Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

The ideology comes with your choice of premise.

Again, I don't understand the objection. It's perfectly obvious that logic is just a method, which, like maths, is simply "a handle to fit all pots," rather than a particular ideological orientation.

What are you talking about? There is no objection there.

Sorry...the wording was ambiguous. I thought it was an objection. Let me try to understand, then.

Are you speaking to the fact that the formal procedure of logic is always the same, but the premises "plugged into" it can vary? If so, yes; that's what I've also been saying. And yes, the ideology comes from the nature of the premises: logic itself has no 'opinion' about which premises can be used.

Logic is what the Theist uses to make his case, but also the thing that the skeptic uses to make his: and it's the same tool you're attempting to employ right now, to convince me that logic isn't a universal tool.

How do you turn this:

The ideology comes with your choice of premise.

into an attempt to convince you that logic isn't a universal tool?

Sorry again...it was the ambiguity of the wording that fooled me. I now think we're agreeing about that.

I'm sorry...I'm always amused when people who've never met me tell me they know what my history and motives are.

It is, as with so many hypotheses, underdetermined. And while I have never met you in person, the 21128 posts you have created in a little over 10 years, ((4.19% of all posts / 5.65 posts per day), says your profile) are enough to form an opinion.

Only about what I choose to say on this forum. Nothing you've said so far makes me think you know anything about my biography or my spiritual search, and everything you suggested so far about that would strongly imply, given what my journey had actually been, that you were wildly guessing and missing the truth on that.

...I would suggest that my claim is simply a reversed form of the sort of accusation Atheists routinely launch against Christians: they say, "You only believe in God because you want there to be a God," to which the Christian can rightly rejoin, "You only believe there's not a God because you want there not to be a God." And if the former is true in any cases, then it's not hard to imagine that the latter can be true as well.

There you go: "true as well". Case closed.

Not quite. You left out a word "can be true, " not "is certainly true."

It is true that people can believe in religious things for reasons of psychological comfort. That can happen. It is equally true that Atheists can disbelieve in the same things for the same kind of motive, namely that they just want it to be true and find it comforting to think it is. But in both cases, but it can also be not-true. A person could believe in either for another reason. I would say a great number of Atheists disbelieve because they've never really thought about it. Or they've never been challenged on it. Or they haven't encountered God, so assume that anything outside of their present experience isn't real. Or they had a personal tragedy, and resent the idea of God because of it (I've seen that one a lot). Or a professor who seemed smart to them scoffed at it. Or because they were raised in an Atheist family. Or that they've heard of Dawkins, Darwin or Marx, and have assumed these men "proved" something they never proved at all.

There are many possible motives for being an Atheist...just as there are for being religious.

The only real question is, "Is there a good motive for being either." And I think there is...for at least one of those alternatives.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wonder if you will agree with me...

Never!

Very well.

Nevertheless I am sending you an authenticated Isis Rosary that comes with a genuine Self-Restoration Mantra and a vial of Holy Nile Water. It’s a $19.99 value and yours absolutely free!

[Harbal]

Duty is a feeling, or sensation, but if we think there is something that it refers to outside of our own minds, then yes, maybe you could say it's an illusion. I don't think it's accurate to say we just make it up if we want to, or ignore it, if we don't. It doesn't seem to work like that, where we only feel a sense of duty according to whether or not we want to.

I agree...we do feel duties "whether or not we want to." And that's a surprising fact, if there's nothing objective behind that impression.

I don't find it surprising; most animals have mental processes that influence their behaviour, it would be surprising if we didn't have them.

But if that impression is no more than "a feeling or a sensation," maybe we ought to shake it off the way we shake off a tingling the leg or a sudden twinge of irrational guilt. Maybe it's just a thing to get over, not to be indulged.

How would we know which it was?

Well I wouldn't recommend that we shake it off. I suspect we would find the world a far more unpleasant and dangerous place if we did.

Whether belief in something unreal is a problem or not depends on what consequences come out of it.

That's interesting. So you think it would be okay for people to believe untruths that made them feel happy?

That's not for me to say; I can only speak for myself. I would always opt for the truth, even when it may not be what I want to hear. It's like when you try to paint a rosy picture of a world with God in it, and a bleak one of the world without God. It's like saying it isn't about truth, it's about which sounds nicer; well I don't agree with that.

But I wouldn't be imagining things, or deluding myself. If I feel admiration, then that feeling actually exists for me.

Only in the sense that the feeling "exists." Not in the sense that the admiration itself finds any basis or warrant in objective reality.

I can't imagine, even hypothetically, what such a basis might be.

We can feel admiration for various reasons; it isn't just something we experience in regard to moral behaviour. Is there a musician, or sports person that you admire, and if there is, why do you admire them? Surely it's because you put a value on what they do, but I doubt that you think God requires you to appreciate excellent footballing skills. You admire things for your own, subjective reasons.

Moral admiration is a special type of admiration. It's not really like the others, because of the criteria involved. I can admire Messi's ability to score goals, or a guitarist's musicianship, and it's purely aesthetic in both cases, maybe. But moral admiration is different: it's this strange impression we get that certain actions -- often aesthetically quite unpleasing ones, in some cases -- are deserving of a kind of admiration that tends in the direction of reverence and awe. Something very special is engaged when our moral faculties kick in.

I don't find your justification for pleading a special case convincing, or even valid.

