Morality

[Harbal]

Do you mind me asking if you care whether anybody else believes that?

Do I mind if other folks believe other things? Of course not: I have no church to support, no coffers to fill. My deism is mine; it's not a communal thing. Ain't nuthin' about it obligates me to convert folks.

That's a good attitude, henry.

[Dontaskme]

Morality comes from the concept known, which has no known source except here now Nowhere.

I'm not in the mood for any of your nonsense, Dontask. You may well be in possession of the ultimate truth, but we are all human beings, and can only usefully look at the World in that context. So speak like a human being, please.

The point is you cannot rule out the concept of God as the source of morality.

It makes no difference where morality comes from because every concept is known by the only knowing there is...the real issue is who is the KNOWER ?

Some call it God ....some call it Me.

Either ..or...makes no difference as both concepts originate from the same place.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I suggest that human beings are born with a sense of what we term as ethics and morality. I also suggest that the precepts that appeal to this sense and inform it with regard to how it motivates us to behave, are also human in origin.

I agree DNA/RNA wise, 'Morality & Ethics' is an inherent potential within ALL humans as a mental function represented a neural algorithm in the human brain.
The faculty of morality is like those of the senses, the intellect, the reason faculty but the potential of the moral function is slowly unfolding within humans in time, and it is active in a minority while less active in the majority.

There are two aspects to Morality and Ethics, i.e. the Nature and Nurture aspects.

One perspective is the Moral Impulse is an adaptive trait via evolution as the higher primates naturally display some small degrees of proto-moral propensity and elements, such as empathy, altruism, avoidance of incest, etc. Mirror neurons supposedly responsible of empathy are also found in small numbers in the higher primates.

While the impulse of morality is fundamental as Nature - i.e. generic to the human species, the variations in morality and ethical rules/laws are varied due to 'Nurture' variables.

I do not believe they come from God, but are entirely the product of human consensus.

It is impossible for God to exists as real.
Thus in the real sense the question Morality from God is a non-starter.

[Harbal]

It is impossible for God to exists as real.
Thus in the real sense the question Morality from God is a non-starter.

I wouldn't say that. I personally don't believe that God exists, so if I were trying to get at some sort of truth about morality, it would have to be with God excluded from the conversation. For a believer, it would be the reverse situation. The point I was really trying to make with this thread, is that it is pointless for an atheist and a believer to get into such a conversation, because there is no prospect of a satisfactory outcome for anyone. It would just end up as an argument about the existence of God. I suppose if either one of them were to suspend his position as an atheist or believer, so that the discussion was purely hypothetical for him, something interesting might come out of it, but it could only get to any kind of truth as far as one of them was concerned.

[Peter Holmes]

It is impossible for God to exists as real.
Thus in the real sense the question Morality from God is a non-starter.

I wouldn't say that. I personally don't believe that God exists, so if I were trying to get at some sort of truth about morality, it would have to be with God excluded from the conversation. For a believer, it would be the reverse situation. The point I was really trying to make with this thread, is that it is pointless for an atheist and a believer to get into such a conversation, because there is no prospect of a satisfactory outcome for anyone. It would just end up as an argument about the existence of God. I suppose if either one of them were to suspend his position as an atheist or believer, so that the discussion was purely hypothetical for him, something interesting might come out of it, but it could only get to any kind of truth as far as one of them was concerned.

I suggest there are two separate issues here: 'where does morality come from?'; and 'can morality be objective?'

If there's a god with moral opinions that we have to or ought to obey, then it could be said that morality comes from that god. And in that case, of course, belief in the existence of that god is critical.

But if morality isn't and can't be objective - because moral assertions aren't factual - then the existence of a god is irrelevant. And anyway, the claim 'morality comes from a god' is the very antithesis of moral objectivism. If morality is objective, its source is irrelevant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is impossible for God to exists as real.
Thus in the real sense the question Morality from God is a non-starter.

I wouldn't say that. I personally don't believe that God exists, so if I were trying to get at some sort of truth about morality, it would have to be with God excluded from the conversation. For a believer, it would be the reverse situation. The point I was really trying to make with this thread, is that it is pointless for an atheist and a believer to get into such a conversation, because there is no prospect of a satisfactory outcome for anyone. It would just end up as an argument about the existence of God. I suppose if either one of them were to suspend his position as an atheist or believer, so that the discussion was purely hypothetical for him, something interesting might come out of it, but it could only get to any kind of truth as far as one of them was concerned.

I understand your point and agree with your reason.
It is your preference to exclude God, but there is still a niggling question why ? besides the reasons given above.
Thus I offered my justifications with no intention to go into the details. If anyone want to counter my argument they can go to this thread -God is an Impossibility.

Btw, you have not define what is morality?

[Harbal]

I suggest there are two separate issues here: 'where does morality come from?'; and 'can morality be objective?'

If there's a god with moral opinions that we have to or ought to obey, then it could be said that morality comes from that god. And in that case, of course, belief in the existence of that god is critical.

But if morality isn't and can't be objective - because moral assertions aren't factual - then the existence of a god is irrelevant. And anyway, the claim 'morality comes from a god' is the very antithesis of moral objectivism. If morality is objective, its source is irrelevant.

As I see it, the possibilities are these:

No God = morality is subjective. Although I suppose you could ask the question, "how could morality be objective in the absence of God?"

God is the source of morality = morality is objective.

God exists, but has no interest in morality. As long as all parties agreed on this starting point, it is the only option that allows an atheist and a believer to have a sensible discussion about all aspects of morality.

