Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: Historically incorrect. The morality of society was derived from early religious codes, not the other way around. That's not even controversial. But you are right to say that SOME religious codes have been used to justify SOME evil actions. That's certainly verifiably true in the case of Islam...just as Atheist ideology has been so frequently used to justify murder, as in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba...and the former Soviet Bloc.

I do not think we can have any idea about from where the morality of society came from. It begs the question of what counts as morality. For example, we can see animals that protect the young of their group. Is that the exercise of morality, or just an inbuilt instinct? We cannot answer for them, nor can we answer when humans act in a particular way.

I would say that we call behaviour 'morality' only when we are conscious of having choice, when people do not always act the same way. But that only describes a type of behavior, it does not say which behaviour is moral in the sense of 'good'. We still have no means to know that.

So I would disagree that we can say ' SOME religious codes have been used to justify SOME evil actions'. That is circular, in that to term the actions 'evil' you must be applying your own moral code. In which case, you must be saying that your moral code is better than their moral code.

What it really reveals is this: not all religions are moral. Neither are secular ideologies like Atheism. Human beings have a deeply flawed nature, and frequently use ideologies as excuses for their darker desires. But on the other side, some beliefs increase the amount of goodness in the world and inhibit evil. So the trick is not to condemn everything, but to discern which is which: keep the good, and avoid the bad.

Again, how are we to discern? It cannot be against our personal feelings, since those enacting what you term their 'dark desires' are doing that same thing, yet with a different result. It cannot be by relating behaviour to our own religion/ideology, because the evil-doers have a different religion/ideology.

So, it is one thing to describe a certain kind of decision-making as 'morality' - that would be a neutral description. But that is sharply distinguished from calling a particular decision 'moral', or 'evil'.

If you are going to do that, if you are going to say that 'morality' means more than 'whatever you prefer', then you have got to assert that a particular moral code is correct as a fact. Or at least, that it is possible for morality to be anchored in fact. So....which fact?

Noax wrote:You made that generalization about atheists.

But Atheists are exceedingly easy to understand. They don't believe in any of it. That's about the limit: so it's not at all hard to generalize.

What motivation for goodness does the theist have that I don't? We're both members of the same society say.

He has the motive of love for God.

No Christians in that list? How about earlier than that, say the Jews coming right off that mountain with their new commandments, and immediately coveting a land that wasn't theirs, killing the occupants so they could steal it. But that was OK because God made them do it.

I'll let Jewish people speak of that. As for Christians, "love your enemies" does not permit that kind of behavior. So anyone who ever did that (and there were far, far fewer than most people know) were clearly not obeying that instruction.

We can't hold an ideology responsible for what people do in disobedience to it. We can only make it responsible for what it instructs. But Atheism cannot be "disobeyed" with regard to morality, since it has no moral information in it at all. So it allows anything.

It also mistakenly has Isaiah predicting a virgin birth.

That's no mistake. Check the earliest manuscripts.

A better example of a moral is an act that is optional, such as picking up litter when nobody is around to notice.

What makes it "moral" if it's "optional"? If picking up litter is truly only "optional," then what standard establishes that it's "good" to do? And what additional value of "having nobody around" is added, if we don't have a precept already that shows that doing "good" stuff for "public" approval is somehow "bad," or "less good"?

No punishment by God or society for not doing that, and thus an act done more for the correct reasons.

"Correct"? What is "correct" in an Atheist universe? Please explain.

Londoner wrote:I do not think we can have any idea about from where the morality of society came from.

Sure we do.

We know a couple of things. Firstly, that no ancient Atheist society existed. Secondly, that the law codes we possess owe their origins to religious documents, and we have these. The Law of Moses is behind the Justinian Code, and the Justinian Code is behind the Common Law, for example. So it's no mystery at all.

What IS a mystery is what happened before people were "religious" -- IF any such state existed. IF it did (and I see no historical evidence it ever did at all, since even the earliest cave-drawings are clearly religious), it was before any writing was done, so we would know not a thing about it.

