Morality and Belief in God

[devildavid]

You get it, of course; they don't. Enough said.

There are moral inclinations and there are moral disinclinations, yes? Now is it reasonable to view the disinclination in man to end his own life a moral disinclination?
(None of the moral relativists wanted any part of this question, and I thought you and I might examine it together to see if there's anything to it.)
Naturalists naturally will dismiss this question as already answered by instinct, as one of our moral relativists asserted before backing out of the conversation, but even he admitted that instinct is a reaction which in the event volition supersedes. If volition supersedes instinct, then agency enters the equation, and if agency is part of the equation, is it reasonable to call it moral agency?

It is not reasonable to call it moral agency. There is an inclination to avoid pain and suffering. Sometimes this inclination leads to a permanent solution.

 

[gfm7175]

There are moral inclinations and there are moral disinclinations, yes?

Yes.

Now is it reasonable to view the disinclination in man to end his own life a moral disinclination?

I would say that's very reasonable.

(None of the moral relativists wanted any part of this question, and I thought you and I might examine it together to see if there's anything to it.)

No, they didn't. Yes, I would love to examine it with you.

Naturalists naturally will dismiss this question as already answered by instinct, as one of our moral relativists asserted before backing out of the conversation, but even he admitted that instinct is a reaction which in the event volition supersedes.

Correct.

If volition supersedes instinct, then agency enters the equation, and if agency is part of the equation, is it reasonable to call it moral agency?

Volition does supersede instinct. I would say that is true from personal experience, because there have been many instances in which I had an instinct to act in a certain way, yet I chose to act in a different way instead, despite my instinct.

As you correctly assert, since I acted despite my instinct, agency enters the equation. As to your final question, since we are speaking of moral actions (acting one way instead of another way; choosing a "better/calmer" way of reacting instead of the instinct to "blow up in someone's face", to provide an example) I would argue that it is reasonable to call it moral agency.

 

[gfm7175]

It is not reasonable to call it moral agency. There is an inclination to avoid pain and suffering. Sometimes this inclination leads to a permanent solution.

True. But there is also a disinclination to end one's own life.
The inclination and the disinclination oppose each other, so if there was no moral agency involved, then this situation would be like two magnets repelling each other and one would be stuck in the middle.

It's the "moral agency" that gets a person out of this, by choosing to either deal with the pain/suffering or to end one's own life.

 

[devildavid]

True. But there is also a disinclination to end one's own life.
The inclination and the disinclination oppose each other, so if there was no moral agency involved, then this situation would be like two magnets repelling each other and one would be stuck in the middle.

It's the "moral agency" that gets a person out of this, by choosing to either deal with the pain/suffering or to end one's own life.

So it is a battle of natural inclinations, and one beats the other. No need to think morality plays a role. Agency does not need to be modified by the word moral.

 

[gfm7175]

So it is a battle of natural inclinations, and one beats the other. No need to think morality plays a role. Agency does not need to be modified by the word moral.

When it all comes down to it, one (no matter which choice they make in this situation) is acting completely against their instinct. We have the instinct to avoid pain/suffering, but we also have the instinct to not commit suicide. No matter which path is taken, we have acted against our instinct, so agency is definitely involved.

Now, let's take your claim from past posts that subjective morality exists. That is claiming that morality exists. Therefore, this still seems to be a matter of moral agency because, even though you believe that morality is subjective and not objective, you still believe that morality itself exists. You will, based on your own feelings/opinions, believe that certain actions are moral/immoral, and you will curb your instincts to act accordingly to your subjective morals, thus you seem to be an agent that has the ability to discern right from wrong and has the ability to be held accountable for their actions (a moral agent)...

 

[devildavid]

When it all comes down to it, one (no matter which choice they make in this situation) is acting completely against their instinct. We have the instinct to avoid pain/suffering, but we also have the instinct to not commit suicide. No matter which path is taken, we have acted against our instinct, so agency is definitely involved.