If in the course of our evolution we have installed in us a sense of right and wrong, which we appear to have, then we will experience things in terms of right and wrong, and it is difficult to override that function just by means of rational analysis.

That may be true; and maybe it was hard for some monkeys to get rid of the vestigial tail, the Evolutionist might suppose; but that doesn't at all indicate that the monkeys shouldn't have lost the tail, or that we should not simply shake off that odd thing we can't "override by means of rational analysis." Maybe exactly what we DO need is to be more rational about it...

But that's the point, not being able to override it means we can't just shake it off. And why would we want to shake it off? we need it.

I know Nietzsche is regarded as a genius by some people, but he just comes across as a crackpot and misfit to me, so I can't really go along with you here.

What's your problem with Nietzsche?

I don't have a problem with Nietzsche; I'm completely disinterested in the man. My problem is that you keep bringing him up, as if I should care about anything he said.

I was using the terms, "see to" and "arranged", metaphorically, but I acknowledge that was unwise of me. You must know the basic principles of evolution; any characteristic that increases survival and reproduction rate is perpetuated by natural selection.

I do know that explanation. It's always seemed far too simple-minded to me, though.

That seems an odd thing for a man who believes the contents of the Bible to say. I thought you must have approved of simple mindedness.

As I was saying earlier, there's a huge number of phenomena, such as transitional forms, or triadic symbosis, or the human psyche, that just do not lend themselves to that sort of simplistic explanation. In fact, in many cases, survival-of-the-fittest would be the best way to argue that those phenomena should not even be possible to exist.

No offence, but I think you are dabbling in something above your pay grade here; as would I be if I attempted to address your comments.

The value I put on our capacity for behaving within moral boundaries is inevitably set by my experience of how it manifests itself in my own social environment. I only have to think about what life would be like where people have no respect for, and give no consideration to, each other's feelings and well being to appreciate the importance of the function morality serves. I know you prefer to talk in terms of genocide and ruthless dictatorships, but when I talk about morality, I can only speak with any authority on my own, mundane experience of it.

But can we keep our world so small? What about all those places around the world and throughout history -- and there are not a few of them -- where your "mundane experience" is not at all what people have experienced? What consolation can it be that while dictators and genocides have raged, you don't care to trouble yourself with their existence? These extreme cases are what alerts us to the fact that our own thinking is too provincial, to self-centered and to confined. It's the general human condition for which we all must have explanations, not merely for our own local privileges, is it not?

Neither is that my responsibility nor within my power to do anything about. You should set forth as a missionary if you care enough, and think you have the solution. While I'm not indifferent to it, I do not have a solution.

Why on earth should I let myself be forced into that position just because I am a rational human being who does not happen to believe in God?

Precisely to the extent that you are a "rational person" (to say nothng of the fact that we also aspire to be moral agents, as well). A rational person wants his beliefs to be rational. And when one's Atheist deals one a particular hand, rationally speaking, is it not the duty of a rational person to face it squarely? If he does not, then what do we even mean by calling him "rational"?

But morality is an emotional issue, one of sentiment, not rationality. And I want to keep my sense of morality, so where would be the logic in trying to rationalise it away?

I want to behave morally, and such behaviour is generally approved of, so it does make sense.

Well, what that means is that it is "convenient." Whether it "makes sense" is a question of rationality.

No, what it means is, my behaviour is guided by my own preferences, rather than by what does or does not make sense to you.

It is true that I don't know why I want to behave morally, but I don't see why not having a logical reason should prevent me from doing so.

It doesn't prevent you from behaving in any way at all. No law says one has to behave rationally-consistently. It just prevents that way from having any entitlement to being genuinely "moral." For then, there is no such objective thing as "moral."

That's fine, because I have more confidence in my own subjective moral feeling than I do in what others tell me is objectively moral.

Their own, those of their society, their religion...

But those conflict. How does one choose among them?

I suppose one reaches for the bible if he has no confidence in his own moral judgement.

The one that conforms most closely to my own moral sense, I suppose.

Intuitionism? How come other people's "intuitions" about morality conflict so radically with our own, sometimes? How can Islamists pursue Sharia, for example, when intuitively, to us, the very thought makes your skin and mine crawl?

Because our morality is entirely subjective. Did I not mention that before?

What else should I take as given, other than what I've got?

Well one of the first achievements of our moral growing-up is to discover that what we take for granted isn't always right. And what we consider moral isn't what is always moral or fair to other people.

Other people like gays, or reluctant soon-to-be mothers?

So we start to question our own "givens": and some we may keep and some we may modify, but it's that process of NOT taking our our moral presuppositions simply as unexamined "givens" that is basic to our moral maturation. I just suggest that's what we should keep doing: not taking the versions of morality handed to us by others for granted, and continually asking what is genuinely moral about this or that.

And you are obviously assuming that I never question or modify my moral views, which is a bit rich when yours, by your own admission, are set in stone.

I suppose he could keep quiet about subjective morality, and invent a story about God and objective moral duty, in the hope that it would convince people to conduct themselves more to his liking, but it would be very much against his moral principles to do that.

And if he violated his own moral principles, would he objectively be a "bad" person, or would he only temporarily be annoyed with himself, then get over it?

To what extent he would get over it would depend on how seriously he took the moral principle he had broken, regardless of whether he considered that principle a self imposed standard, or a rule issued by some legitimate source of moral authority.

Because that's exactly what we do, if we don't think our moral judgments are objectively right.

