What is morality?

[MikeNovack]

Well my mind is made up THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE and THERE COULD BE NO EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

And just how did you get to that position?
Without evidence. No other way.

When I do present a rational explanation where "morality" might come from in terms of our evolution as obligatory social animals you reject off hand based on your BELIEFS (your religious beliefs) that there is no evolution, we are not animals, etc.

That's because you're not even understanding the question. The question isn't "Where might belief in morality have come from," it's "Is there any justification for morality"?

What is the justification that birds have wings?

What is your vaunted justification? Morality is justified because justifying morality is one of the functions/attributes of the Great Pink Unicorn, in the existence of which, I have absolute belief and faith.

Try to understand, IC, I am NOT trying to demonstrate the AXIOMS of the secularist (or for that matter, the axioms of people of other religions than yours) are true, not trying to "justify" them. They need no justification EXCEPT defense against a claim that they are (mutually) inconsistent)

But I am arguing, you are just as dependent on AXIOMS for the truth of your Great Pink Unicorn.

[Impenitent]

What is the justification that birds have wings?

Many, many years ago, the garbage was piled in the streets.
Zippy the rat was rooting through the garbage and in doing so, he inadvertently rubbed a magic lamp.
The magic genie appeared and granted the rat 3 wishes.
Cheese, more cheese and the ability to fly...

and that's why birds have wings.

flying squirrels on the other hand...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Well my mind is made up THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE and THERE COULD BE NO EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

And just how did you get to that position?
Without evidence. No other way.

When I do present a rational explanation where "morality" might come from in terms of our evolution as obligatory social animals you reject off hand based on your BELIEFS (your religious beliefs) that there is no evolution, we are not animals, etc.

That's because you're not even understanding the question. The question isn't "Where might belief in morality have come from," it's "Is there any justification for morality"?

What is the justification that birds have wings?

Are you aware of any way that wings are a moral issue? Do birds require other birds to be "right" in order to have wings? Or is the having of a wingless bird an "evil"? (The poor kiwis...they never stood a chance.)

Moral demands are such that they imply "oughtness," or "a duty to do/not do," or "an obligation toward right conduct." They place a burden of behaviour on other people. If you say "that's not moral," it implies the hearer ought not to do it...that he/she has a duty to something that mandates against such action...that the action in question is not proper or right.

Because of that, we owe those of whom we make such demands an explanation of the grounds for those demands -- unless, instead of appealing to their own rational and moral character, we prefer to appeal only by way of a threat of force.

Are you saying that the grounds of secular "morals" is merely force? That there is no justification?

[MikeNovack]

What is the justification that birds have wings?

Are you aware of any way that wings are a moral issue? Do birds require other birds to be "right" in order to have wings? Or is the having of a wingless bird an "evil"? (The poor kiwis...they never stood a chance.)

Are you saying that the grounds of secular "morals" is merely force? That there is no justification?

IC, you chose to grab the wrong end of he stick (YUCK!) I don't know if this is denseness on your part. NO, the "bird" example was not about the "oughtness" of wings but that they evolved. And what happens to evolve needs no justification.

The secular argument in this case "morality evolved (came into being through co-evolution with the evolution of obligatory social animals). Asking for justification akin to asking for the justification of wings. If you are asking the secularists why THIS mechanism rather than evolving a whole slew of separate "instincts" (purely biological) they might say that once obligatory social animals have "culture" it's easier to do it that way (would evolve long before an instinct could). Instead JUST evolve an ability* to feel "right" and "wrong" and then let culture evolve assignment of actions to these categories.

Stop asking about the secularists before looking in the mirror. You say YOUR OWN sense of right and wrong comes from your understanding of what God wants. You know it is wrong to drop trousers, squat in the corner, and leave a turd because you learned that from God. You imagine that the only reason the secularist won't do that is fear of force?

The secularist with the "evolutionary explanation" for morality is NOT making the claims that you feel rule out the concept. NOT arguing "there would be a proper/moral (your sense) reason for every assignment made by society". And most of the things you consider arbitrary and imposed by force aren't in fact imposed by "force". Remember, up to very recently in human history ostracism more or less a death sentence but only indirectly. If you go into a fine restaurant and choose to ignore the cutlery, just dig in with your hands you won't be forced to do it the "right way" (according to the rules of the society), just 86'd.

* Doing "right" FEELS good, doing "wrong" FEELS bad. Already have evolved a "if it feels bad, stop" -- "if it feels good, keep doing".

[Immanuel Can]

...what happens to evolve needs no justification.

This is clearly flat wrong. I don't mean just that it didn't "evolve," and you have no evidence of that. I mean that even if we suppose it did, that would make it merely a matter of fact, not a justified value. David Hume pointed out that you can't get a justification of a value from a statement of fact. So it's Hume you've got to overcome, not me.

