moral relativism

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

Religions have traditionally played a large role in shaping people’s behavior, and in inculcating a set of practices for them to follow. Such practices are presented as being beneficial to society, and also as having good practical effects for those who adhere to them, usually by having some sort of ultimate pay-off after death. Why be good? “You’ll get your reward in heaven,” as the saying goes.

Of course, my point is to suggest instead that we not start here, but start with the fact that there are any number of Gods and religious denominations that insist you will not get any rewards whatsoever if you don't subscribe to their own Scriptures. In fact, your life may well become a living Hell if you balk here.

To ask questions about the origins of moral principles was often taken to be the same thing as raising questions about either the existence or the goodness of the supernatural beings who had supposedly given these tenets.

Still, those who embrace any number of different Gods -- or No God spiritual paths -- can't all be right. But any number of the flocks fall back on the ecclesiastics to assure particular congregations that it's ever and always their own God who can save them.

Socrates found this out when, in 399 B.C.E., he was placed on trial by his fellow Athenians for the capital offense of spreading disbelief in the gods. In his defense, he argued that, in encouraging people to try to understand the meaning of moral terms like ‘goodness’, ‘virtue’ and ‘happiness’ he was actually acting on behalf of the gods.

But then the part where distinctions are made between belief in any number "the Gods" back then and belief in the God today. And the main lesson to learn from the Socrates trial seems to be that when it comes to morality, it ultimately comes down to the capacity of those in power to enforce their own.

He did not convince the jury, which sentenced him to death – an act that has generally been thought to have been highly immoral.

And that would/could actually be demonstrated...how?

[Belinda]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

Religions have traditionally played a large role in shaping people’s behavior, and in inculcating a set of practices for them to follow. Such practices are presented as being beneficial to society, and also as having good practical effects for those who adhere to them, usually by having some sort of ultimate pay-off after death. Why be good? “You’ll get your reward in heaven,” as the saying goes.

Of course, my point is to suggest instead that we not start here, but start with the fact that there are any number of Gods and religious denominations that insist you will not get any rewards whatsoever if you don't subscribe to their own Scriptures. In fact, your life may well become a living Hell if you balk here.

To ask questions about the origins of moral principles was often taken to be the same thing as raising questions about either the existence or the goodness of the supernatural beings who had supposedly given these tenets.

Still, those who embrace any number of different Gods -- or No God spiritual paths -- can't all be right. But any number of the flocks fall back on the ecclesiastics to assure particular congregations that it's ever and always their own God who can save them.

Socrates found this out when, in 399 B.C.E., he was placed on trial by his fellow Athenians for the capital offense of spreading disbelief in the gods. In his defense, he argued that, in encouraging people to try to understand the meaning of moral terms like ‘goodness’, ‘virtue’ and ‘happiness’ he was actually acting on behalf of the gods.

But then the part where distinctions are made between belief in any number "the Gods" back then and belief in the God today. And the main lesson to learn from the Socrates trial seems to be that when it comes to morality, it ultimately comes down to the capacity of those in power to enforce their own.

He did not convince the jury, which sentenced him to death – an act that has generally been thought to have been highly immoral.

And that would/could actually be demonstrated...how?

It was immoral to murder Socrates because it was false that Socrates was misleading Athenian youth.
To be misled is not to be opposed to political powers. To be misled is to have one's critical capacity castrated.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

There are problems with the claim that morality comes from a divine source. I will list and briefly examine a few objections, before then looking at some arguments for the origins of morality which do not rely upon the existence of a divinity.

On the other hand, for every one person who sees divine morality as untenable there are still hundreds and hundreds of others who insist not only that God is the basis for their own moral font, but it had better be your own as well. As in "or else".

This and the fact that the divine is said to be the one and only source for free will. Not to mention immortality and salvation.

How do we know this Law Giver exists? For most people, the existence of God is something they learn from earliest infancy. They seldom think much about it but if they did, they would find that the arguments traditionally given to justify this existence have serious flaws.