Unless you are claiming that your moral behaviour, and that of all those who believe in God's moral authority, is impeccable, I don't see your point.

[Immanuel Can]

Duty is a feeling, or sensation, but if we think there is something that it refers to outside of our own minds, then yes, maybe you could say it's an illusion. I don't think it's accurate to say we just make it up if we want to, or ignore it, if we don't. It doesn't seem to work like that, where we only feel a sense of duty according to whether or not we want to.

I agree...we do feel duties "whether or not we want to." And that's a surprising fact, if there's nothing objective behind that impression.

I don't find it surprising; most animals have mental processes that influence their behaviour, it would be surprising if we didn't have them.

They have instinct. But very often, our moral sense goes quite contrary to instinct.

But if that impression is no more than "a feeling or a sensation," maybe we ought to shake it off the way we shake off a tingling the leg or a sudden twinge of irrational guilt. Maybe it's just a thing to get over, not to be indulged.

How would we know which it was?

Well I wouldn't recommend that we shake it off. I suspect we would find the world a far more unpleasant and dangerous place if we did.

I think that's probably true. But given that Evolutionism has to tell us that it only exists by accident, we don't know whether or not to trust it. And the same would be true for things like our intellect: if out intellect is not actually geared to telling us the truth, and if it only exists as a "twinge" put in us accidentally by time and chance, then why should be believe in our own rationality? Why should we trust science, if the brain that processes the concepts is actually indexed to survival, but not to truth?

Whether belief in something unreal is a problem or not depends on what consequences come out of it.

That's interesting. So you think it would be okay for people to believe untruths that made them feel happy?

That's not for me to say; I can only speak for myself. I would always opt for the truth, even when it may not be what I want to hear. It's like when you try to paint a rosy picture of a world with God in it, and a bleak one of the world without God. It's like saying it isn't about truth, it's about which sounds nicer; well I don't agree with that.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying it IS about truth. Where we are currently disagreeing is merely on what the truth is, obviously.

But I wouldn't be imagining things, or deluding myself. If I feel admiration, then that feeling actually exists for me.

Only in the sense that the feeling "exists." Not in the sense that the admiration itself finds any basis or warrant in objective reality.

I can't imagine, even hypothetically, what such a basis might be.

That's the problem. In the Evolutionary worldview, there's no entity included that could possibly account for admiration that turns out to be objectively warranted. One doesn't owe anybody to "admire" any accidental products of time-plus-chance.

If in the course of our evolution we have installed in us a sense of right and wrong, which we appear to have, then we will experience things in terms of right and wrong, and it is difficult to override that function just by means of rational analysis.

That may be true; and maybe it was hard for some monkeys to get rid of the vestigial tail, the Evolutionist might suppose; but that doesn't at all indicate that the monkeys shouldn't have lost the tail, or that we should not simply shake off that odd thing we can't "override by means of rational analysis." Maybe exactly what we DO need is to be more rational about it...

But that's the point, not being able to override it means we can't just shake it off.

But of course, we CAN override it. It takes a little effort, true; but it's actually not terribly hard to do. We have plenty of experiments, from Milgram to the studies done on torturers and Holocaust participants, that ordinary people can be quickly induced to overcome the twinges of conscience, and even to perform acts of hideous evil, with very, very little provocation.

So why shouldn't we override it? If it's only a subjective feeling anyway, and unrelated to the objective status of anything, we can do so very easily.

I know Nietzsche is regarded as a genius by some people, but he just comes across as a crackpot and misfit to me, so I can't really go along with you here.

What's your problem with Nietzsche?

I don't have a problem with Nietzsche; I'm completely disinterested in the man. My problem is that you keep bringing him up, as if I should care about anything he said.

Just because I think, for an Atheist anyway, he's somebody everybody should know. He is, after all, one of their great "saints," if I can abuse that word.

As I was saying earlier, there's a huge number of phenomena, such as transitional forms, or triadic symbosis, or the human psyche, that just do not lend themselves to that sort of simplistic explanation. In fact, in many cases, survival-of-the-fittest would be the best way to argue that those phenomena should not even be possible to exist.

No offence, but I think you are dabbling in something above your pay grade here; as would I be if I attempted to address your comments.

I actually know very well what I'm saying, and it's not remotely above either my "pay grade," or, I assure you, your ability to understand the reasoning, if you were interested.

Why on earth should I let myself be forced into that position just because I am a rational human being who does not happen to believe in God?

Precisely to the extent that you are a "rational person" (to say nothng of the fact that we also aspire to be moral agents, as well). A rational person wants his beliefs to be rational. And when one's Atheist deals one a particular hand, rationally speaking, is it not the duty of a rational person to face it squarely? If he does not, then what do we even mean by calling him "rational"?

But morality is an emotional issue, one of sentiment, not rationality.

I don't believe that at all. And if you do, then essentially, all you're saying is that morality has the same status as any feeling, from feeling like one is being watched, to resenting one's neighbour, to throwing a hissy fit. They're all just "emotional issues." If that's all morality is, then nobody needs to take it seriously at all.

I want to behave morally, and such behaviour is generally approved of, so it does make sense.

Well, what that means is that it is "convenient." Whether it "makes sense" is a question of rationality.

No, what it means is, my behaviour is guided by my own preferences, rather than by what does or does not make sense to you.

Then morality just means solipsism. I'm not sure that's a definition that anyone else is going to embrace.