Now, let's take your claim from past posts that subjective morality exists. That is claiming that morality exists. Therefore, this still seems to be a matter of moral agency because, even though you believe that morality is subjective and not objective, you still believe that morality itself exists. You will, based on your own feelings/opinions, believe that certain actions are moral/immoral, and you will curb your instincts to act accordingly to your subjective morals, thus you seem to be an agent that has the ability to discern right from wrong and has the ability to be held accountable for their actions (a moral agent)...

All morality is made up. Some people see no moral choice in committing suicide and some do. So it is not necessarily exercising moral agency every time; it depends on the individual.

 

[gfm7175]

All morality is made up.

Alrighty!! Now we're talkin'!!! So your position is now being backpedaled from "subjective morality exists" to "no morality whatsoever exists"?? Is this your final answer??

Some people see no moral choice in committing suicide and some do. So it is not necessarily exercising moral agency every time; it depends on the individual.

I guess not, because now your position seemingly is that some people are moral agents (have free will) and other people are robots (don't have free will)? How can you tell/know which people are which?


I'm confused by your response/position as you've now taken three completely differing stances on morality... Can you please clarify your response/position?

 

[Angel]

...
Volition does supersede instinct. I would say that is true from personal experience, because there have been many instances in which I had an instinct to act in a certain way, yet I chose to act in a different way instead, despite my instinct.

As you correctly assert, since I acted despite my instinct, agency enters the equation. As to your final question, since we are speaking of moral actions (acting one way instead of another way; choosing a "better/calmer" way of reacting instead of the instinct to "blow up in someone's face", to provide an example) I would argue that it is reasonable to call it moral agency.

When it all comes down to it, one (no matter which choice they make in this situation) is acting completely against their instinct. We have the instinct to avoid pain/suffering, but we also have the instinct to not commit suicide. No matter which path is taken, we have acted against our instinct, so agency is definitely involved.

Now, let's take your claim from past posts that subjective morality exists. That is claiming that morality exists. Therefore, this still seems to be a matter of moral agency because, even though you believe that morality is subjective and not objective, you still believe that morality itself exists. You will, based on your own feelings/opinions, believe that certain actions are moral/immoral, and you will curb your instincts to act accordingly to your subjective morals, thus you seem to be an agent that has the ability to discern right from wrong and has the ability to be held accountable for their actions (a moral agent)...

That's a crucial point you make in reply to the moral relativist. The acknowledgment of moral agency. We'll come back to that, for sure. That's our linch-pin.

But first, let's consider the instinct.

So, let's assume that natural science is correct in its attribution of a life-preserving instinct to all living things. All living things are hardwired for self-preservation. This is itself an interesting fact inasmuch as natural science denies teleology in nature. Evolution, such as it is, is not goal-driven. Survival is a pure happenstance in the scientific biological narrative, the result of random change that just happens to give an organism an advantage in a given environment. A survival instinct, according to this brand of science, developed in living organisms simply because it conferred on them an advantage in the struggle for life. Those who had this random predisposition to survive were, on account of this predisposition, more likely to survive. A perfect theoretical circle!

On this biological account, neither the struggle for life in the first instance nor the struggle for life enhanced by the survival instinct is a moral struggle. Morality doesn't enter into the account either before or after the instinct is developed. One might ask what informed the struggle before the development of the instinct -- why was there a struggle in the first place, what made the organism struggle for life before it was endowed with the instinct to struggle for life?

What, in short, made life on earth a struggle to begin with? Instead of struggle, why not universal passive indifference to extinction?

 

[gfm7175]

That's a crucial point you make in reply to the moral relativist. The acknowledgment of moral agency. We'll come back to that, for sure. That's our linch-pin.

That was my thought on this as I read through the moral relativist response.

But first, let's consider the instinct.

