14 Mar 14
LemonJello,
You Typed
----------------------
(2) Surrendering of the will and reason in deference to an authority. This is a heteronomous act where one just reads off his reasons for actions from a supposed authority. Done blindly, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of moral autonomy, since 'autonomy' is literally about self-governance. This is what children do when they do not know any better.
-------------------------
Are you thinking that we human beings know how to please God on our own. God in the bible says that we are sinners and that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them." Do human beings on this earth want to act moral? Certainly Not! How can you even think that with all the corrupt ways of the world's people?
Do you think that you abound in all morality? I submit that there is something seriously flawed in each human being which plays itself out in human behavior which includes you.
14 Mar 14
LemonJello,
Do you take the viewpoint that we can tell God what to do with all that He created which includes humanity? Do you think that we can tell God what to do with our lives? If He wants to take our lives, we can't stop Him. If He wants to put us in a lake of fire for eternity, we can't stop Him. He is in control, not us.
What would humanity be like if we all got to do whatever we wanted to do? Would there be morality that would equal God's express being?
14 Mar 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointI am so looking forward to LJ taking you apart!!
LemonJello,
Do you take the viewpoint that we can tell God what to do with all that He created which includes humanity? Do you think that we can tell God what to do with our lives? If He wants to take our lives, we can't stop Him. If He wants to put us in a lake of fire for eternity, we can't stop Him. He is in control, not us.
What would humanit ...[text shortened]... t to do whatever we wanted to do? Would there be morality that would equal God's express being?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
LemonJello,
It makes no sense to suggest that an agent in the form of a Moral Law Giver is necessary for objective foundations for morals. That boils down to saying that some moral-mind connection is necessary for morals to be at the end of the day mind-independent.
Again, you do not require that morals be 'objective'. You just require that they be independent of what any humans think about them. Again, there are many secular ethical theories to be taken seriously that entail this.
Again, I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal moral standard". Mostly, I do not know what is meant here by 'transcendent'. Again, I hold that the truth values of such claims are independent from any observer attitudes; they do not depend on what anyone thinks about them. If that is sufficient for what you mean by "transcendent and universal", then okay. Note, however, that you cannot say the same as me on this: the fact is, you hold that the truth values of moral claims DO depend on the attitudes, mentality, character, etc, of one, and only one, particular agent; whereas I think they depend on no agents. Your view is subjectivist because of this; mine is an objective account.
So "transcendent and universal" presents some obscurity to you.
Let's think of "transcendent" in some sense of higher, lifted, above, elevated. Now you believe that objective moral truths exist as part of the furniture of the universe. Right? You believe that moral duties exist as part of the furniture of the universe. Both of these you claim do not require God's existence. I say they do.
Now according to a naturalist evolutionary viewpoint of the emergence of life and minds, let's run the camera back a few hundred million years (all this assuming as a given a long gradualism). So we run the camera observing evolution back when only, say, bacteria exist.
I am leaning towards understanding that you believe these brute given moral truths and duties did not exist at that stage of the world because no minds could consider them into existence. Certainly, bacteria did not contemplate moral truths.
We bring the evolutionary camera up a few more million years and we have say fishes. Their minds are kind of questionable. But as the carnivorous ones gobble up their neighbors to death, they probably have a very low level of contemplation of these actions. So moral truths are not yet "minded" into existence. Or they are very low - fish level.
As gradualism progresses minds progress. By how much I don't know. But let's assume the mind of a iguana lizard is "higher" in quality than that of a frog. And the mind of a baboon is "higher" in quality then that of a iguana lizard.
I think I see in your viewpoint that as minds evolve "upwards" so also the quality of moral truths and moral duties are "minded" into existence on a higher and higher level.
The human being being the highest level of mind we know comes along. And the resultant moral truths in conjunction with human minds arrive at a level "transcending" the level of baboon, iguana lizard, frog, fish, and bacteria.
Now I propose that the level at which moral truths and moral duties are allegedly minded into being an item in the universe by humans cannot be the most transcendent level. We feel the sense of having failed. we sense the feeling of having come up short in moral behavior. We sense the shame of not having done what we feel we OUGHT to have done. At times this conviction is in us, in our conscience.
Rape in the animal kingdom occurs plenty.
Rape in the human kingdom is usually considered a serious failure of moral duty.
Doesn't that imply that we feel seriously under a moral ideal in some sense higher than, or transcending, our too often expressed attitude and behavior? It seems that unlike the baboon or fish or iguana we sense the need to "arrive" higher to meet up with the truth over us. It is transcendent above, yet in our hearts we agree that that is the level upon which we ought to perform.
Universality has to do with the fact that some moral values are agreed upon by everyone everywhere. Is there a culture in which betraying those who have been faithful to you is considered a virtue? I don't think so. Is there a culture where cowardice in battle is considered a herioic virtue? I doubt it. Is there a culture in which torturing babies for fun is considered a virtue? No.
