Philosophy Now Forum

I suggest that human beings are born with a sense of what we term as ethics and morality. I also suggest that the precepts that appeal to this sense and inform it with regard to how it motivates us to behave, are also human in origin. I do not believe they come from God, but are entirely the product of human consensus.

The aforementioned precepts, which collectively we might call a moral or ethical code, are variable between one society and another, and from one time to another. If they came from God, one would expect the same set of rules to apply to all people at all times. I keep mentioning God because I suspect one or two other threads about morality have been a back door into an argument for or against his existence.

Personally, I don’t think the absence of God in morality makes a case either way, regarding his existence. It seems an interesting enough topic to discuss on its own account, but discussing it productively is impossible when the subject is merely being used as a surreptitious way to prove or disprove the existence of God.

A person who believes that morality comes from God, and a person who doesn't believe in God, cannot have a sensible discussion about morality.

Harbal wrote:
A person who believes that morality comes from God and a person who doesnt believe in God cannot have a sensible discussion about morality

How sensible it would be would be dependent on how open minded they were regardless of how incompatible their actual positions might be
Also the origin of morality and morality itself are two entirely different things and a discussion on the latter would find more common ground

The word "God" seems to pointlessly detail the discussion.

You already agree that human beings are born with a sense of ethics/morality. So in an informal or metaphorical sense it's perfectly OK to say that your morals/ethics are "given to you". It really doesn't matter how you word it, the key point here is that the origin of your ethics/morality is about some external locus of control.

Whether that "external power" which grants you your ethics/morality is labelled "reality" or "the universe", or "society" or "God" is missing the point. If you are a pantheist, then your ethics/morality really do come from God.

Far too much time is spent debating semantics, and far too little time is spent focusing on the substance. If we can agree on the conclusion, I don't care how you reasoned yourself into it.

Harbal wrote:
I suggest that human beings are born with a sense of what we term as ethics and morality

We are not born with it but acquire it over time as a condition of our environment and our experience
So it is not something innate like breathing but something we have to learn and adapt to our existence

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:34 pm You already agree that human beings are born with a sense of ethics/morality.

No, only a capacity for it, a potential. What they actually end up with depends on their formative environment.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:50 pm

Harbal wrote:
I suggest that human beings are born with a sense of what we term as ethics and morality

We are not born with it but acquire it over time as a condition of our environment and our experience
So it is not something innate like breathing but something we have to learn and adapt to our existence

Yes, I think I was careless in how I described it.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:53 pm No, only a capacity for it, a potential. What they actually end up with depends on their formative environment.

Then you aren't saying anything.

If humans have capacity for morality, then humans also have capacity for immorality.

Just as you can create a "formative environment" to maximise moral potential, so you can create the "formative environment" to maximise immoral potential.

Who determines the the kind of formative environments (societies) we ought to construct? Humans do.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:59 pm If humans have capacity for morality, then humans also have capacity for immorality.

What's the difference between morality and immorality as far as it relates to what I have said so far?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:03 pm What's the difference between morality and immorality as far as it relates to what I have said so far?

It needs not be a dichotomy - simply an absence of morality (as you conceptualise it) would suffice.

Indifference.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:04 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:03 pm What's the difference between morality and immorality as far as it relates to what I have said so far?

It needs not be a dichotomy - simply an absence of morality (as you conceptualise it) would suffice.

Indifference.

isn't that amorality?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:06 pm isn't that amorality?

The label doesn't matter.

If you are calling it "amorality" then you must have an immorality in mind.

Do you or don't you?

If morality is potential, what do you call the absence of said potential?

Morality or amorality?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:07 pm
If you are calling it "amorality" then you must have an immorality in mind.

Do you or don't you?

I don't

If morality is potential, what do you call the absence of said potential?

A personality disorder.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:13 pm I don't

Great! So we are only dealing with two options

A. Actualised moral potential.
B. Non-actualised moral potential.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:13 pm

If morality is potential, what do you call the absence of said potential?

A personality disorder.

So, if morality is not being actualised how do you disambiguate the causal factor between personality disorders and lacking formative environment?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:54 pm I suggest that human beings are born with a sense of what we term as ethics and morality.

A Theist could agree with that. But what are we to make of that?

We could make the genetic fallacy, and equate "inborn" with "good" or "obligatory." But plenty of things are "inborn" which are not "good" or "obligatory," like the propensity for violence, or infantile solipsism.

Are we to assume that God has imprinted conscience in all human beings? Plausibly; but how do we do that if we insist on starting with the premise that God does not exists?

The aforementioned precepts, which collectively we might call a moral or ethical code, are variable between one society and another, and from one time to another. If they came from God, one would expect the same set of rules to apply to all people at all times.

Why?

We would have to assume that human codes, or human beings, are all morally infallible, to make that point. Why would we think that had to be so? Why would we not opt for the more obvious explanation, that some codes are right about particular things, and some have the "moral" wrong? That seems the most obvious explanation, if two codes contain opposite standards (like, say, "a woman's life is as valuable as a man's," or "a woman's life is worth half that of a man" -- which is a real case of this "variation." How would we ever conclude that both had to be right? )

I keep mentioning God because I suspect one or two other threads about morality have been a back door into an argument for or against his existence.

That can happen. And one might think, per ad hominem, that the Theists are only introducing God to the question to work on their own agenda. Maybe. But maybe not. And their motivation won't alter the question of whether or not they're right about it being necessary, either way.

Additionally, that wouldn't explain why various Atheists (for example, Nietzsche, or today, Dawkins) also agree with the Theists that the question of the existence of God is profoundly impactful for whether or not we can believe morality exists. We can't accuse Nietzsche or Dawkins of having a secret desire to introduce irrelevant considerations of God into the discussion of morality, can we?

A person who believes that morality comes from God, and a person who doesn't believe in God, cannot have a sensible discussion about morality.

That would be a surprising conclusion, if the existence of God is irrelevant to the whole discussion. Why wouldn't they be able to discuss it, whether or not God exists changes nothing?

But the problem between them is actually at the assumptive level: the Atheist will accept no legitimations of morality that take, even as a hypothetical premise, the existence of God as a starting point. And the Theist cannot simply capitulate to the Atheist's assumption that the answer to what morality is can only ever be located among some set of merely physical facts. (Actually, Hume would heartily agree with the Theists about this: physical facts cannot be rationally used to legitimize moral values.)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:19 pm
Great! So we are only dealing with two options

A. Actualised moral potential.
B. Non-actualised moral potential.

While I am overjoyed to have finally said something that meets with your approval, I don't really see what is great about it.

So, if morality is not being actualised how do you disambiguate the causal factor between personality disorders and formative environment?

If someone were to have a personality disorder that leaves them completely without any moral sense, I think we can eliminate them from this discussion. If we were discussing the nature of legs, we wouldn't dwell too much on those who don't have any, would we?