Their own, those of their society, their religion...

But those conflict. How does one choose among them?

I suppose one reaches for the bible if he has no confidence in his own moral judgement.

It's not about "no confidence." If I'm right, it's about checking your mere solipsisitic impulses against a few objective moral facts.

The one that conforms most closely to my own moral sense, I suppose.

Intuitionism? How come other people's "intuitions" about morality conflict so radically with our own, sometimes? How can Islamists pursue Sharia, for example, when intuitively, to us, the very thought makes your skin and mine crawl?

Because our morality is entirely subjective. Did I not mention that before?

That still doesn't explain why what is moral to one person can be utterly morally reprehensible to another. It would just mean that both were confused. But when you and I object to Sharia, I don't think we are confused; and when we check our sense of that against the moral code of Scripture, we find out we're right.

What else should I take as given, other than what I've got?

Well one of the first achievements of our moral growing-up is to discover that what we take for granted isn't always right. And what we consider moral isn't what is always moral or fair to other people.

Other people like gays, or reluctant soon-to-be mothers?

No, I mean that we come to understand that other people have to be taken into our account when we think morally. I don't at all mean that what others think has to be right merely because they think it. I just mean realizing that I'm not the only person in the world who counts in the moral equation.

So we start to question our own "givens": and some we may keep and some we may modify, but it's that process of NOT taking our our moral presuppositions simply as unexamined "givens" that is basic to our moral maturation. I just suggest that's what we should keep doing: not taking the versions of morality handed to us by others for granted, and continually asking what is genuinely moral about this or that.

And you are obviously assuming that I never question or modify my moral views,

I'm not assuming that. But I am pointing out that your choice of your sole self as moral touchstone wouldn't be what moral developmentalists would call a "highly developed" concept of morality.

Because that's exactly what we do, if we don't think our moral judgments are objectively right.

Unless you are claiming that your moral behaviour, and that of all those who believe in God's moral authority, is impeccable, I don't see your point.
[/quote]My point is that if morality is no more than a subjective twinge that only one person has (just me, that is), then nobody has a duty to care or respect me if I live up to it, or if I don't. I don't even have an explanation for myself as to why I'm "better" for having honoured that principle instead of merely disregarding it.

And if solipsistic subjectivism is the whole story of morality, it isn't clear at all why we can even call that "moral." After all, it doesn't rise above the level of a mere subjective twinge. Why a person would think he was "moral" for merely responding to his or her own twinges is certainly not obvious.

[Harbal]

I agree...we do feel duties "whether or not we want to." And that's a surprising fact, if there's nothing objective behind that impression.

I don't find it surprising; most animals have mental processes that influence their behaviour, it would be surprising if we didn't have them.

They have instinct. But very often, our moral sense goes quite contrary to instinct.

In what way?

Well I wouldn't recommend that we shake it off. I suspect we would find the world a far more unpleasant and dangerous place if we did.

I think that's probably true. But given that Evolutionism has to tell us that it only exists by accident, we don't know whether or not to trust it.

If I were asked why I thought we had a sense of morality, I daresay I would mention that we acquired it during the course of our biological evolution, and perhaps speculate on how I thought it was a beneficial feature to our species. However, when I find myself considering a moral question, I don't look to the theory of evolution to guide me towards the answer. If you want to discuss a form of morality that is founded on evolutionary theory, you will need to find someone who practices it, for I know nothing about it.

I can't imagine, even hypothetically, what such a basis might be.

That's the problem. In the Evolutionary worldview, there's no entity included that could possibly account for admiration that turns out to be objectively warranted. One doesn't owe anybody to "admire" any accidental products of time-plus-chance.

I don't feel I owe anybody admiration. I either admire them or I don't, and I don't really feel that I have much control over the matter.

I don't have an "Evolutionary worldview", btw. My world view includes the theory, but doesn't revolve round it. I'm sure I don't think about evolution anywhere near as often as you think about God.

But that's the point, not being able to override it means we can't just shake it off.

But of course, we CAN override it. It takes a little effort, true; but it's actually not terribly hard to do.

Well I don't normally find myself wanting to override my sense of morality, so I don't really know how hard it is to do.

We have plenty of experiments, from Milgram to the studies done on torturers and Holocaust participants, that ordinary people can be quickly induced to overcome the twinges of conscience, and even to perform acts of hideous evil, with very, very little provocation.

And was it only Atheists and Evolutionists who could be induced to overcome their twinges?

So why shouldn't we override it? If it's only a subjective feeling anyway, and unrelated to the objective status of anything, we can do so very easily.

Why do you say "only" a subjective feeling. Subjective feeling is what motivates most of our actions.

I don't have a problem with Nietzsche; I'm completely disinterested in the man. My problem is that you keep bringing him up, as if I should care about anything he said.

Just because I think, for an Atheist anyway, he's somebody everybody should know. He is, after all, one of their great "saints,"

I don't know what circles you move in, but I doubt the average atheist has even heard of Nietzsche, let alone knows what he said. Particularly so with working class atheists, who are the ones I am most likely to encounter. Anyway, you are unlikely to catch me quoting Nietzsche at you.

But morality is an emotional issue, one of sentiment, not rationality.

I don't believe that at all.

And I believe it 100%.

all you're saying is that morality has the same status as any feeling, from feeling like one is being watched, to resenting one's neighbour, to throwing a hissy fit. They're all just "emotional issues." If that's all morality is, then nobody needs to take it seriously at all.