So, let's assume that natural science is correct in its attribution of a life-preserving instinct to all living things. All living things are hardwired for self-preservation. This is itself an interesting fact inasmuch as natural science denies teleology in nature. Evolution, such as it is, is not goal-driven. Survival is a pure happenstance in the scientific biological narrative, the result of random change that just happens to give an organism an advantage in a given environment. A survival instinct, according to this brand of science, developed in living organisms simply because it conferred on them an advantage in the struggle for life. Those who had this random predisposition to survive were, on account of this predisposition, more likely to survive. A perfect theoretical circle!

On this biological account, neither the struggle for life in the first instance nor the struggle for life enhanced by the survival instinct is a moral struggle. Morality doesn't enter into the account either before or after the instinct is developed. One might ask what informed the struggle before the development of the instinct -- why was there a struggle in the first place, what made the organism struggle for life before it was endowed with the instinct to struggle for life?

What, in short, made life on earth a struggle to begin with? Instead of struggle, why not universal passive indifference to extinction?

Gosh, idk what I could add to what you said... That was very well worded and leaves interesting questions...

 

[Angel]

...

Gosh, idk what I could add to what you said... That was very well worded and leaves interesting questions...

I agree. Now we don't need to stay with the survival instinct since both science and our moral relativists concede that the instinct is superseded by man's moral agency, but I think we could make a case that life on earth operates within a moral imperative, and that this moral imperative is exactly the objective moral principle our DP moral relativists have been demanding. I mean, in our tradition, God saw that it was good, didn't He? To me that makes all of Creation, life included, moral by its very nature.

But we don't need to go there straightaway. Both science and our DP moral relativists acknowledge that man can choose against instinct and that suicide is a moral question. That's all we need, I think.

 

[gfm7175]

I agree. Now we don't need to stay with the survival instinct since both science and our moral relativists concede that the instinct is superseded by man's moral agency, but I think we could make a case that life on earth operates within a moral imperative, and that this moral imperative is exactly the objective moral principle our DP moral relativists have been demanding. I mean, in our tradition, God saw that it was good, didn't He? To me that makes all of Creation, life included, moral by its very nature.

Absolutely correct... And I think we have both made good and consistent cases for this. I think we hold an intellectually strong position if relativists are retreating to a counter-position of "morality doesn't exist" (which contradicts their own subjective morality position) just so they can deny our assertion that they are a moral agent. I think that speaks volumes...

But we don't need to go there straightaway. Both science and our DP moral relativists acknowledge that man can choose against instinct and that suicide is a moral question. That's all we need, I think.

Agreed. We don't even need the good conclusion that you mention above because this conclusion holds it's own weight... Suicide is not the instinct of mankind, so choosing it is choosing against instinct, which establishes being an "agent". Then, once agency is established, one needs to establish that the choice is a moral question... That is easily proven, but doesn't even have to be proven, since relativists themselves admit that subjective morality exists (which admits that morality exists and that they (being agents) make moral choices, at least according to what they subjectively believe is moral, which is all we need to support our position that people are moral agents).

 

[devildavid]

Alrighty!! Now we're talkin'!!! So your position is now being backpedaled from "subjective morality exists" to "no morality whatsoever exists"?? Is this your final answer??


I guess not, because now your position seemingly is that some people are moral agents (have free will) and other people are robots (don't have free will)? How can you tell/know which people are which?


I'm confused by your response/position as you've now taken three completely differing stances on morality... Can you please clarify your response/position?

Making a choice to do something or not has nothing to do with the made up concepts of free will or moral agency. It just means man can make choices. I can choose what pants to wear tomorrow. I can also choose to kill myself tomorrow. No morality arises in either choice.

 

[gfm7175]

Making a choice to do something or not

Okay, so exercising your free will... go on...

has nothing to do with the made up concepts of free will or moral agency.

Wait...... what? You exercise free will, yet it's a made up concept? I'm confused as to how that works... So is there free will or not?

It just means man can make choices. I can choose what pants to wear tomorrow. I can also choose to kill myself tomorrow. No morality arises in either choice.