You could make the same fallacious argument for prostitution, child abuse or slavery. These could be imagined to have "evolved" from ancient days. That won't make them justifiable today, or any other day. So your claim is just wrong: even if something "evolved," it would need justification in order to be called "moral", or there no reason at all we should feel any moral duty toward it. It doesn't become obligatory, doesn't become "right," and we're not giving anybody any reason to believe they owe us to do it.

What's more, you have to suppose that while Western culture "evolved" to be horrified at female genital mutilation, Somali culture "evolved" to embrace it so completely that they insist on doing it to 99% of their women. And you would be utterly without resources to explain why what they are doing is barbaric and evil, and why the Western practice of not slicing our 13-year-old girls and sewing them up is more "moral," because you would have to imagine that both are equally "evolved." So your strategy leaves us with no moral information at all.

The secular argument in this case "morality evolved (came into being through co-evolution with the evolution of obligatory social animals).

That's not a "case," it's just a very obvious non-sequitur.

Stop asking about the secularists...

I will...if they stop trying to moralize. But the minute they try to tell me about morality, I have every reason and perfect fairness to ask them what they think they mean, and why they think they can tell other people what they should be doing. But that's on them, not me.

And most of the things you consider arbitrary and imposed by force aren't in fact imposed by "force".

Prove that. Take one secular moral axiom, and show it can be endorsed with justification, rather than forced upon anybody.

You can't. It's not happening. And the reason is that secularism has no rational entitlement to moralizing at all.

[MikeNovack]

...what happens to evolve needs no justification.

A) This is clearly flat wrong. I don't mean just that it didn't "evolve," and you have no evidence of that. I mean that even if we suppose it did, that would make it merely a matter of fact, not a justified value. David Hume pointed out that you can't get a justification of a value from a statement of fact. So it's Hume you've got to overcome, not me.

B) You could make the same fallacious argument for prostitution, child abuse or slavery. These could be imagined to have "evolved" from ancient days. That won't make them justifiable today, or any other day. So your claim is just wrong: even if something "evolved," it would need justification in order to be called "moral", or there no reason at all we should feel any moral duty toward it. It doesn't become obligatory, doesn't become "right," and we're not giving anybody any reason to believe they owe us to do it.


C) Stop asking about the secularists...

I will...if they stop trying to moralize. But the minute they try to tell me about morality, I have every reason and perfect fairness to ask them what they think they mean, and why they think they can tell other people what they should be doing. But that's on them, not me.

And most of the things you consider arbitrary and imposed by force aren't in fact imposed by "force".

D)Prove that. Take one secular moral axiom, and show it can be endorsed with justification, rather than forced upon anybody.
You can't. It's not happening. And the reason is that secularism has no rational entitlement to moralizing at all.
[/quote]

A) Hume was not taking secularism far enough. It's not just that you can't derive "whoo-whoo" from that which is, but that "whoo-whoo" does not exist.

B) Your logic is terrible --- you are challenging somebody who is saying X derives from Z to demonstrate "if Y derives from Z, show that Y is an instance of X'.
A claim "morality evolved" is not a claim that "if y evolved, y is morality". But please, in any case, we are supposedly still at the stage of discussing morality and from where it might come, NOT any specific moral rule. That distinction important.

C) Telling other people what to do? You mean besides "be a mensch" (be a human, a moral being). Remember, the secularist who considers "morality" as something that evolved considers it PART OF BEING HUMAN.

D) You do NOT justify axioms. Asking a secularist to justify his/her fundamental axioms is the same as they asking you to justify yours. Try that IC, JUSTIFY "there is a God".

While we normally express truths simply, a truth T is really of the form If (A1 and A2 and A3) then T << A1, A2, and A3 being our axioms >>

[Immanuel Can]

Stop asking about the secularists...

I will...if they stop trying to moralize. But the minute they try to tell me about morality, I have every reason and perfect fairness to ask them what they think they mean, and why they think they can tell other people what they should be doing. But that's on them, not me.

And most of the things you consider arbitrary and imposed by force aren't in fact imposed by "force".

Prove that. Take one secular moral axiom, and show it can be endorsed with justification, rather than forced upon anybody.
You can't. It's not happening. And the reason is that secularism has no rational entitlement to moralizing at all.

A) Hume was not taking secularism far enough. It's not just that you can't derive "whoo-whoo" from that which is, but that "whoo-whoo" does not exist.

Well, what you're calling "whoo-whoo" was what Hume termed "morality." So you'd be saying "morality does not exist," which is exactly what I've been saying is the case for secularism.

So it seems we agree about that. But I suspect you've misspoken, perhaps.

A claim "morality evolved" is not a claim that "if y evolved, y is morality".

Nobody said it was.