Why do you suppose God gave us emotions if he wants us to ignore them?

No, what it means is, my behaviour is guided by my own preferences, rather than by what does or does not make sense to you.

Then morality just means solipsism.

I've been an Atheist, then an Evolutionist, now I suppose I'm going to have to get used to being a Solipsist.

I'm not sure that's a definition that anyone else is going to embrace.

Hopefully not, or you will have introduced the word into the discussion for nothing.

I suppose one reaches for the bible if he has no confidence in his own moral judgement.

It's not about "no confidence." If I'm right, it's about checking your mere solipsisitic impulses against a few objective moral facts.

When it comes to being persuaded of the truth by a man who uses the Bible as a fact checker, I would say it is very much about no confidence.

solipsisitic

I knew it.

Because our morality is entirely subjective. Did I not mention that before?

That still doesn't explain why what is moral to one person can be utterly morally reprehensible to another.

Well I think it is the obvious and only explanation.

But when you and I object to Sharia, I don't think we are confused; and when we check our sense of that against the moral code of Scripture, we find out we're right.

Actually, asking me to express a preference between two sets of religious scripture would be similar to offering me the choice of being burnt or scalded.

I mean that we come to understand that other people have to be taken into our account when we think morally.

That goes without saying. In fact, other people are quite often all that has to be taken into account when it comes to moral issues. But you always want to unnecessarily complicate things by taking God into account.

And you are obviously assuming that I never question or modify my moral views,

I'm not assuming that. But I am pointing out that your choice of your sole self as moral touchstone wouldn't be what moral developmentalists would call a "highly developed" concept of morality.

I can live with that.

My point is that if morality is no more than a subjective twinge that only one person has (just me, that is), then nobody has a duty to care or respect me if I live up to it,

No they don't, and I never said they did.

And if solipsistic subjectivism is the whole story of morality, it isn't clear at all why we can even call that "moral."

And neither is it clear (to me, at least) why we can call it solipsistic, unless we can justify it on the grounds that you have obviously fallen in love with the word.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't find it surprising; most animals have mental processes that influence their behaviour, it would be surprising if we didn't have them.

They have instinct. But very often, our moral sense goes quite contrary to instinct.

In what way?

Practically all the time. The reason we even need a moral principle against stealing is that stealing is often a thing we have strong incentives to do. The reason we need a prohibition on sexual assault is that sexual assault is a thing some people like to do. The reason we need an axiom against murder is that some people make you want to top them.

...However, when I find myself considering a moral question, I don't look to the theory of evolution to guide me towards the answer. If you want to discuss a form of morality that is founded on evolutionary theory, you will need to find someone who practices it, for I know nothing about it.

I'm not surprised. Evolutionary theory can't tell us anything at all about morality. And the worst part of it is that it implies that there are no objective values, so morality isn't even possible. All that's possible is unaccountable liking or disliking of certain acts.

I can't imagine, even hypothetically, what such a basis might be.

That's the problem. In the Evolutionary worldview, there's no entity included that could possibly account for admiration that turns out to be objectively warranted. One doesn't owe anybody to "admire" any accidental products of time-plus-chance.

I don't feel I owe anybody admiration. I either admire them or I don't, and I don't really feel that I have much control over the matter.

Let's put it another way, then: if you admire some action a person takes...like giving to a charity, say...do you think they deserve or merit or should rightfully be accorded some admiration? Would a person be in any way morally missing-out if he failed to recognize that action as deserving of approval?

I don't have an "Evolutionary worldview", btw. My world view includes the theory, but doesn't revolve round it. I'm sure I don't think about evolution anywhere near as often as you think about God.

Yes, I'm sensing that. I see the connection between ontology and ethics, and you don't seem to see the connection. There is one, nevertheless.

We have plenty of experiments, from Milgram to the studies done on torturers and Holocaust participants, that ordinary people can be quickly induced to overcome the twinges of conscience, and even to perform acts of hideous evil, with very, very little provocation.

And was it only Atheists and Evolutionists who could be induced to overcome their twinges?

I don't remember the studies even including that in their pool of variables. So I can't say. But I can say that people who are otherwise very civilized and decent and ordinary often make excellent murders, if the right pressure is put on them to conform.

So why shouldn't we override it? If it's only a subjective feeling anyway, and unrelated to the objective status of anything, we can do so very easily.

Why do you say "only" a subjective feeling. Subjective feeling is what motivates most of our actions.

I don't think that's the case. I think reasoning or instincts can motivate much more often. And when we resort merely to subjective feelings, we often go rather morally wrong.

I doubt the average atheist has even heard of Nietzsche, let alone knows what he said.

Funny. In all my conversations with Atheists, which I am far from reluctant to have, he comes up almost immediately...at least among those whose Atheism takes a philosophical form, and often among ordinary people, as well. Mind you, many of them barely know what he said, beyond "God is dead." They often don't even know where that comes from, in what context, or that Nietzsche just stated it but never even tried to prove it. But they regard him as an authority on the subject, and so they refer to him enthusiastically, even if they don't really know.

Maybe you're an exception to that rule.

But morality is an emotional issue, one of sentiment, not rationality.

I don't believe that at all.

And I believe it 100%.