It begs the question of what counts as morality. For example, we can see animals that protect the young of their group. Is that the exercise of morality, or just an inbuilt instinct? We cannot answer for them,...

That is true.

...nor can we answer when humans act in a particular way.

That is false. For humans can describe their reasons and motives. Animals cannot.

We still have no means to know that.

False again. If God exists and speaks, we know.

In which case, you must be saying that your moral code is better than their moral code.

That is precisely what everyone says. Atheists think being an Atheist is, in some sense, "better" than being a Theist. Buddhists think being a Buddhist is "better" than being a Hindu, even though Buddhism is a derivative of Hinduism. And so on.

But it's not an important fact in this question, because people can be wrong about morality.

It cannot be by relating behaviour to our own religion/ideology, because the evil-doers have a different religion/ideology.

But surely, you would take issue with the Nazis, no? But they have "their own ideology." And you would deny that the Moonies or the Solar Temple Cult was right, but they have "their own religion." Nothing about "having" a religion or ideology makes that religion or ideology right.

So, it is one thing to describe a certain kind of decision-making as 'morality' - that would be a neutral description.

That's one thing it NEVER is.

If you are going to do that, if you are going to say that 'morality' means more than 'whatever you prefer', then you have got to assert that a particular moral code is correct as a fact.

Yes, it is. And yes, I am going to assert that.

Or at least, that it is possible for morality to be anchored in fact. So....which fact?

The fact of the true existence, nature and revealed wishes of the Supreme Being. A pretty good "anchor", in fact.

Immanuel Can wrote:We know a couple of things. Firstly, that no ancient Atheist society existed.

What evidence do you have to support this?

Immanuel Can wrote:Secondly, that the law codes we possess owe their origins to religious documents, and we have these.

Point of information, Mr Can. The oldest recorded law code yet discovered is that of Hammurabi. You can see it in the Louvre. It predates the old testament by a thousand years and is secular.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:We know a couple of things. Firstly, that no ancient Atheist society existed.

What evidence do you have to support this?

Immanuel Can wrote:Secondly, that the law codes we possess owe their origins to religious documents, and we have these.

Point of information, Mr Can. The oldest recorded law code yet discovered is that of Hammurabi. You can see it in the Louvre. It predates the old testament by a thousand years and is secular.

The earliest cultures have indications that religion was involved.

The code of Hammurabi was written by a king who tried to establish the rule of law based on a belief in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/d/267/whm.html
From the article,
"It also gives students a clear sense of the ways ancient Babylonians invested divine authority in their secular leaders."

thedoc wrote:The earliest cultures have indications that religion was involved.

The code of Hammurabi was written by a king who tried to establish the rule of law based on a belief in God.

A belief in God, or belief in a god?
If the code was not based on revelations from your particular god, does it matter if a deity story is used to help cement it in? Or is the claim that the same god revealed himself way back then as this totally different deity with a different story? Or perhaps your God eventually matured and conquered this earlier god who provided these early laws to this pre-Adam/Eve culture.

thedoc wrote:The earliest cultures have indications that religion was involved.

Which I take to be support for Mr Can's assertion:

Immanuel Can wrote:We know a couple of things. Firstly, that no ancient Atheist society existed.

The point I was making is that Mr Can is making the same mistake he attributes to "Atheists", in that he is claiming we know that something doesn't, or didn't exist. Given that you admit to being selective as to who and what you read on this forum, I suppose it is conceivable that you have missed myself or others pointing out that atheism is not the belief that god doesn't exist, it is rather the absence of a belief in the existence of a god. Most atheists will openly concede that they don't know that god doesn't exist, because there is no possible evidence that could prove it. By the same token, there is no possible evidence that "no ancient Atheist society existed."

thedoc wrote:The code of Hammurabi was written by a king who tried to establish the rule of law based on a belief in God.

In a lot of different gods, as it happens. Hammurabi thanks some of them for giving him authority and wisdom, but he attributed the authorship of his code to himself. Unlike Moses, he did not claim that the laws were given to him on a mountain top, and unlike the stone tablets that god allegedly made, you can go to Paris and see the actual stone tablet that a human being made.