So I see transcendent and universal moral truths indicated by man's conviction to attain to the higher morality he feels appropriate and the universality with which he holds some truths to be unquestionably self evident.
Rape goes on in the animal kingdom all the time. It appears to have no moral dimension. Though brains at least are seen gradually gaining more facility, the moral dimension seems to apply on to this unique earth creature human beings.
Without a transcendent standard of moral truth why would humans feel this "distance" between the level of what typically is and what OUGHT to be ? At least there are ample occasions when we fall short. And systems must be instituted to deal with the results of arriving below the standard.
There is something transcendent about the moral values and duties which you claim we have only minded into existence.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Cont.
Both atheist and theist may agree "So and So is just Objectively Wrong to do." But the theist's explanation of moral truths grounded in a higher Being for whom no greater goodness is conceivable is a better explanation.
If I understand you, minds created these moral values and duties on their way up the process of gradualism in evolution. Why did human beings mind/create moral values and duties to which too often he senses a distance below them. That is a distance that calls for shame, correction, reform and even at times retribution.
The case of retribution is interesting. Sometimes punishment from society seems to go beyond reformation. They do not stop at just rehabilitation or deterrence or protecting society. We sometimes feel we should pay back evil for evil. This makes sense only if we think we are balancing the moral universe. We are balancing the moral universe by paying back.
This makes sense if we feel that there is some transcendent Victim of the crime other than the immediate victim. Someone or Something bigger has been injured. Something transcendent needs to be put back in balance. I think this points unconsciously perhaps to a higher Mind. God is the higher "Victim" above the victim. This could be some an unconscious sense.
I believe this higher "Victim" to which we sometimes feel obligated that retributional payback is due, is the Mind of God, albeit some might have the feeling unconsciously.
Possibly related to this is another sentiment. Sometimes people feel a person needs forgiveness. But such forgiveness will have to come from someone else. We feel that we do not have the capacity to forgive. Maybe some higher Forgiver will do what we do not have the capacity to do.
I hear secularists speak in this fashion at times. And I think it indicates some sense of awareness of a transcendent Mind and Person to pick up the slack which we simply do not have.
15 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipI am so looking forward to wolfgang59 and SwissGambit downvoting this post without so much as a casual glance at the content!!
Cont.
Both atheist and theist may agree "So and So is just Objectively Wrong to do." But the theist's explanation of moral truths grounded in a higher Being for whom no greater goodness is conceivable is a better explanation.
If I understand you, minds created these moral values and duties on their way up the process of gradualism in evolution. Wh ...[text shortened]... of awareness of a transcendent Mind and Person to pick up the slack which we simply do not have.
15 Mar 14
Originally posted by KingOnPointWhat are you trying to say here? Might makes right? Or did you have some other point that I missed?
Do you take the viewpoint that we can tell God what to do with all that He created which includes humanity? Do you think that we can tell God what to do with our lives? If He wants to take our lives, we can't stop Him. If He wants to put us in a lake of fire for eternity, we can't stop Him. He is in control, not us.
Do you believe that a dictator is morally good because he is all powerful?
15 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipIt's a simple idea which requires a somewhat complex explanation, especially when attempting to address the knee-jerk objections.
It is kind of long. I just think the interested will read. The uninterested will not.
I try to be concise, but it is hard sometimes.
I think you did a commendable job.
15 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are half right - too much content for my short attention span!
I am so looking forward to wolfgang59 and SwissGambit downvoting this post without so much as a casual glance at the content!!
I wouldn't thumbs down something I haven't read and do not often thumb down Sonship's thoughtful (if illogical) prose.
I use up all my thumbs on RJ's rubbish. 😀
Originally posted by sonshipYou see God as Top of the Moral Food Chain. I see him as a needless middle-man. The moral values that transcend the individual are those regarding the group.
Cont.
Both atheist and theist may agree "So and So is just Objectively Wrong to do." But the theist's explanation of moral truths grounded in a higher Being for whom no greater goodness is conceivable is a better explanation.
If I understand you, minds created these moral values and duties on their way up the process of gradualism in evolution. Wh ...[text shortened]... of awareness of a transcendent Mind and Person to pick up the slack which we simply do not have.
The rapist, thief and murderer violate more than just their victims. They violate the people who cared about the victims. They violate the whole society by making us feel less safe. By damaging everyone's peace of mind. That is why we feel that we must give out a punishment fitting the crime. Not to make an invisible sky being whole, but to restore peace and justice to society here on earth.
I daresay worrying about God's hurt feelings is disrespectful to the far more powerless victims here on earth.
If the group is not sufficient to justify moral values that transcend the individual, then I would ask why.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambit
You see God as Top of the Moral Food Chain. I see him as a needless middle-man. The moral values that transcend the individual are those regarding the group.
But sometimes "the group" gets judgment wrong.
Sometimes at least a minority realizes that the majority got it wrong.
Then the scales of justice have been put in balance by the majority of the group. The majority may remain unaware for years while a minority, even a very small one, realizes that the group largely has erred in judgment.
