What is morality?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Not mine. I don't expect anything about morality from that quarter. So I think you've just straw-manned yourself.

Try to derive a moral precept from JUST the belief a god or gods exists?

Oh, you can't. You'd have to specify the God that exists. But once you did, you'd be all set.

[MikeNovack]

Try to derive a moral precept from JUST the belief a god or gods exists?

Oh, you can't. You'd have to specify the God that exists. But once you did, you'd be all set.

OH, you mean NOT just "a god or gods exist" but that "a god with particular characteristics exists".

Do you really not see the difference. Or are you so entrapped by your belief/faith that you know the one true God and what that one true God is like?

Please understand, IC, I am NOT arguing against your belief/faith. Just how you are trying to apply that to the beliefs of others.

Maybe a stupid question, maybe you''ll refuse to answer.

Yes or no, morality existed 3000 years ago. Humans 3000 years ago discussed moral issues and we know this because we have written evidence surviving from that time. They were doing so sensibly, rationally, although of course without any reference to God as understood by Christians.

[Immanuel Can]

Try to derive a moral precept from JUST the belief a god or gods exists?

Oh, you can't. You'd have to specify the God that exists. But once you did, you'd be all set.

OH, you mean NOT just "a god or gods exist" but that "a god with particular characteristics exists".

If God exists, of course He has specific characteristics. So that's not even a necessary thing to point out, one would think.

[MikeNovack]

Oh, you can't. You'd have to specify the God that exists. But once you did, you'd be all set.

OH, you mean NOT just "a god or gods exist" but that "a god with particular characteristics exists".

If God exists, of course He has specific characteristics. So that's not even a necessary thing to point out, one would think.

"a" vs "the" again. OF COURSE if God exists, God has specific characteristics. Did you miss the "particular"? You are not just saying that God has a set of characteristics but that this set matches thg set you imagine them to be.

[Immanuel Can]

OH, you mean NOT just "a god or gods exist" but that "a god with particular characteristics exists".

If God exists, of course He has specific characteristics. So that's not even a necessary thing to point out, one would think.

OF COURSE if God exists, God has specific characteristics. Did you miss the "particular"? You are not just saying that God has a set of characteristics but that this set matches thg set you imagine them to be.

Well, the set He has revealed Himself to have.

It's not me who decides; it's God Himself. My job is only to figure out what to believe; God will be who God is, regardless of my decisions.

But since ANY god, if such exists, will have particular characteristics, morality will turn out to be whatever is consonant with the characteristics and nature of that god. And objective morality will be that which coordinates with the objective God. And again, my decision is only to agree with that or be found wrong. I can't make God what God is not. And I can't make morality into what it is not. It's not about me. I'm only in control of my response to the truth, not of what the nature of that truth will be.

[MikeNovack]

But since ANY god, if such exists, will have particular characteristics, morality will turn out to be whatever is consonant with the characteristics and nature of that god.

You are ASSUMING a characteristic, that this "any god" has the least interest in how we humans behave. OR a need to specify morality beyond how we humans were crested to be.

Look, there is an interaction here between us and our environment. I gave an example, that were had evolved to be obligatory social animals who hunted large prey would result in a "sharing" rule. Now suppose we and our environment different, say there were not large animals hunted and we evolved to live along shores living on mollusks gathered from the sand. I might not expect THAT variant of "human" to have a "sharing rule" (unclear that we would even be obligatory social)

TRY THIS. It's a thought experiment. Suppose you had a time machine and universal translation device. You go back 10,000 years, find a band of hunter-gatherers, and ask questions:

When one of you kills large prey, WHY must you share this with the group?

What sort of answers do you think you will get? I'd be willing to wager typical would be things like:
Because its the right thing to do.
Because I'm a person, and that's what people do. << they quite possibly only use the term person/human for members of their own group/tribe >>

[Immanuel Can]

But since ANY god, if such exists, will have particular characteristics, morality will turn out to be whatever is consonant with the characteristics and nature of that god.

You are ASSUMING a characteristic,

No, I don't have to "assume" it. But the Deistic "god," we have already seen, is irrelevant to morality...so his existence or non-existence cannot possibly be of any interest in the present discussion. So we can ignore that objection, and stick to hypotheses that count for something.

...had evolved to be obligatory social animals...

Genetic fallacy. Not relevant. And your addition of the word "obligatory" there is ambiguous and thus fallacious.

It does not follow, even if people are "obliged" (meaning, created-as, factually) to BE social animals, that they are "obligated" (meaning have a duty, morally) to DO anything.

That's a genetic fallacy, compounded by a fallacy of amphiboly. So we've got two things to straighten out, there.

[MikeNovack]

It does not follow, even if people are "obliged" (meaning, created-as, factually) to BE social animals, that they are "obligated" (meaning have a duty, morally) to DO anything.

That's a genetic fallacy, compounded by a fallacy of amphiboly. So we've got two things to straighten out, there.

I was unaware you did not understand my terminology.

By "obligotory" social animals I am NOT implying a "moral duty to be social". I mean only that our species was unable to survive/reproduce as individuals "in the wild". There are SOME animals that while sometimes living as social animals can also live as individuals. In fact, that might be a "fitness test". For example, wolves are social animals, but, have you ever considered how a new pack comes into being? Only wolves fit enough to have survived as individuals and found a mate (similarly able to survive as an individual) and manage to raise their first litter get to be alpha wolves of a pack.

I am making a point of this (about us humans) because enlightenment social theory often thought people lived pre-society.