Ginkgo wrote:I would imagine it is the same type of evidence that presupposes there is a divine law giver.

Immanuel Can wrote: No, I wouldn't think so. So to what "evidence" do you refer here?

I would assume that human reason is required to understand God's law. In a similar way human reason is the basis of Kantian ethics. In other words, duties and obligations are self-evident

Immanuel Can wrote: Well, then you don't understand Kant the way Kant understood Kant. He was quite explicit that any element of Consequentialist-type calculation was an utter denial of The Good Will. The Good Will, he said, has to operate without all such considerations.

Yes, I am aware that teleological and deontological ethics are opposed to each other. However, the point I am making is that deontological or teleological, ethics are grounded in human reason. You seem to have a problem with that.

Ginkgo wrote: Kant is appealing to our autonomy as rational agents for a justification. You seem to be denying the possibility of apriori knowledge.

ImmanuelCan wrote: Explain, please...why do you suppose that?

As free moral agents ethics is bound up with our duties and obligations towards each other. This can be exemplified in a variety of ways.

Immanuel Can wrote:I do not think we can have any idea about from where the morality of society came from.

Sure we do.

We know a couple of things. Firstly, that no ancient Atheist society existed. Secondly, that the law codes we possess owe their origins to religious documents, and we have these. The Law of Moses is behind the Justinian Code, and the Justinian Code is behind the Common Law, for example. So it's no mystery at all...

What IS a mystery is what happened before people were "religious" -- IF any such state existed. IF it did (and I see no historical evidence it ever did at all, since even the earliest cave-drawings are clearly religious), it was before any writing was done, so we would know not a thing about it.

That is to confuse legal codes with morality, something those who drew up those legal codes would not have done. (And I do not see that cave drawings are clearly religious; we can guess that they might be an attempt at magic, but it would be only a guess.)

It begs the question of what counts as morality. For example, we can see animals that protect the young of their group. Is that the exercise of morality, or just an inbuilt instinct? We cannot answer for them,..

That is true.

...nor can we answer when humans act in a particular way.

That is false. For humans can describe their reasons and motives. Animals cannot.

If I am describing my reasons and motives, then I am simply confirming that this is the way I want to act, which is a consequence of who I am. If I wanted to show that I was not motivated by my own instinct, then I would have to refer to something outside myself. But in the case of morality we have no agreed external reference point. Any reference points individuals adopt (religions etc) are also self-selected. If I become a Nazi, or a Christian, then that was because the doctrines appeal to me.

Two Muslims might quote Islamic doctrine to each other to describe why they are acting in a particular way, but if they are having a disagreement then it must be the case that different interpretations are possible, and thus any interpretation will be their own, arising from who they are as individuals. So even within a religion there can be no explanation that we can clearly separate from our own mental state.

Me: If you are going to do that, if you are going to say that 'morality' means more than 'whatever you prefer', then you have got to assert that a particular moral code is correct as a fact.

Yes, it is. And yes, I am going to assert that.

Or at least, that it is possible for morality to be anchored in fact. So....which fact?

The fact of the true existence, nature and revealed wishes of the Supreme Being. A pretty good "anchor", in fact.

That would not work because everybody else could say the same thing. It has to be a fact that is not about your own opinions.

It may be a fact that you have those opinions, that for you they may be unquestionable beliefs, but that is not a guarantee of truth, since we are aware that humans can be mistaken in their ideas, if only because there exists a plurality of views. And if we know that about others, then we know it about ourselves.

What you need to do is demonstrate that your knowledge of the Supreme Being is not circular, that you do not simply 'know, because you know' - 'believe because you believe'.

Perhaps you can demonstrate conclusively that you know God's mind! Otherwise, I accept it is too much to ask for a demonstration beyond the possibility of questioning, neither atheist or theist or anyone can else can provide that. But by the same token, since we cannot provide it for our own view, we cannot condemn others for coming to different conclusions. In other words, if we condemn others as 'evil' we are applying a certainty that we do not own.

