Morality and Ethics: God-derived or human-derived

[Mulefoot]

"Sensing" the passage of time is quite unreliable compared to objectively measuring time. One may be able to estimate how much time passes with varying degrees of accuracy, or inaccuracy. But objective measurements are more accurate, down to the second.

Sure, we have a measurement for that. Do we also have a measurement for the color green or the smell of smoke, which we apprehend physically?

Dave posited that physical senses are more reliable by default, and of course that's not necessarily correct.

 

[ataraxia]

Philosophy is only a pastime for clever people. If every philosophy faculty in every university in the world had been closed down in, say, 1900 it would have not a spark of difference to the course of history - or the progress of science and technology,

Philosophical fads come and go as new star intellectuals rise and fall.

I don't know about that. Freud was interesting, especially his speculations on the nature of the subconscious. I have found the philosophies of the American philosophers John Dewey and Richard Rorty very helpful in thinking about issues in my life- from Democracy and education to ethics and meta-psychology. Another very helpful 20th century philosopher for me in thinking about difficult ethical issues has been the British philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin and his idea of "objective pluralism".

 

[Gordy327]

That morality exists, and isn't up to interpretation. I think objective morality must be grounded in God, although some atheists like Sam Harris disagree.

Yes, morality exists. But it's based on human socializing in communities. Different cultures have different "morals" or different ideas on what is considered moral. That alone demonstrates the subjective nature of morality. If one is going to cite God as the source of morals, then there needs to be proof of a God first to support such a claim. Although, even then that doesn't account for morality differences among different cultures.

 

[gboisjo]

That morality exists, and isn't up to interpretation. I think objective morality must be grounded in God, although some atheists like Sam Harris disagree.

No, morality is a combination of sociological factors and biological ones.

A growing number of millions upon millions of non believers would agree.

 

[Gordy327]

Sure, we have a measurement for that. Do we also have a measurement for the color green or the smell of smoke, which we apprehend physically?

Dave posited that physical senses are more reliable by default, and of course that's not necessarily correct.

What is the objective measurement for morality? Smoke can be smelled because of particles inhaled and detected by the olfactory nerve. Green can be visualized because of photons bouncing off the surface and being detected by the retinas of our eyes. What is the "sense" of morality?

 

[Mulefoot]

What is the objective measurement for morality? Smoke can be smelled because of particles inhaled and detected by the olfactory nerve. Green can be visualized because of photons bouncing off the surface and being detected by the retinas of our eyes. What is the "sense" of morality?

I'm not saying we apprehend it perfectly. Of course neither do our physical senses as those senses deceive us into thinking this world has color, sound, taste, and smell for example when in reality the world does not. We could be similarly deceived into thinking that skinning a cat alive for pleasure isn't wrong objectively. Maybe that type of behavior shocks our senses into incorrect beliefs. Still, without some evidence I'm fine with concluding that skinning a cat alive for personal pleasure is wrong, objectively. And yes I'm perfectly aware that cultural morals vary. I assume humankind doesn't apprehend morality perfectly.

 

[Quag]

I'm not saying we apprehend it perfectly. Of course neither do our physical senses as those senses deceive us into thinking this world has color, sound, taste, and smell for example when in reality the world does not. We could be similarly deceived into thinking that skinning a cat alive for pleasure isn't wrong objectively. Maybe that type of behavior shocks our senses into incorrect beliefs. Still, without some evidence I'm fine with concluding that skinning a cat alive for personal pleasure is wrong, objectively. And yes I'm perfectly aware that cultural morals vary. I assume humankind doesn't apprehend morality perfectly.

You need to remove the word objectively from this post or explain what you think objectively means because you appear to be using the term incorrectly

 

[Mulefoot]

You need to remove the word objectively from this post or explain what you think objectively means because you appear to be using the term incorrectly

Objectively in a sentence means that it is absolutely, unequivocally, immorally objectively wrong to skin a cat alive for pleasure. In all cases, in all times, and in all cultures.

 

[Quag]

Objectively in a sentence means that it is absolutely, unequivocally, immorally objectively wrong to skin a cat alive for pleasure. In all cases, in all times, and in all cultures.

You literally used the term objectively to define the word objectively
I suggest you look up the meanings of the terms objective and subjective because you dont seem to understand them at all see below

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or prejudices:

 

[Mulefoot]

Would also add that

You literally used the term objectively to define the word objectively
I suggest you look up the meanings of the terms objective and subjective because you dont seem to understand them at all see below

I know what it means, as I was hoping that using in a sentence would show.

Still confused?

 

[Quag]

I know what it means, as I was hoping that using in a sentence would show.

No you literally tried to use the word to define the word

Still confused?

Im not the one misusing the terms I literally provided you the definitions
Still confused? read the definitions I provided

 

[Mulefoot]

No you literally tried to use the word to define the word


Im not the one misusing the terms I literally provided you the definitions
Still confused? read the definitions I provided

Sorry, I can't be any more clear. Morality remains objective (e.g. rape is wrong without regard to your personal feelings) not subjective (e.g. it is my opinion that rape is wrong, but it is only my opinion) until persuasive evidence that our moral framework is in fact tells me that morality is subjective. Natural selection has become a catch-all explanation (at least in this thread) for things we don't understand like morality - without actual evidence of same.