Yes, any number of us are indoctrinated as children to believe in one or another God. But, again, for any number of them [still] merely believing in a God, the God need be all that establishes His existence. In fact, for many of them, the most serious of flaws revolve instead around the fact that others believe in a different God...and are doomed/damned if they don't come around to the One True God.

There are many such arguments and I will not examine them here, as it would need a separate article, or even a book. (The philosopher Michael Martin has written two such books, which I recommend: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and The Case Against Christianity). Suffice it to say that no argument for the existence of a transcendent deity has proven to be generally persuasive or has withstood rigorous philosophical analysis. If the existence of God cannot be proven, how can one argue that morality is grounded in his commands?

Philosophical analysis? Right. Run your own No God philosophy by the religionists here. If only up in the spiritual clouds. With moral commandments, immortality and salvation at stake both here and there, God and religion are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

In fact: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+reli ... s-wiz-serp

And I suspect the irony here revolves around the fact that in our modern/postmodern world, men and women have access [re extraordinary communication technology] to any number of One True Paths around the globe. God and No God. Back in the day when most human beings lived in villages or hamlets or other small communities, failures to communicate were minimized given that there was "a place for everyone" and everyone was expected to stay "in place" until they...died?

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is chaos to the harmony of the global village concept, because morality has as its subject the varying mythologies of differing cultures, and their historical differences. There will never be world harmony unless world morality is based upon human commonality, that is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

[iambiguous]

Moral relativism is chaos to the harmony of the global village concept, because morality has as its subject the varying mythologies of differing cultures, and their historical differences. There will never be world harmony unless world morality is based upon human commonality, that is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

On the other hand, in regard to abortion, one of the most combustible moral conflagrations of them all, what is the common biology when biologically only women are able to experience the trials and tribulations of an unwanted pregnancy?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If morality is not just natural, is unnatural, because God, what's the issue with abortion? Why is it a big deal for Him? His incompetence again? He can't transcend whatever pre-conscious entity is emerging, in a neural network up to a grape sized brain at 13 weeks, beginning organization for consciousness?

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

In response to this challenge [above], there have been those, like Søren Kierkegaard, who admit that all such arguments are faulty, but who then take a ‘leap of faith’ and believe in God’s existence anyway.

Not so much faulty, in my view, as profoundly problematic. Especially given the fact that Kierkegaard's leap of faith was to the Christian God. So, what of all those worshiping and adoring entirely different Gods? Any "leaps of faith" among them? And, if so, why yours and not theirs?

Whether one claims to actually know that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist, or takes a leap of faith, or makes a wager, or falls back on one or another scripture, they have to acknowledge that until this God of theirs chooses to reveal Himself, there does not appear to be a way for the faithful to pin down that it really is their own God.

Then this part: https://www.google.com/search?q=kierkeg ... s-wiz-serp

In other words..

But then how does one convince those who do not accept one’s faith that the commandments of this being should be followed?

Again and again and again: given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave -- moral commandments, immortality, salvation -- why on Earth would an existing God not make it absolutely clear which path to choose?

Darwin raised a powerful objection to this claim that God exists because we just feel that he exists:

“At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists.” The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

What many here, in my view, refuse to acknowledge. Some, in fact, claim to be in possession of a "deep down inside them" Intuitive or Intrinsic Self. There are things they "just know" are true about God and religion. About morality. But since others are not them, what could they possibly know about it? It's the perfect moral and political and spiritual argument. People might disagree with your own value judgments, sure, but how on Earth could they ever really be in sync with them given an Intrinsic Self all their own. One predicated on very different experiences in life, very different relationships and access to very different information and knowledge.

[Belinda]

But then how does one convince those who do not accept one’s faith that the commandments of this being should be followed?

By pointing out that the Ten Commandments have long been a significant code of conduct for civilised peoples or at least the basis of a significant code of conduct. There is no need to accept supernaturalism or religious rituals in order to respect a set of moral principles.