To my mind, option three is the only basis on which a conversation between an atheist and a believer could take place without them ending up doing no more than hurling abuse at one another.

[Harbal]

It is your preference to exclude God, but there is still a niggling question why ? besides the reasons given above.

There are no reasons other than the ones I have given. I would be willing to have a hypothetical discussion about morality and God, but I don't know how useful that would be.

Btw, you have not define what is morality?

I don't think I could give a definition that would satisfy both a believer and non believer in God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is your preference to exclude God, but there is still a niggling question why ? besides the reasons given above.

There are no reasons other than the ones I have given. I would be willing to have a hypothetical discussion about morality and God, but I don't know how useful that would be.

Btw, you have not define what is morality?

I don't think I could give a definition that would satisfy both a believer and non believer in God.

I believe it is a necessity you provide a definition as a basis for your OP, else the OP will be like a rudderless ship in a stormy rocky sea.

[Harbal]

I believe it is a necessity you provide a definition as a basis for your OP, else the OP will be like a rudderless ship in a stormy rocky sea.

Well I don't seem to have done a very good job of it, but my intention in the OP was to make the point that it isn't a good idea for believers and non believers to discuss some aspects of morality. If they attempt it, it very rarely leads to anything other than open hostility between them. I wasn't trying to say anything about morality itself.

But, as far as a definition goes, I thought I had defined it somewhere. I'll go back and look.

[Harbal]

I believe it is a necessity you provide a definition as a basis for your OP, else the OP will be like a rudderless ship in a stormy rocky sea.

I think this is a sort of partial definition. It is what I posted on one of the other threads.

Human beings are social animals, and for any social group to function, there has to be a set of rules to which its members conform. Our innate sense of morality is one device that natural selection has settled on to make us stick to the rules. The precepts are not really a mystery. If I think it is fine to kill you and take all your possessions, then I have to allow that it is fine for you to do the same to me. That would be in neither of our interests.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe it is a necessity you provide a definition as a basis for your OP, else the OP will be like a rudderless ship in a stormy rocky sea.

I think this is a sort of partial definition. It is what I posted on one of the other threads.

Human beings are social animals, and for any social group to function, there has to be a set of rules to which its members conform. Our innate sense of morality is one device that natural selection has settled on to make us stick to the rules. The precepts are not really a mystery. If I think it is fine to kill you and take all your possessions, then I have to allow that it is fine for you to do the same to me. That would be in neither of our interests.

I believe the definition from Wiki is quite sufficient for a start. i.e.

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
-wiki

Thus morality is represented by an inherent and you stated above, an innate sense of morality in ALL humans within the human species.
This is generic thus represent a moral fact, a fact related to morality.
Because it is generic to ALL humans, it is objective.

But the question is why are ALL humans "programmed" with an inherent potential and impulse for morality?
Again whatever is the answer to the above, inevitably that answer is a moral fact that can be used to ground morality - thus again support objectivity of morality.

[Harbal]

thus again support objectivity of morality.

Although there is much disagreement about which label to stick on morality -objective or subjective, there seems to be a total consensus that it does need to have a label stuck onto it. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that this insistence on labelling is proving to be an impediment to our understanding.

I suggest the following:

We are born with a capacity for having a sense of morality. As we develop, this sense of morality becomes guided by moral precepts that we absorb along the way. Because these precepts are passed on to us, they tend to feel like self evident facts, but they are neither self evident, nor facts. They are not self evident, because no individual would necessarily have come up with them on his own, left to his own devices. Neither are they facts, because they wouldn't apply in all circumstances, they are dependant on whatever basis of principles happens to prevail in any particular place, at any particular time.

Is our having an innate sense of morality an objective fact? Well if we do have an innate sense of morality, then yes, I suppose it is. But anyone who accepts that we have an innate sense of morality will probably understand it to be pretty much the same thing that anyone else who accepts it does, regardless of its label. Are the moral precepts that guide our behaviour objective in nature? Yes, because they come from outside of us. No, because they are arbitrary. Take your pick.

[Peter Holmes]

I suggest there are two separate issues here: 'where does morality come from?'; and 'can morality be objective?'

If there's a god with moral opinions that we have to or ought to obey, then it could be said that morality comes from that god. And in that case, of course, belief in the existence of that god is critical.

But if morality isn't and can't be objective - because moral assertions aren't factual - then the existence of a god is irrelevant. And anyway, the claim 'morality comes from a god' is the very antithesis of moral objectivism. If morality is objective, its source is irrelevant.

As I see it, the possibilities are these:

No God = morality is subjective. Although I suppose you could ask the question, "how could morality be objective in the absence of God?"

God is the source of morality = morality is objective.

God exists, but has no interest in morality. As long as all parties agreed on this starting point, it is the only option that allows an atheist and a believer to have a sensible discussion about all aspects of morality.

To my mind, option three is the only basis on which a conversation between an atheist and a believer could take place without them ending up doing no more than hurling abuse at one another.

Okay, we'll have to disagree. I think the premise - if a god is the source of morality, then morality is objective - is obviously false, by definition. And it follows that your option three is, as it were, redundant. It wouldn't matter if a god did have an interest in morality - that wouldn't make it objective.

In other words, the objectivity (or non-objectivity) or morality has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god. Nietzsche was wrong.

[Harbal]

I think the premise - if a god is the source of morality, then morality is objective - is obviously false, by definition.

I'm surprised that you say that, I assumed you took the opposite view. Can you explain your conclusion?