In practice we all agree anyway. I doubt that if someone intentionally and deeply harmed you or your loved one, you'd temper your outrage with the possibility that the perpetrator might just be justified, because after all, morality is all just so subjective.

 

[devildavid]

You think truth can be found the physical senses, whereas say the sense of understanding the passing of time or sense of morality, is less reliable?

I don't think there is a thing called truth.

The senses are the only way we learn or know anything to any extent. They are the only intake mechanisms we have. Without them functioning at some level, there is nothing for the brain to process into ideas about things like morality, which must be learned. We don't sense such things as we do with the physical senses. We learn them though our experiences in whatever environment we find ourselves.

 

[devildavid]

Sorry, I can't be any more clear. Morality remains objective (e.g. rape is wrong without regard to your personal feelings) not subjective (e.g. it is my opinion that rape is wrong, but it is only my opinion) until persuasive evidence that our moral framework is in fact tells me that morality is subjective. Natural selection has become a catch-all explanation (at least in this thread) for things we don't understand like morality - without actual evidence of same.

In practice we all agree anyway. I doubt that if someone intentionally and deeply harmed you or your loved one, you'd temper your outrage with the possibility that the perpetrator might just be justified, because after all, morality is all just so subjective.

How do you determine what rape is? The word rape already assigns a value judgement to a sexual act.

 

[ataraxia]

That morality exists, and isn't up to interpretation. I think objective morality must be grounded in God, although some atheists like Sam Harris disagree.

Morality is like language- it certainly exists, and is a very practical social construct of every society. It would be hard for functional societies to exist without it.

 

[Gordy327]

I'm not saying we apprehend it perfectly. Of course neither do our physical senses as those senses deceive us into thinking this world has color, sound, taste, and smell for example when in reality the world does not. We could be similarly deceived into thinking that skinning a cat alive for pleasure isn't wrong objectively. Maybe that type of behavior shocks our senses into incorrect beliefs. Still, without some evidence I'm fine with concluding that skinning a cat alive for personal pleasure is wrong, objectively. And yes I'm perfectly aware that cultural morals vary. I assume humankind doesn't apprehend morality perfectly.

If cultural morals vary, then that proves morality is subjective. That's not to same cultures cannot share the same morals as others. Even when similar morals are shared, there can be certain varieties of a particular moral. However, I am not sure how you conclude the world lacks color, taste, ect. If we can detect it, then it does exist.

 

[devildavid]

Sure, we have a measurement for that. Do we also have a measurement for the color green or the smell of smoke, which we apprehend physically?

Dave posited that physical senses are more reliable by default, and of course that's not necessarily correct.

No, I did not posit that. But they are the only way anything is input into our brains.

 

[tosca1]

I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.

I obviously say that the latter is correct.

Recent research studies wouldn't agree to that.
Looks like morality is also hardwired on humans.

Do Babies Have A Sense Of Morality?

Studies in Developmental Psychology show that babies have a basic sense of morality. Even infants who haven’t started talking, are able to distinguish good actions from bad and this judgment affects how they treat others.

www.scienceabc.com

Even 3-year-olds have a sense of justice ​

Researchers find advanced moral reasoning in young children​

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[tosca1]

I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.

I obviously say that the latter is correct.

Lol - maybe, it's not just humans.
Perhaps, morality is hardwired on ALL creation.

Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues

Research in neuroscience and animal ecology suggest that animals have a primitive sense of morality

www.livescience.com

 

[Daisy]

I don't think there is a thing called truth.

Of course there is...whether you or I were here or not, there would still be truth...

 

[Mulefoot]

I don't think there is a thing called truth.

The senses are the only way we learn or know anything to any extent. They are the only intake mechanisms we have. Without them functioning at some level, there is nothing for the brain to process into ideas about things like morality, which must be learned. We don't sense such things as we do with the physical senses. We learn them though our experiences in whatever environment we find ourselves.

Maybe. I will say this. Your and my view of God/No God informs all of this. Without God, of course there's no truth or objective morality. We are a product of our environment. With God, there is truth and objective morality regardless of my ability to apprehend it or understand it.

The existence/non-existence of God undergirds all of these questions.

 

[devildavid]

Of course there is...whether you or I were here or not, there would still be truth...

No, there would not be, as truth is a human invented concept.

 

[devildavid]

Maybe. I will say this. Your and my view of God/No God informs all of this. Without God, of course there's no truth or objective morality. We are a product of our environment. With God, there is truth and objective morality regardless of my ability to apprehend it or understand it.

The existence/non-existence of God undergirds all of these questions.

That is the question raised by the OP.

But there are many versions of morality derived from gods. You are only talking about the specific version that you believe in.

 

[Mulefoot]

If cultural morals vary, then that proves morality is subjective. That's not to same cultures cannot share the same morals as others. Even when similar morals are shared, there can be certain varieties of a particular moral. However, I am not sure how you conclude the world lacks color, taste, ect. If we can detect it, then it does exist.

It does not prove that at all. Could be that objective morality exists and humankind exhibits a varying degree of understanding it, or the willingness to attempt it. And so, you get varying cultural differences.

 

[Daisy]

No, there would not be, as truth is a human invented concept.

That is like saying if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? Of course It does because sound creates vibrations in the air...even if there's no one around to hear the sound, a recorder can still record those vibrations as sound...truth is God invented...