[Belinda]

why on Earth would an existing God not make it absolutely clear which path to choose?

Because as worldviews change the iconography changes. The icon remains an icon because it is the still centre from which all angles radiate.
You and I are immersed in worldview. We can vary the world view ("path") we select. An icon keeps us steady and grounded.

For instance, Jesus is the icon par excellence for many people who are not content with a holy book.
Jesus is the icon par excellence because he is part man part God. In the sense that Jesus is man he can move among the worldviews. In the sense that he is God he is eternal and unchangeable values.

[Gary Childress]

why on Earth would an existing God not make it absolutely clear which path to choose?

[snip]

For instance, Jesus is the icon par excellence for many people who are not content with a holy book.
Jesus is the icon par excellence because he is part man part God. In the sense that Jesus is man he can move among the worldviews. In the sense that he is God he is eternal and unchangeable values.

Interesting point.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

If God does exist, how do we know that he is good? Many acts attributed to divinities in various societies seem barbarous. Why, for instance, did the gods of Ancient Greece place a curse upon the head of baby Oedipus, dooming him to kill his father and marry his mother? Why did the Hindu god Shiva continuously destroy civilizations? And why did the God of the Old Testament enter into a bet with Satan and allow the latter to torture and torment poor Job, in order to see if he was truly devout? If such acts were performed by human beings, we would not hesitate to castigate the perpetrators.

On the other hand, how hard can it really be to figure out why any God at all is preferable to a No God universe. For most denominations, with God you get moral commandments, immortality and salvation. You are provided with an entirely "Scriptured" agenda so that you'll always know what you are required to think, feel, say and do from the cradle to the grave. Why? In order to be saved of course. In order not to be left behind.

And with all of that at stake, of course any number of mere mortals will find a way to believe just about anything at all regarding God's "mysterious ways". In other words, if it gains them access to...Paradise?

I know there's not much I won't accept about Him if it gains me those things.

The philosopher A.C. Ewing expressed this criticism nicely: “Without a prior conception of God as good or his commands as right, God would have no more claim on our obedience than Hitler or Stalin except that he would have more power than they had to make things uncomfortable for those who disobey him.”

(Quoted in Kai Nielsen, Ethics Without God) Is it right to follow such a being’s commandments simply because he is more powerful than we are?

Come on, the difference here is truly significant. With Hitler and Stalin, right and wrong revolved historically around mere mortals concocting political ideologies by and large. You might be sent to a death camp, perhaps, but you are not likely to burn in Hell for all of eternity. And, to the best of my knowledge, no one ever suggested that Hitler and Stalin were either omniscient or omnipotent.

 Perhaps the best discussion of this can be found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, in which the title character is a callow know-it-all bent upon prosecuting his own father for murder – not because he is particularly upset by the action itself (the victim was a slave who was left in a ditch overnight and died of exposure) but because to commit murder is to go against the will of the gods, and so is impious. Socrates asks Euthypro a seemingly simple question: Is an action moral because the gods decree it, or do the gods decree it because it is moral?

Clearly, if we do not submit to one or another One True Path [God or No God], here there will often be consequences. Some of them truly excruciating. And it is hardly a coincidence that given our ever evolving and ever changing historical, cultural, social, political and economic interactions, failures to communicate have often led to bitter conflicts and even wars. Some between those worshipping different Gods, while others involve fanatics attacking those who believe in the same God, but not the same narrative.

For instance, if the gods should decree that all left-handed people be slaughtered, would it be right to do so? Such a question cuts to the very heart of all divinely sanctioned ethical systems, for it shows that mere belief in the gods or a god is insufficient to justify following their dictates. Morality takes precedence over divinity. Perhaps not coincidentally, Euthypro never grasps this point, while Socrates was executed a few days later for his impertinence.