I'm seeing that.

all you're saying is that morality has the same status as any feeling, from feeling like one is being watched, to resenting one's neighbour, to throwing a hissy fit. They're all just "emotional issues." If that's all morality is, then nobody needs to take it seriously at all.

Why do you suppose God gave us emotions if he wants us to ignore them?

We don't "ignore" them. But we shouldn't completely trust them, either. Think of them as a sort of "faulty fire alarm." If the fire alarm goes off, it may just be a malfunction; but if it does, you're still better to check, and to see if there's anything you should really be worried about. Sometimes there will be, and sometimes not; but it's still better to check.

Our moral emotions are like that. When they "go off," we'd be best to consult the facts, our rationality, our principles and our morals, just to make sure we are where we think we are, on the moral landscape. Maybe we are, and maybe we're not; but we'd better check.

No, what it means is, my behaviour is guided by my own preferences, rather than by what does or does not make sense to you.

Then morality just means solipsism.

I've been an Atheist, then an Evolutionist, now I suppose I'm going to have to get used to being a Solipsist.

Well, only now. This is the first time that you've expressed the view that mere "personal preference" and "morality" are the same thing to you.

But when you and I object to Sharia, I don't think we are confused; and when we check our sense of that against the moral code of Scripture, we find out we're right.

Actually, asking me to express a preference between two sets of religious scripture would be similar to offering me the choice of being burnt or scalded.

Really? Because that would be objectively...wrong? Or do you only mean "my personal preferences are not to read things?"

I mean that we come to understand that other people have to be taken into our account when we think morally.

That goes without saying.

Then your "personal preferences" aren't actually going to be enough. You're going to have to think of their position as well, in the moral equation.

[Dontaskme]

.... given that Evolutionism has to tell us that it only exists by accident, we don't know whether or not to trust it. And the same would be true for things like our intellect: if out intellect is not actually geared to telling us the truth, and if it only exists as a "twinge" put in us accidentally by time and chance, then why should be believe in our own rationality? Why should we trust science, if the brain that processes the concepts is actually indexed to survival, but not to truth?

Nothing HAS to tell us that evolution exists by accident. But you IC as a self-evident self-aware thinker of ideas, can manipulate the nothing and insist something does have to tell us.
But ''thought'' can never know what that ''something'' is, without ''thought'' imagining it is the one and only creator God. Hahaha! that's just a logical fact.

If it's truth you are after, then pause for just a second and realise you are, and that knowledge that you are, is enough, and all you can and will ever know. It's the truth, you exist, that's it, the buck stops there, that's the absolute truth, no need to seek 'truth' out, or to prove 'truth' exists, you are already self-evident. No other creature seeks the truth of their existence, except the human species because they have the capacity to be self-aware, meaning: there is an awareness of being aware... This implies two things..an awareness, and something other to be aware of, namely a self.

This is the dual nature of the self-aware existence, but that's an illusion, and the illusion is aware it's an illusion, and is why the illusion seeks unity because it senses a separation where there isn't one, so it instinctively feels wrong, it's as though there is an inevitable sense of the unnatural. And is why the seeking for truth will always be in vain, because it's unnatural in the natural world that is functioning perfectly well automatically all by itself, one without a second, and there is no one to seek truth, because there is no other than this ONE already here, therefore the seeker is always the SOUGHT

“The strange thing about the theory of evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it. But we do not. A biosphere, or an econosphere, self-consistently coconstructs itself according to principles we do not yet fathom.”
STUART KAUFFMAN



Nobody can understand the origins of life, or why or how it happens at all. No matter how hard people try to understand it, they cannot. Even if wise people say they understand, they cannot; no one can really understand it.

How did you get here. Who are you. You will never know. Why, because you'd have to play the role of God, and recreate yourself from scratch using your own ingredients, and not the one's that were already here long before you ever arrived on the scene. See the dilemma? You are known, but at the same time are unknowable. That's the unsolvable mysterious oxymoron of claiming to know the God of existence that no relative one, not even the absolute one, will ever fathom.

[Dontaskme]

And if solipsistic subjectivism is the whole story of morality, it isn't clear at all why we can even call that "moral." After all, it doesn't rise above the level of a mere subjective twinge. Why a person would think he was "moral" for merely responding to his or her own twinges is certainly not obvious.

A reaction to a twinge is an automatic bodily function like breathing and the heartbeat, no human is making a twinge happen, although there is an apparent reaction to a twinge because the twinge happens spontaneously and randomly only in the present moment, and so in the immediacy of the present there is nothing that can intentionally start or prevent the twinge from happening, there is only the experience of ''twinging'' reactively known in the experience, but never known in the immediacy of the action...Only Reactions are known purely on reflection, which is already in the past tense, and never this immediate present moment, implying the twinge never really happened to anyone, except a reflection. There is only the present of now, this present moment which is perfect and is functioning perfectly fine, all alone, all by itself. Just as a body does while in deep sleep, where the known character I is temporally absent from awareness knowing.



All subjectivity means is that there is no one here present without making this nobody a somebody...in this conception...aka knowledge that I am aware.

All subjects are aware, because there is no awareness without something to be aware of. What is awareness always aware of? the answer is clear, an object, and rarely the subject...but awareness can also be aware of the subject, and that would only be the subject objectifying itself as a reflection.


Subjective awareness in and of itself can never experience itself as the object it is aware of, because the object is the awareness aware of itself. The awareness-ess only reality can only exist within it's reflection, aka the objective world of duality, which is illusory, apparently appearing real. Illusory because objects have no knowledge of their existence, knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, albeit appearing real.