The rapist, thief and murderer violate more than just their victims. They violate the people who cared about the victims. They violate the whole society by making us feel less safe.
That is true.
And sometimes, say in the American South, the society, the group justifies rape. The Southern plantation owner thought it was in his perfect rights to go out at night, leaving his wife, and rapping his black female slaves.
Injustice was accepted by the majority of that society for a long time.
So to insist the group is a the top of the "Moral Food Chain" can be idealistic. The "group" can not only -
1.) Be unaware of injustice but
2.) Ignore or even institute injustice
I think you have to resort to some kind of relativism if you say that the top of the Moral universe is only the group. Suppose the group feels that the Holocaust among their society is the right thing to do ?
If you are willing to admit that the group is not a perfect solution to the problems of a moral universe, go ahead and place your ultimate trust in the group.
If like some of us theists, we realize the perfect justice would only be served by Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence then rather than "invent" a sky person, we simply recognize that there could be a Being for whom a more good, more just, more loving, more aware and righteous is not possible to imagine - God.
The NEED is there.
Maybe the NEED is there because the SOLUTION is a reality.
The timing of the ultimate balancing of the moral scales may not be as we wish. But the Bible does indicate a last judgment. And the details of that judgment is carried out upon infallible records and an awareness which is beyond human beings capability to actualize, (though they can actualize a lot).
By damaging everyone's peace of mind. That is why we feel that we must give out a punishment fitting the crime. Not to make an invisible sky being whole, but to restore peace and justice to society here on earth.
That is a kind of balancing out the "Ying Yang" of the moral universe.
That is setting the moral balance between good and evil straight again.
I agree that not every instance of retributive re-balancing is done with a thought of theism.
I daresay worrying about God's hurt feelings is disrespectful to the far more powerless victims here on earth.
So you say the "hurt feelings" of the victims of society is all that matters.
It is interesting that in Christian life one of the incentives to forgive our enemies is that God said "Vengence is Mine. I will repay." The offense of the rapist is against God. And the perfect repayment is too often beyond the earthly victim, or victims as a societal whole.
Ultimate repayment, even ultimate "vengence", says God, will be come from Him.
I think you have to admit that if the final moral adjudication is up to society it is far far from perfect. Millions of innocent unborn humans are murdered in on demand abortion. The sense of "victimization" upon them by much of society is very dull.
If you want to believe in a far from perfect judge of moral duties as the collective human society, go ahead and assume that is the final court. It is not that encouraging to stop there.
If in doing so we yearn for a more perfect adjudication, it could be that one DOES exist in reality. I am willing to bet that the innate realization that the "we" of group society are far below being able to render perfect justice, is an indication that God exists.
I think some kind of relativism or despairing nihilism is the alternative.
The group can get it wrong, and we know it.
The group can as easily do evil sometimes as well as good.
The group can be unaware of the victim.
The group can be unaware of the crime and the criminal.
The group may not be impartial.
The group may have a vested interest in sometimes going light in judgment.
The group may also have a vested interest in being heavier in punishment.
The group at the top of your "Moral Food Chain" is idealistic but far from perfect. And if we did not realize it we might be at peace.
If the group is not sufficient to justify moral values that transcend the individual, then I would ask why.[/b]
Some reasons above prove that the group is not always sufficient.
I think there are three reactions possible to this:
1.) We can shrug and say "Oh well, That's life" and just admit that perfect dispensing of judgment is not possible in the human race.
2.) We can suppress any suspicion that a Higher Court exists in which perfect adjudication does eventually occur. This has the "nice" side effect to the atheist of not having to worry about God being real.
3.) We can give in to the suspicion that maybe and probably there is a Higher Court in the moral universe. And though it gives rise to how any of us will come up to standard, at least, judgment will be more perfect.
I am opting for the third view. If there were no Bible record of God's dealings with humans and no testimony of Christ in history, then I might not. But this added testimony of a few millennium of accounts of God's dealing with man on earth, persuades me that rather than imaginative tales, this is reflective of the true situation in the universe.
Let me ask you this:
If evolution were to occur again and a whole new race of being was the result with different moral truths and moral duties would they be right to, say rape ?
Suppose the evolutionary process re-ran and there emerged human who felt their duty to torture their babies for fun, rape their women in mass for recreation, eat their mothers and fathers as cannibals for an anniversary celebration and torture their grand parents for fun ... would those actions be just as right to do ?
If you say Yes than I think you must be a relativist and true moral values are an illusion. Or maybe a Deistic God is malicious or totally uncaring as to ultimate moral values has a - "To each his own" attitude, maybe a non-living attitude. That is like the attitude of a rock or a electrical vibration.
If you say No then I think you admit some transcendent and absolute moral values and duties which exist. And they are not changed by a different outcome of evolution. That would mean that there is simply moral truths which are eternal I think, and 40 or 50 different outcomes of the evolutionary process do not change them.
If such is the case, I think they must be grounded in an eternal Creator's nature.
Why don't you choose an answer and we'll discuss it?