The ultimate "which came first, the chicken or the egg" frame of mind? In any event, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Gods down through the ages. And what does it really mean to argue that morality takes precedence over divinity when confronting all of those who at times embrace fiercely conflicting assessments of both. Not to mention differences in regard to this part: "or else".

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is chaos to the harmony of the global village concept, because morality has as its subject the varying mythologies of differing cultures, and their historical differences. There will never be world harmony unless world morality is based upon human commonality, that is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

On the other hand, in regard to abortion, one of the most combustible moral conflagrations of them all, what is the common biology when biologically only women are able to experience the trials and tribulations of an unwanted pregnancy?

Life is the experience of the joys and sufferings of the body, the mind's first idea: all meaning belongs to a biological subject. We know that the birth of a child can cause much pain and distress to the mother, and that can be a long-term projection. We cannot say we have that same understanding of the initial stages of a pregnancy. It is unlikely to be so in the initial stages, so I would say the sufferings of the women outweigh the sufferings of a dividing egg. I would say it is the woman's call, along with the father of the child, for so long as the father is to be normally half responsible for the child when born, he should have something to say about the aborted process of its creation. One needs to ponder whether one's judgment is likely to increase suffering in the world or decrease the suffering in the world. Here is the essence of morality: life's biological experiences of suffering. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; thus, the quality of life is the proper subject of any moral system.

[iambiguous]

Moral relativism is chaos to the harmony of the global village concept, because morality has as its subject the varying mythologies of differing cultures, and their historical differences. There will never be world harmony unless world morality is based upon human commonality, that is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

On the other hand, in regard to abortion, one of the most combustible moral conflagrations of them all, what is the common biology when biologically only women are able to experience the trials and tribulations of an unwanted pregnancy?

Life is the experience of the joys and sufferings of the body, the mind's first idea: all meaning belongs to a biological subject. We know that the birth of a child can cause much pain and distress to the mother, and that can be a long-term projection. We cannot say we have that same understanding of the initial stages of a pregnancy. It is unlikely to be so in the initial stages, so I would say the sufferings of the women outweigh the sufferings of a dividing egg. I would say it is the woman's call, along with the father of the child, for so long as the father is to be normally half responsible for the child when born, he should have something to say about the aborted process of its creation. One needs to ponder whether one's judgment is likely to increase suffering in the world or decrease the suffering in the world. Here is the essence of morality: life's biological experiences of suffering. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; thus, the quality of life is the proper subject of any moral system.

Lots and lots and lots of different people will claim to know lots and lots and lots of different things about abortion. Then fiercely heated debates will ensue regarding the best of all possible worlds.
 
Arguments are made pro and con: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

So, taking all of that into account what, in your view, is the optimal moral assessment?

Besides, pain and suffering can occur for those on both sides of the issue. Consequently, what government policy would you propose to minimize the pain and suffering? 

After all, both pro-choice and pro-life arguments often start with the assumption that political prejudices must give way to objective assessments. Their own, of course.

[popeye1945]

On the other hand, in regard to abortion, one of the most combustible moral conflagrations of them all, what is the common biology when biologically only women are able to experience the trials and tribulations of an unwanted pregnancy?

Life is the experience of the joys and sufferings of the body, the mind's first idea: all meaning belongs to a biological subject. We know that the birth of a child can cause much pain and distress to the mother, and that can be a long-term projection. We cannot say we have that same understanding of the initial stages of a pregnancy. It is unlikely to be so in the initial stages, so I would say the sufferings of the women outweigh the sufferings of a dividing egg. I would say it is the woman's call, along with the father of the child, for so long as the father is to be normally half responsible for the child when born, he should have something to say about the aborted process of its creation. One needs to ponder whether one's judgment is likely to increase suffering in the world or decrease the suffering in the world. Here is the essence of morality: life's biological experiences of suffering. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; thus, the quality of life is the proper subject of any moral system.

Lots and lots and lots of different people will claim to know lots and lots and lots of different things about abortion. Then fiercely heated debates will ensue regarding the best of all possible worlds.
 