What I said was that you can't make something moral by saying "it evolved." And that's the case.

we are supposedly still at the stage of discussing morality and from where it might come,

We are not. We never have been. It was you who lapsed into the genetic fallacy, not me. The question is, and has remained "what is morality?" as you'll see from the OP. If the OP had intended to discuss "where morality comes from," that would be the heading.

C) Telling other people what to do? You mean besides "be a mensch" (be a human, a moral being).

A secularist can't. He can't even do so much as fall back, rather pathetically, on the Jewish term "mensch," not merely because Jews are monotheists, but because there is no secular duty to "be a mensch," whatever you take "mensch" to be. Secularism has no explanation of why anybody owes it to do anything, rather than any other thing. It has no grounded concept of morality, in fact.

You do NOT justify axioms.

But moral commands are not axioms. They're imperatives. And imperatives must be justified...or all that can compel them is force, which I think we'd both recognize as illegitimate means.

So give me one moral command, imperative, instruction or injunction you can require from the suppositions of pure secularism -- but without relying on the use of force.

You can't do it.

[MikeNovack]

A )

C) Telling other people what to do? You mean besides "be a mensch" (be a human, a moral being).

A secularist can't. He can't even do so much as fall back, rather pathetically, on the Jewish term "mensch," not merely because Jews are monotheists, but because there is no secular duty to "be a mensch," whatever you take "mensch" to be. Secularism has no explanation of why anybody owes it to do anything, rather than any other thing. It has no grounded concept of morality, in fact.

B)

You do NOT justify axioms.

But moral commands are not axioms. They're imperatives. And imperatives must be justified...or all that can compel them is force, which I think we'd both recognize as illegitimate means.

So give me one moral command, imperative, instruction or injunction you can require from the suppositions of pure secularism -- but without relying on the use of force.

You can't do it.

A ---- well FIRST of all, linguistic, not Jewish in a religious sense. Mensch/menschlichkeit same in German as Yiddish. The relationship between being a moral human and humanity. SECONDLY, I think we need to discuss your expectations of how a secular person thinks. I'll take that up below with a simpler example than morality. But you should know that I am a woo-woo with plenty of experience interacting with secularists.

B --- I said repeatedly we were first discussing MORALITY, not individual moral rules. I have nowhere said that individual moral rules would be axioms.

OK, here goes, what do you mean by "pure secularism"? Do you mean such a strict from of materialism that this secularist is going to deny anything that cannot be described in purely material terms. Let's take an example much simpler than morality. Let's take a single simple sentence.

ALL MEN (people) ARE EQUAL.

Do you expect your secularist to deny this statement? Do you challenge the secularist "produce the materialist measure by which you consider this statement true" (or false).

When we say "cannot derive an ought from an is" we mean the very strictly material sense of "is". The problem is that even secularists (most of them) also use "is" to express the existence of "things" not part of material reality. I have "things" in quotes, because that can be argued (are they things in the ordinary sense of things as material?)

What sort of a "thing" is JUSTICE, FREEDOM, HAPPINESS, etc. ? Are you expecting of your secularist to reply "they don't exist". That's the sort of secularist you think are arguing with?

[Impenitent]

some men are unfortunately more equal than others

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

A )

C) Telling other people what to do? You mean besides "be a mensch" (be a human, a moral being).

A secularist can't. He can't even do so much as fall back, rather pathetically, on the Jewish term "mensch," not merely because Jews are monotheists, but because there is no secular duty to "be a mensch," whatever you take "mensch" to be. Secularism has no explanation of why anybody owes it to do anything, rather than any other thing. It has no grounded concept of morality, in fact.

B)

You do NOT justify axioms.

But moral commands are not axioms. They're imperatives. And imperatives must be justified...or all that can compel them is force, which I think we'd both recognize as illegitimate means.

So give me one moral command, imperative, instruction or injunction you can require from the suppositions of pure secularism -- but without relying on the use of force.

You can't do it.

First, you should learn how the quote feature works. It's much easier than the A-B-C method you're using. Try to toolbar above.

You're welcome.

A ---- well FIRST of all, linguistic, not Jewish in a religious sense. Mensch/menschlichkeit same in German as Yiddish. The relationship between being a moral human and humanity.

But secularism doesn't know what "a moral human being" is, any more than it can say what a "mensch" is.

SECONDLY, I think we need to discuss your expectations of how a secular person thinks.

No, I don't think we do, since we're talking about what secularism itself can rationalize, rather than the irrational things people who claim to be secular sometimes do. Let's stick to discussing the follies of secularism itself, and not bother with the ad homs.

B --- I said repeatedly we were first discussing MORALITY, not individual moral rules.

Morality is made up of individual moral precepts and principles...imperatives, really. So you can't actually discuss the one without involving the other. "Morality" is the broad, collective term; moral precept is the particular term. But they're the same thing.

OK, here goes, what do you mean by "pure secularism"?