[Immanuel Can]

It does not follow, even if people are "obliged" (meaning, created-as, factually) to BE social animals, that they are "obligated" (meaning have a duty, morally) to DO anything.

That's a genetic fallacy, compounded by a fallacy of amphiboly. So we've got two things to straighten out, there.

I was unaware you did not understand my terminology.

You should perhaps just say, "I was unaware my use of 'obligatory' was ambiguous." Apparently, I knew more about that word than you did.

By "obligotory" social animals I am NOT implying a "moral duty to be social". I mean only that our species was unable to survive/reproduce as individuals "in the wild".

So...what's that got to do with the topic, morality?

[MikeNovack]

By "obligotory" social animals I am NOT implying a "moral duty to be social". I mean only that our species was unable to survive/reproduce as individuals "in the wild".

So...what's that got to do with the topic, morality?

I am arguing all obligatory social animals will have "morality" (not the same "morality" as other species. I am arguing that because they have "culture", that is how their necessary behaviors will get "coded" as opposed to "by instinct". Easier/quicker to evolve.

OBVIOUSLY you and I are not treating "morality" as the same.

[Immanuel Can]

By "obligotory" social animals I am NOT implying a "moral duty to be social". I mean only that our species was unable to survive/reproduce as individuals "in the wild".

So...what's that got to do with the topic, morality?

I am arguing all obligatory social animals will have "morality"

They don't, though. So it's not a very good argument.

But if they did, that would still indicate that they had it as a matter of FACT, but not any obligation to take it as a VALUE. (Remember Hume) So there's really no way for you to make any point relevant to the question "What is morality" out of the observation that some animals are "social."

[MikeNovack]

I am arguing all obligatory social animals will have "morality"[/quote]

But if they did, that would still indicate that they had it as a matter of FACT, but not any obligation to take it as a VALUE.
[/quote]

Correct, and irrelevant. Simply disagreement about what morality IS. I am NOT arguing obligatory social animals are CHOOSING to have morality. I include us humans in that.

We humans have no choice about recognizing "some things are right to do and some things wrong to do" (that the categories right vs wrong exist). A human who had not been taught this, had not learned this, would be unable to function normally in any human society. Would be a "defective" human.

I rather suspect you are going to get hung up on "having morality" (KNOWING "right" and "wrong") and "acting morally" (choosing the "right" action). t the moment, just talking about the former.

[Immanuel Can]

I am arguing all obligatory social animals will have "morality"

But if they did, that would still indicate that they had it as a matter of FACT, but not any obligation to take it as a VALUE.

Correct, and irrelevant.

Highly relevant. Morality is not about mere facts. The facts by themselves do not argue for a value. Hume got that...you've missed it.

1. A fact statement is, "Some people believe in a thing called 'morality.'" That doesn't suggest we have to, far less that we should, and far less that we owe it to anybody to believe just because they do.

2. A value judgment is "This or that moral precept is warranted, and as such, is obligatory for moral persons."

You can't get from the former to the latter without justifying the move. It just doesn't work. So "Early man believed in cooperation," does not get us to "We are morally obligated to cooperate." It's a complete non-sequitur. You'll have to justify your move.

[MikeNovack]

Highly relevant. Morality is not about mere facts. The facts by themselves do not argue for a value. Hume got that...you've missed it.

1. A fact statement is, "Some people believe in a thing called 'morality.'" That doesn't suggest we have to, far less that we should, and far less that we owe it to anybody to believe just because they do.

2. A value judgment is "This or that moral precept is warranted, and as such, is obligatory for moral persons."

You can't get from the former to the latter without justifying the move. It just doesn't work. So "Early man believed in cooperation," does not get us to "We are morally obligated to cooperate." It's a complete non-sequitur. You'll have to justify your move.

You don't get what I am arguing.
1) No, not "some people believe in a thing called morality". More ALL HUMANS believe/feel some things are right to do and some things wrong to do, That the CLASSIFICATION "right"/"wrong" is rel/exists, and this is so because they were raised as humans.

2) Not talking about (at the moment) how actions are assigned to the categories "right" vs "wrong". Nor is it "early man believed in co-operation". Yes ll early men lived in societies that classified "co-operation" in the "right to do" category. There simply are no/could not be any human societies where this not so. Selection (which societies survived and which did no) determined this. Co-operation a necessary component in being human.

Look IC, "instincts" are coded onto "this feels good" (and not doing it feels bad). But once "cultures exist, faster to code to a single "this is right" vs "this is wrong" << so would get coded faster than coding as an instinct >>

[Immanuel Can]

Highly relevant. Morality is not about mere facts. The facts by themselves do not argue for a value. Hume got that...you've missed it.

1. A fact statement is, "Some people believe in a thing called 'morality.'" That doesn't suggest we have to, far less that we should, and far less that we owe it to anybody to believe just because they do.

2. A value judgment is "This or that moral precept is warranted, and as such, is obligatory for moral persons."

You can't get from the former to the latter without justifying the move. It just doesn't work. So "Early man believed in cooperation," does not get us to "We are morally obligated to cooperate." It's a complete non-sequitur. You'll have to justify your move.

You don't get what I am arguing.
ALL HUMANS believe/feel some things are right to do and some things wrong to do, That the CLASSIFICATION "right"/"wrong" is rel/exists, and this is so because they were raised as humans.

I get what you are arguing. Do you get that what you are arguing is fallacious?

Genetic fallacy. That does not show that "the way they were raised" is "right."