So the object of awareness is to focus not on awareness which is imageless, but on it's projected image in the form of an object, a mirror image of the imageless.

In focusing on the object, the awareness realises itself as mirror image of it's imageless-ness. The image in the mirror reflected by awareness is the only place the objective character can exist and have it's being. So the mirror image, is only ever the subject objectifying itself... And this is the kicker... Both the projector Awareness and it's mirror image in the form of an object, are both Incomprehensible and Knowable at the same time.....and that IC is what you fail to grasp.


.

[Harbal]

...However, when I find myself considering a moral question, I don't look to the theory of evolution to guide me towards the answer. If you want to discuss a form of morality that is founded on evolutionary theory, you will need to find someone who practices it, for I know nothing about it.

I'm not surprised. Evolutionary theory can't tell us anything at all about morality.

Well it can't inform us about our moral values, which I have already said. My views on morality have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's you who keeps trying to connect the two things.

And the worst part of it is that it implies that there are no objective values,

"Objective values" is an oxymoron; nobody can objectively value something, they can only value it from their own perspective. We don't need to refer to the theory of evolution to work that out.

so morality isn't even possible. All that's possible is unaccountable liking or disliking of certain acts.

Morality is not only possible, it is inevitable. If you have a sense of right and wrong, you cannot avoid being a moral agent, and we all have a sense of right and wrong.

I don't feel I owe anybody admiration. I either admire them or I don't, and I don't really feel that I have much control over the matter.

Let's put it another way, then: if you admire some action a person takes...like giving to a charity, say...do you think they deserve or merit or should rightfully be accorded some admiration? Would a person be in any way morally missing-out if he failed to recognize that action as deserving of approval?

This probably sounds dim of me, but I can't work out exactly what you are asking.

I don't have an "Evolutionary worldview", btw. My world view includes the theory, but doesn't revolve round it. I'm sure I don't think about evolution anywhere near as often as you think about God.

Yes, I'm sensing that. I see the connection between ontology and ethics, and you don't seem to see the connection. There is one, nevertheless.

Perhaps it's one of those situations where two things are only connected if you consciously impose the connection on them; I don't know without an explanation of what you mean.

Why do you say "only" a subjective feeling. Subjective feeling is what motivates most of our actions.

I don't think that's the case. I think reasoning or instincts can motivate much more often. And when we resort merely to subjective feelings, we often go rather morally wrong.

I do remember hearing about studies that showed our decisions are based far more on sentiment, and far less on rationality, than we consciously realise, but I don't remember the details, and I wouldn't know where to look for them. We can only go morally wrong relative to some alternative subjectively held set of moral values. Subjective feelings are unavoidable in matters of morality. Your position may be that God is the only source of true morality, but it was your subjective feelings that put you there.

I doubt the average atheist has even heard of Nietzsche, let alone knows what he said.

Funny. In all my conversations with Atheists, which I am far from reluctant to have, he comes up almost immediately...at least among those whose Atheism takes a philosophical form, and often among ordinary people, as well. Mind you, many of them barely know what he said, beyond "God is dead." They often don't even know where that comes from, in what context, or that Nietzsche just stated it but never even tried to prove it. But they regard him as an authority on the subject, and so they refer to him enthusiastically, even if they don't really know.

Maybe you're an exception to that rule.

All I can tell you is that even my very scant knowledge of Nietzsche is far more than the average where I grew up and still live. On a positive note; because of your insistence on keeping on mentioning him, I can now spell Nietzsche without having to look it up.

Actually, asking me to express a preference between two sets of religious scripture would be similar to offering me the choice of being burnt or scalded.

Really? Because that would be objectively...wrong? Or do you only mean "my personal preferences are not to read things?"

I mean I have very little patience with religion.

I mean that we come to understand that other people have to be taken into our account when we think morally.

That goes without saying.

Then your "personal preferences" aren't actually going to be enough. You're going to have to think of their position as well, in the moral equation.

Taking other people into account is already part of my moral preference, the main part in fact , so I've got that covered.

[attofishpi]

I have to admit, when I see the murders going on in the news, for material gain...I wonder what the world would ACTUALLY be like right now, if there was NO concept of a God.

IT WOULD BE A SHITLOAD WORSE.

Reason?

Those people that currently commit murder for material gains, would be multiplied by a very large factor.

People have entrenched within their psyche, that there MIGHT be a God...and thus societal behaviours act ever so slightly differently to what would be the case, IF there was no concept of GOD.


HELL_O

Owe I hope U have behaved..

[Dontaskme]

It's a bit like death, no person that died, ever came back to report to the living that they had in fact died. Or that they had met their maker, creator, and that it sent them to heaven or it sent them to hell.

In fact there is an entire lore about near death experiences (NDE's) and of people who describe coming in to the presence of beings and intelligences that consult with the afflicted person about their situation; review the entire life they have lived; provide a point of reference and advice about what course is best (to abandon the body or to return to life and the body) and a great deal more.