I mean, a secularism that does not hypocritically resort to moralizing it cannot legitimize.

ALL MEN (people) ARE EQUAL.

Given secularism, show that we have a moral duty to believe that.

Do you expect your secularist to deny this statement?

If he's not behaving as a hypocrite, he'd have to, because secularism would require that of him, rationally speaking. For he has no reason at all to suppose it's true. But who knows what a hypocritical secularist might advocate? It could be anything. So that's not useful to discuss. We're not trying to be hypocrites, and believe one thing, and then turn around and act as if what we said we believed was not true, are we?

What sort of a "thing" is JUSTICE, FREEDOM, HAPPINESS, etc. ?

Two of them are abstractions, and one is a feeling.

Are you expecting of your secularist to reply "they don't exist".

An honest secularist? A consistent secularist? A secularist who rationalized his moral beliefs with his ontological commitments? He'd have to say we have no duty to produce any of them: justice, freedom or happiness.

Just try it. You can't do it either. Prove from secularism that you and I have any duty to deliver justice, freedom or happiness to anybody.

But no, I have not found that that kind of secularist -- the honest, consistent, rational secularist -- is common at all. Most seem to prefer to take their secularism only so far as it is comfortable to do so, and to abandon it when it comes to moral justification. And the reason is that they simply cannot justify it from secularism, and yet they cannot live without morality.

[MikeNovack]

An honest secularist? A consistent secularist? A secularist who rationalized his moral beliefs with his ontological commitments? He'd have to say we have no duty to produce any of them: justice, freedom or happiness.

STOP YOUR NONSENSE -- Yes this overall topic is about morality, but your insistence on "jumping" is truly annoying.

We haven't gotten as far as asking the secularist to explain a "duty" to "produce justice", etc. Still at the stage of discussing whether the secularist is able to say "justice exists" (there IS such a thing as justice). We are supposedly trying to distinguish between secularists who are strict materialists and those who are not.

I would argue that there are people who are not such strict materialists but are secularists in that they do not believe in any Great Pink Unicorns.

Only asking THIS SORT of secularist to justify morality makes sense. You would never be asking the strict materialist to do so (they would not consider "morality" as something that existed). If you are trying to suggest that ONLY the strict materialist secularist is consistent, that a secularist who is not that sort of strict materialist is inconsistent, well sorry IC, there is a great deal of thought in between strict materialism and your Great Pink Unucorn.

[Immanuel Can]

An honest secularist? A consistent secularist? A secularist who rationalized his moral beliefs with his ontological commitments? He'd have to say we have no duty to produce any of them: justice, freedom or happiness.

STOP YOUR NONSENSE.

It's the truth. You may not like it, but I note there's nothing you can suggest by way of a moral command that all secularists are obligated to follow as a result of being secular. Not one. Not ever. So you're firing blanks here: lots of noise, but nothing is coming out of the gun.

[MikeNovack]

.......all secularists are obligated to follow as a result of being secular. ........

WHY would you even expect such a thing? ALL secularists when what was being discussed (supposedly) differences between secularists who were strict materialists and those who were not. And why in any case "as a result of being secularist"?

I would not expect ANY moral precept to derive from disbelief in any god or gods, nor should you.

Your PROPER challenge would be to demand a moral precept the secularist can produce without falling back on "coming from some god or gods". That is very different from demanding a moral precept "because there are no god or gods"

[Immanuel Can]

.......all secularists are obligated to follow as a result of being secular. ........

WHY would you even expect such a thing?

I'm not...logic is. Logic requires that if somebody claims their first premise is X, then their conclusion must be deducible (by some sort of middle premise) from their first premise. If it's utterly unrelated, then that is one kind of fallacy, a fallacy of irrelevance, a non-sequitur. It's not logic.

But I agree with you: many secularists do not take their secularism seriously enough to be logical with it.

I would not expect ANY moral precept to derive from disbelief in any god or gods, nor should you.

I don't expect it. I've been making the case that they cannot. Have you been napping?

And you have probably wracked your brains to figure out if you could find such a case, if only to prove me wrong...

...and so far...crickets. From everybody.

[MikeNovack]

I would not expect ANY moral precept to derive from disbelief in any god or gods, nor should you.

I don't expect it. I've been making the case that they cannot. Have you been napping?
And you have probably wracked your brains to figure out if you could find such a case, if only to prove me wrong...

No, simply trying to make sense of your (bizarre) expectation.

Why don't you try the reverse? Try to derive a moral precept from JUST the belief a god or gods exists? Remember, you are NOT going to be able to use something like "the god I believe in teaches me moral precepts" . That is MUCH more than simply "a god or gods exist". You seem to be able to consider (though not the god you believe in) a deity that just creates the universe but has no interest in the doings of humans. The belief SOME god of SOME sort exists is the opposite of "no god or gods exist".