And making choices is exercising free will..... choosing pants is not a moral choice... choosing to kill yourself would be a moral choice.

 

[devildavid]

Okay, so exercising your free will... go on...


Wait...... what? You exercise free will, yet it's a made up concept? I'm confused as to how that works... So is there free will or not?


And making choices is exercising free will..... choosing pants is not a moral choice... choosing to kill yourself would be a moral choice.

Making a choice does not equal free will. It equals making a choice. Free will is not real; it is make believe. On what basis does one determine whether or not a choice has moral content?

 

[calamity]

Making a choice does not equal free will. It equals making a choice. Free will is not real; it is make believe. On what basis does one determine whether or not a choice has moral content?

Exactly. Too many other factors come into play.

Morality:

Nomadic hunter, gatherer man comes across an empty cabin stocked with food and livestock. He eats his fill, takes a cow home. Is it stealing? It certainly isn't to him. He doesn't understand property rights.

Cabin owner notices cow and food missing. Chases down nomad. Kills him. Is it murder? It certainly is not to him. He believes in property rights.

What does god say? Whose god are we asking? Right.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I agree. Now we don't need to stay with the survival instinct since both science and our moral relativists concede that the instinct is superseded by man's moral agency
2.) but I think we could make a case that life on earth operates within a moral imperative, and that this moral imperative is exactly the objective moral principle our DP moral relativists have been demanding. I mean, in our tradition, God saw that it was good, didn't He? To me that makes all of Creation, life included, moral by its very nature.
3.)But we don't need to go there straightaway. Both science and our DP moral relativists acknowledge that man can choose against instinct and that suicide is a moral question. That's all we need, I think.

1.) none of that is true
2.) its obvious you think that but your claims have failed at every attempt since morals are factual subjective
3.) again not true
but as always if you believe morals are objective all you have to do is list the objective morals and prove so, thanks

 

[Atheist 2020]

Do not ask why you need a god, just ask, why does a god needs you in the first place. With billions of people on earth, and the billions of people that have died in the past. Why does he need you? Do not ask I need a god, but ask, why does he need you in the first place. The universe is billions of years old, the earth is 4.5 billions of years old, and modern human is around 100,000 years old. And the age of Jesus, is only 2,000 years old. God did not need humans for billions of years, but, there has been billions of people that lived and die and still alive for over 2,000 years in the era of Jesus. Are your sure a god really needs you?

 

[Angel]

...Now we don't need to stay with the survival instinct since both science and our moral relativists concede that the instinct is superseded by man's moral agency, but I think we could make a case that life on earth operates within a moral imperative, and that this moral imperative is exactly the objective moral principle our DP moral relativists have been demanding. I mean, in our tradition, God saw that it was good, didn't He? To me that makes all of Creation, life included, moral by its very nature.

But we don't need to go there straightaway. Both science and our DP moral relativists acknowledge that man can choose against instinct and that suicide is a moral question. That's all we need, I think.

... We don't even need the good conclusion that you mention above because this conclusion holds it's own weight... Suicide is not the instinct of mankind, so choosing it is choosing against instinct, which establishes being an "agent". Then, once agency is established, one needs to establish that the choice is a moral question... That is easily proven, but doesn't even have to be proven, since relativists themselves admit that subjective morality exists (which admits that morality exists and that they (being agents) make moral choices, at least according to what they subjectively believe is moral, which is all we need to support our position that people are moral agents).

Man, the moral agent, is free to oppose the moral mandate of all living things (= in scientific terms, the survival instinct; in religious terms, the goodness of Creation); that is to say, Man is free to choose against instinct, against self-preservation, against life.

In this light Hamlet's momentous question—"to be or not to be?"—appears fundamentally as a moral question, perhaps the fundamental moral question; and of course it follows—as the night the day perhaps we should say—that the answer to a moral question is a moral answer.

Now, the Hamlet question admits of two answers, and only two answers, and both answers are moral answers. Either way, therefore, a moral decision has been taken.

