you think that you can knock that down, fantastic. Have at it.....here is Anselm's argument.

1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible.
2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.)
3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.)
4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is.
5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.)
6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible.
7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible.
8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.

Good luck.....I don't think that you can do it. However, the burden of proof lies with you, ergosum.

I would also suggest that you read [url="http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM"]Fides et Ratio[/url]. It, coupled with the previous link, should answer most of your questions.

[Jaime]

Ergo

Just to clarify, while the identity of Cam is so top secret that even Carl Rove can't blow his cover, he is not Eugene Khutoryansky. And thank God for that because Cam doesn't like to sign his whole name now on credit card receipts. He would hate to have to sign Eugene Khutoryansky every time!!


Something to keep in mind

[Cam42]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 21 2005, 10:42 AM']I read your E---N----T-----I-----R----E article! And honestly, the first thing I want to say to you is: learn the art of brevity!

Okay. Now, with regards to your paper...  at best, all your paper does is scratch the surface of moral foundations. Really, you have no system of morality or objective foundation to base standards of morality upon... nothing of that sort is proposed in the paper.

You mention the need for an understanding of objective morality and say that you have the answer. But throughout your entire paper I found more evidence of your moral theory being based on logical positivism and subjectivism than anything else! There is absolutely no objective moral footing that I could identify in the paper.

How does one come up with "distinguishing characteristics"? Is it possible for different people to read different things into an action and therefore come up with different values for "distinguishing characteristics"?
And clearly, WHAT is your definition of morality? Is intention in the realm of morality or is only ACTION? You don't state anything clearly.

What is the "objective" stance on abortion according to your moral theory? Is it okay to abort 5 mins before birth? 10 mins? 30 mins? 7 days? Eventually, you have to answer... objectively... without any grey area... what your stance on abortion at any given time of pregnancy based on your moral system... and remember, objective means, that should apply to all peoples at all times across all cultures!

There's so much more... I won't say much. Your paper falls far short of doing anything to build an objective foundation for morals. You don't even clearly define WHY we need morals... why should we even engage in this task... what are values.... and how do we create values (or are they not created by intrinsic) and how does morals arise from values or vice versa.
[right][snapback]652410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not my paper...simply a link that starts the conversation. You are certainly missing the point of the paper though. There is more. At least it is getting you to think. That is the point of posting the link. Fides et Ratio continues the thought......