Arguments are made pro and con: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

So, taking all of that into account what, in your view, is the optimal moral assessment?

Besides, pain and suffering can occur for those on both sides of the issue. Consequently, what government policy would you propose to minimize the pain and suffering? 

After all, both pro-choice and pro-life arguments often start with the assumption that political prejudices must give way to objective assessments. Their own, of course.

Establishing that the proper subject of a system of morality is the biological subject, its survival, and well-being, would eliminate much confusion. Morality based upon our strongest commonality, that of species, gives us all insights into what would probably be life-sustaining and that which would undermine life's processes. This makes us the natural agents of the system to be established in our self-interest, and enables the maintenance of a given society. The optimal system is the knowledge we all have of being human; this common sense is, of course, to be concretized in our outside world, so that we all might know the qualifications and limitations of our behaviours towards others of our kind, imprinted by our very natures. This way, we have a reflective reassurance of our innate feelings. It is wrong to think that the establishment of a moral system would be of an objective nature. We are subjective beings through and through, and the physical world as an object is our subjective experience; again, we cannot escape our subjectivity. If one is to live, one is to suffer. Morality should be a conscious attempt to minimize our common sufferings. This system of morality must realize at the outset that biology/human life is the measure and the meaning of all things; we are the creators of meaning, and there is no other source.

[Belinda]

Life is the experience of the joys and sufferings of the body, the mind's first idea: all meaning belongs to a biological subject. We know that the birth of a child can cause much pain and distress to the mother, and that can be a long-term projection. We cannot say we have that same understanding of the initial stages of a pregnancy. It is unlikely to be so in the initial stages, so I would say the sufferings of the women outweigh the sufferings of a dividing egg. I would say it is the woman's call, along with the father of the child, for so long as the father is to be normally half responsible for the child when born, he should have something to say about the aborted process of its creation. One needs to ponder whether one's judgment is likely to increase suffering in the world or decrease the suffering in the world. Here is the essence of morality: life's biological experiences of suffering. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; thus, the quality of life is the proper subject of any moral system.

Lots and lots and lots of different people will claim to know lots and lots and lots of different things about abortion. Then fiercely heated debates will ensue regarding the best of all possible worlds.
 
Arguments are made pro and con: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

So, taking all of that into account what, in your view, is the optimal moral assessment?

Besides, pain and suffering can occur for those on both sides of the issue. Consequently, what government policy would you propose to minimize the pain and suffering? 

After all, both pro-choice and pro-life arguments often start with the assumption that political prejudices must give way to objective assessments. Their own, of course.

Establishing that the proper subject of a system of morality is the biological subject, its survival, and well-being, would eliminate much confusion. Morality based upon our strongest commonality, that of species, gives us all insights into what would probably be life-sustaining and that which would undermine life's processes. This makes us the natural agents of the system to be established in our self-interest, and enables the maintenance of a given society. The optimal system is the knowledge we all have of being human; this common sense is, of course, to be concretized in our outside world, so that we all might know the qualifications and limitations of our behaviours towards others of our kind, imprinted by our very natures. This way, we have a reflective reassurance of our innate feelings. It is wrong to think that the establishment of a moral system would be of an objective nature. We are subjective beings through and through, and the physical world as an object is our subjective experience; again, we cannot escape our subjectivity. If one is to live, one is to suffer. Morality should be a conscious attempt to minimize our common sufferings. This system of morality must realize at the outset that biology/human life is the measure and the meaning of all things; we are the creators of meaning, and there is no other source.

The moral system of a legislator as legislator should be utilitarian. However the moral system of a private person should not be utilitarian but a combination of tradition and personal virtue.

In the case of legislation about elective abortion rights, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is clearly best served by the criterion that the pregnant woman's welfare is more important than that of her foetus. The viability of the foetus matters too and some foetuses should be accorded more rights than others.