Yes? No? Maybe? We seem to be getting somewhere. The nervous silence of our moral relativists suggests as much.

 

[gfm7175]

1.) none of that is true

Those are convincing words.

2.) its obvious you think that but your claims have failed at every attempt since morals are factual subjective

Not what this thread is about.

3.) again not true

Even more convincing than the words before them...

but as always if you believe morals are objective all you have to do is list the objective morals and prove so, thanks

Not what this thread is about.

 

[gfm7175]

Do not ask why you need a god, just ask, why does a god needs you in the first place.

But it's an important question to ask... I need a God because I am a sinner in need of redemption.

And you're right; God technically doesn't need us. But he has loved us since before creating us, and has made us part of his eternal plan.

With billions of people on earth, and the billions of people that have died in the past. Why does he need you? Do not ask I need a god, but ask, why does he need you in the first place. The universe is billions of years old, the earth is 4.5 billions of years old, and modern human is around 100,000 years old. And the age of Jesus, is only 2,000 years old. God did not need humans for billions of years, but, there has been billions of people that lived and die and still alive for over 2,000 years in the era of Jesus. Are your sure a god really needs you?

Yes, I am. God has a purpose for each and every one of us. We all serve him through our employment, through volunteering, through taking care of (overseeing) the planet he put us on, etc. etc. ... Even taking a hike in the woods and taking photos and admiring his creation is serving him... So, each and every one of us has a purpose for being here.

 

[RAMOSS]

I have the historical Gospel and epistle accounts. The preponderance of the evidence is with me, not you. All you have is a 'No No' card.

Please show the mystical/supernatural elements of the gospel accounts are historical. I am waiting.

 

[gfm7175]

Making a choice does not equal free will. It equals making a choice. Free will is not real; it is make believe. On what basis does one determine whether or not a choice has moral content?

If everything that happens/develops from the choices that you make is completely beyond your control, then who is controlling those developments??

God's moral nature and the morality he has written on our hearts.

 

[gfm7175]

Man, the moral agent, is free to oppose the moral mandate of all living things (= in scientific terms, the survival instinct; in religious terms, the goodness of Creation); that is to say, Man is free to choose against instinct, against self-preservation, against life.

Correct. And give what we've established, one can also observe the behavior of man and not help but notice (not only all the moral choices that mankind makes) but also all the moral claims that mankind makes each and every day of their lives ("you ought [not] say/do _____"). If mankind is not a moral agent, then why does mankind consistently behave this way? I think that's further "evidence" for what we've established prior.

In this light Hamlet's momentous question—"to be or not to be?"—appears fundamentally as a moral question, perhaps the fundamental moral question; and of course it follows—as the night the day perhaps we should say—that the answer to a moral question is a moral answer.

Now, the Hamlet question admits of two answers, and only two answers, and both answers are moral answers. Either way, therefore, a moral decision has been taken.

Precisely this. One is making a moral decision when one decides "to be or not to be". This is further evidenced by human reaction to someone committing suicide (and claims that people "ought not" commit suicide).

Yes? No? Maybe? We seem to be getting somewhere. The nervous silence of our moral relativists suggests as much.

Yes, and yes we're getting somewhere. I'm surprised by the silence... And the only discussion I was having with one, I was left confused by the position being taken... First, morality was subjective for all people, then morality didn't exist for anybody, then morality was subjective for some people but didn't exist for other people. Then, once free will got into the discussion, free will was being simultaneously supported and rejected. The silence and confusion shown from the relativists, I think, speaks volumes about how reasonable our position is.

 

[zyzygy]

Please show the mystical/supernatural elements of the gospel accounts are historical. I am waiting.

He appears to be keeping the evidence very close to his chest.

 

[RAMOSS]

He appears to be keeping the evidence very close to his chest.

There is a lot fo evidence, such as the evidence he actually read the books that he keeps on putting up the JPEG for.