In other words, there is a sharp philosophical difference between being a theist and believing one is justified in 'casting the first stone', let alone burning unbelievers.

I'm on a mission from god.

So don't read it.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:I would imagine it is the same type of evidence that presupposes there is a divine law giver.

Immanuel Can wrote: No, I wouldn't think so. So to what "evidence" do you refer here?

I would assume that human reason is required to understand God's law. In a similar way human reason is the basis of Kantian ethics. In other words, duties and obligations are self-evident

No, not "in the same way." Kantianism isn't divinely revealed. But two things bear mention: first, Kantianism isn't really grounded the same way as what we now call Neo-Kantianism (like Rawls or Habermas). Kant was a teleologist, and they tend to be formalists. Secondly, "reason," all by itself, doesn't tell us a thing about moral duties and obligations. It needs premises, and these we have to acquire from somewhere first. Reason itself is just a formal method, not a substantive position on any particular content.

Additionally, you'll find that the truth is never "self-evident." The term "self-evident" is a circularity, used to hide the fact that one has run out of explanations and no longer wishes to be asked. Things are "evident" on the basis of particular grounds, or not at all. And the grounds must always be specified, if anything is to become evident-by-reasons.

Yes, I am aware that teleological and deontological ethics are opposed to each other. However, the point I am making is that deontological or teleological, ethics are grounded in human reason. You seem to have a problem with that.

Oh, it's not just MY problem: the whole field of Ethics understands that what you say is true: teleological and deontological ethics are "opposed" -- not just in methodology, but in conclusions.

A famous example is Kant's "lying" example. In exactly the same situation, Deontology says "Never lie," and Consequentialism says "Lie right away." So if we try to affirm BOTH systems, what we end up with is no moral guidance at all...for we never know which one to use, and they rationalize opposite actions for opposite reasons.

Ginkgo wrote: As free moral agents ethics is bound up with our duties and obligations towards each other. This can be exemplified in a variety of ways.

You'd best exemplify it for me, so I can get your point. If we are "free," why do we have to do anything in particular at all? How do we detect that we have even one "duty" or "obligation" toward other people? Can you give me one of those examples of which you speak, perhaps?

uwot wrote:I'm on a mission from god.

So don't read it.

Well in that case you've got more than one lifetime to complete it. Its just annoying i'm in one of those lifetimes. I'll try not to read, but i'm finding this thread is quite revealing of peoples personality types...which of course is important if you're trying to make friends...you're right - don't bother reading it.

Immanuel Can wrote:Oh, it's not just MY problem: the whole field of Ethics understands that what you say is true: teleological and deontological ethics are "opposed" -- not just in methodology, but in conclusions.

A famous example is Kant's "lying" example. In exactly the same situation, Deontology says "Never lie," and Consequentialism says "Lie right away."

Deontology says whatever the particular set of rules says it does. Given that Kant's categorical imperative states that we should act only according to that maxim that we could wish were a universal law, I suspect that Kant would wish that his servant told the murderer he was out.
Kant's entire project was to create a synthesis of deontology and consequentialism, as he attempted with rationalism and empiricism. The categorical imperative is meant as an absolute, deontological rule that accommodates consequentialism, the fact that he had a personal view on lying, regardless of the consequences, is just his opinion.

Noax wrote:

thedoc wrote:The earliest cultures have indications that religion was involved.

The code of Hammurabi was written by a king who tried to establish the rule of law based on a belief in God.

A belief in God, or belief in a god?
If the code was not based on revelations from your particular god, does it matter if a deity story is used to help cement it in? Or is the claim that the same god revealed himself way back then as this totally different deity with a different story? Or perhaps your God eventually matured and conquered this earlier god who provided these early laws to this pre-Adam/Eve culture.

I really don't know for sure, but it is reasonable to believe that there is only one God who has been given different names and described differently by different groups of men. It is only people who see each name and description as definitive and limiting who will claim that there are many different god's. I do not, and I am willing to entertain the possibility that there is only one God with many different names.