If none of these people actually experienced a clinical death (no heartbeat, no EEG, no auditory response), then they shouldn't be talking about having "had an NDE" Years of study into NDE's show that individual unique personal NDE's of coming into the presence of other beings and intelligences generally happen in the early, more shallow stages of someone's NDE - during which they are far more likely to have their perceptions coloured by cultural conditioning and fear-based belief systems such as we see in Catholic or Christian theology.
NDEs usually occur during reversible clinical death. No one has so far, as of yet, to date, returned from clinical death to report their ''hellish'' or ''heavenly'' afterlife realm experience .. So until that happens, it's just pure dreamscape fantasy and imagination, as the human brain is unfathomable even to it's owner/author, creator. Because if the human brain was comprehensible able to be fathomed by the brain itself, then one would be able to recreate a brain from scratch, and that ain't happening, not now, not ever. Brains have no idea they exist, test it for yourself... ask your brain, do you exist, and wait for an answer, as you will find out, brains do not actually talk.

[Dontaskme]

IT WOULD BE A SHITLOAD WORSE.

HELL_O

Owe I hope U have behaved..

Have you tried typing properly, you know like not like the one you want to see banned from the forum for not typing properly....but do carry on...your Royal Princess Perfect. I mean, you are invincible aren't you?

[attofishpi]

I wonder if you will agree with me...

Never!

Very well.

Nevertheless I am sending you an authenticated Isis Rosary that comes with a genuine Self-Restoration Mantra and a vial of Holy Nile Water. It’s a $19.99 value and yours absolutely free!

Pretty certain Will would prefer a pitcher of Ale.



woops I meant 'picture of Ale'..

[Immanuel Can]

[If Evolutionism is true]...morality isn't even possible. All that's possible is unaccountable liking or disliking of certain acts.

Morality is not only possible, it is inevitable. If you have a sense of right and wrong, you cannot avoid being a moral agent, and we all have a sense of right and wrong.

I think morality IS inevitable. But then, I also think the idea of humans "evolving" is not true. So I can think that. I don't see anything that makes it rational for an Evolutionist to think that, though. Having "a sense" of something doesn't make that "sense" reliable or true, far less capable of requiring any duty to be moral.

I don't feel I owe anybody admiration. I either admire them or I don't, and I don't really feel that I have much control over the matter.

Let's put it another way, then: if you admire some action a person takes...like giving to a charity, say...do you think they deserve or merit or should rightfully be accorded some admiration? Would a person be in any way morally missing-out if he failed to recognize that action as deserving of approval?

This probably sounds dim of me, but I can't work out exactly what you are asking.

I'm just asking whether or not you think certain actions deserve our moral admiration, or whether you think we all hand out admiration irrationally, to things that we don't have any good reason to admire.

Subjective feelings are unavoidable in matters of morality.

That's true, but not telling of anything. Just because somebody "has a feeling" doesn't tell us a thing about the rightness or wrongness of that feeling.

...I can now spell Nietzsche without having to look it up.

Mama will be so proud.

I have very little patience with religion.

And yet, here we are...talking about it at length.

[Harbal]

[If Evolutionism is true]...morality isn't even possible. All that's possible is unaccountable liking or disliking of certain acts.

Morality is not only possible, it is inevitable. If you have a sense of right and wrong, you cannot avoid being a moral agent, and we all have a sense of right and wrong.

I think morality IS inevitable. But then, I also think the idea of humans "evolving" is not true. So I can think that. I don't see anything that makes it rational for an Evolutionist to think that, though. Having "a sense" of something doesn't make that "sense" reliable or true, far less capable of requiring any duty to be moral.

Forget about evolution, how we came to be here in our present form is irrelevant to my view. No living creature functions by magic, there are always biological processes involved. Besides the processes that maintain our physical bodies, there are processes that govern our behaviour. We are motivated to eat by the sensation of hunger, to avoid danger by the sensation of fear and to reproduce by the sensation of sexual desire, etc. There isn't really much logic involved, we are just responding to physical and mental sensations; basically just trying to eliminate the unpleasant ones and feed the enjoyable ones. We need to eat, avoid danger and reproduce if we are to thrive, so it is very important that we are motivated to do these things; we would no longer be here if we didn't. Human beings are highly social animals, and create highly organised social structures, but they wouldn't be able to do this if the individuals that form these structures behaved in a totally selfish way, so there has to be something in our biology that discourages us from behaving in such a way. Well our sense of morality is one of those somethings. We don't comply with it because it presents us with a rational argument explaining why we should, we do it to satisfy an impulse. I don't expect you to agree with any of this, but I'm just trying to explain to you why I think the points you keep trying to make about our following, or not following, logic and rationality are completely irrelevant.

This is just a basic explanation of what I think the situation is. I do happen to believe it came about through evolution, but I don't have to think that; I could just as easily believe that some sort of god arranged it that way. That would still be very different from your view, because my god just gave us the capacity for morality, and doesn't get personally involved in it.

This probably sounds dim of me, but I can't work out exactly what you are asking.

I'm just asking whether or not you think certain actions deserve our moral admiration, or whether you think we all hand out admiration irrationally, to things that we don't have any good reason to admire.

We usually admire things because we like them, which is a reason, although, I'm sure, not a good enough one for you. What is deserved is a harder question. I sometimes admire something I've cooked, but it very seldom deserves it.

Subjective feelings are unavoidable in matters of morality.

That's true, but not telling of anything. Just because somebody "has a feeling" doesn't tell us a thing about the rightness or wrongness of that feeling.

It tells the person who is experiencing the feeling, and that is all that can be expected of it.

I have very little patience with religion.

And yet, here we are...talking about it at length.

And you must have noticed my patience wearing thin from time to time during the course of it.