Thesit morality

I think distinction needs to be made between the definition of morality and our motivation for being moral. What I stated was my understanding of the definition of morality.

In the OP or recently in a post ?

Motivation is complicated, but I think it is important to note that many of us demand morality of others and part of our motivation is others demanding it of us. And not just in relation to punishment, but also ego ie we often behave morally because we think it makes us look good in others eyes.

I think the motivation has much to do with living with ourselves. A conscience not condemning us makes us happier.

There is an internal referee in our human conscience. It takes no bribes. It really often takes no arguments. It is an intuitive knowing that knows what it knows.

If the conscience says "This is bad" it is really hard to reason with it with any reasoning. If it says "This is the right thing to do" it simply will not be reasoned with.

I ask myself why many mass murders in the US afterward kill themselves. After they shoot a number of people at an office or in their family, then they kill themselves LAST.

I think it is probably because their conscience will be so condemning of them that they know they will not be able to live with themselves. Or before the police come for them they kill themselves.

So the human conscience is probably some entity in man which will not take reason if it KNOWS that this or that was just right or wrong.

We have to live with ourselves. We want to be at peace in our conscience. So what we do has a lot to do with wanting to be at peace inside with the intuitive conscience.

I have to go now.

First I'll comment here:

My explanation is evolution.

This would appear to me to a natural process creating what is morally right as it goes along.

But I think what is good and right is not being created by a naturalistic process. I think it is THERE before man arrives and evolves. The moral is something, I think, evolution would only move towards as having already been there.

If not then the moral right is being worked out and created by the interactions of chemicals and atoms. This makes less sense to me.

me:
Whose going to call us to account ? Who is going to discover our secret crimes ?

tw:
Is that why you behave morally? Is that an explanation for why we have this feeling?

That is a question that involves discussion of before and after I met Christ.

I sometimes do morally wrong because it is an enjoyment to do so at the expense of someone else's happiness. I have had this experience both before and after knowing Jesus Christ.

There is another something working in me enfluencing me to do against what I believe and love as the right thing to do. There is a contrary power driving me often to give in to more evil actions.

The thought of accountability often cannot arrest this failure to give in. Sometimes there is just an attitude that I do not care what happens. I just intend to do this bad thing regardless.

Then there is the more normal Christian experience. There is a joy and an enjoyment to put myself aside and allow Someone living within me to flow His tastes, attitudes and actions.

This is a supernatural matter. This is like power steering on an automobile. I only incline my will towards Christ and a power within me enables me to live on a higher plane than I typically could live.

It is very much like the power steering on a good car. You do not have to apply much force. You only have to steer your intention in the proper direction. And it is a ride and a sheer enjoyment.

And the more it happens the more one is convinced that he is on the right track to believe that Jesus Christ indeed has dispensed His Spirit into one's innermost being.

But the human being wants to do good. A power within him as a negative force often drives him against his better desires. All fail to live up to what they believe they should live.

The question for them is how to live with themselves knowing that this failure is within them. A few options are open to them:

1.) They can "bride" the conscience by doing something ELSE good.

"Well I did this evil thing. But at LEAST I did do this OTHER good thing here."

2.) They can embrace their failure and be proud of it.

"Ah, Whatever is good To you is good For you. Be selfish. Selfishness is a virtue. Maybe Ayn Rand has it right. Look out for #1. Am I my brother's keeper ? If others are weak it is their own fault."

3.) They can resent any higher authority, especially God.

" Its my own business and no one else's. I answer only to my own noble self. This is the most dignified way rather than "sucking up" to some higher judge. "

4.) They can take comfort in comparing themselves with someone worse.

" At least I am not as bad as THAT guy over there. "

This especially works well when the other guy is religious.

5.) They can make everything relative.

"Good and bad? What's that ? It is all a relative matter. It all depends on compared to some subjective position. It's all in the eye of the beholder."

Now there may be some elements of truth. I say some elements. And there may be other ways of dealing with a conscience which is not at full peace within.

I came to the love of Christ and His redeeming atonement for sins.
I came to Christ for freedom from the guilt of sin and victory over the power of sin.

But WHY are we concerned about them ? Because it is the right thing to do ? Perhaps. But evolution doesn't care about what is the right thing to do. It "cares" only for what will facilitate survival. What will further the organism's life seems to be the only "concern" of the evolutionary process.

... etc.

It makes far more sense to me that we are designed that way by a Moral Agent who intends to call into account, enforce, judge, forgive, pardon, reward or otherwise punish with complete knowledge of our circumstances and choices. That is a moral God Creator.

tw:
Yet if we were designed that way, why do we not behave that way?

Twenty five words or less ?

Its a valid question. If there is a NEMESIS to God with a contrary position who gained an enfluence on our inward make up, that would explain it.

A NEMESIS which is temporary but there and powerful actively against the purpose of God, that would explain it.

If there were a negative Advasary against the purpose of God who gained inroads into His creation illegally, that would explain it.

If there were one actively setting himself up as a rebel against the eternal purpose of God, I think that would explain that we have come under the enfluence of this opposition party.

And how does the calling into account, enforcing, judging, pardoning and rewarding all fit in? Especially as it has no real effect whatsoever on the behaviour of non-believers.

It does have effect on the unbeliever, just not right away.

The Law of Gravity has an effect on people whether they are believers or unbelievers.

There are consequences to the final moral law upon all created people. Not wishing there was does not make final consequences go away.

The ostrich may stick her head in the sand to convince itself that there is no danger. Not wanting to SEE the danger does not make it not exist.

But it seems to me to be largely a non-explanation ie the brute fact that people behave morally is being shifted to a brute fact that God wants people to behave morally. No real explanation as to why that is is given.

I am not sure what "brute fact" is suppose to mean. I think some facts may be brute.

If you say my explanation is not convincing then I can only say, maybe I should try to be more convincing. But this is a post and not a book. Just short conversation going on here.

So expect only short explanations which are probably less exhaustive then either of us can develop on this kind of forum.

But turning to evolution as an answer to why we live as we do.

There may be something to some aspect of change in a evolutionary scheme. It seems to me a kind of program. As a former programmer I think I recognize when there is a kind of "look ahead" ability to develop things with a forethought to where one wants to go.

Whether and to what extent evolution is true or not, I cannot shake the intuitive sense that it requires some "look ahead" ability to know where it wants to arrive. There has to be forethought, foreconcept, a plan, a direction in which it wants things to go.

Now if moral goodness is a direction towards which this evolution is rising up, this means that the standard must have existence in some sense beforehand.

WHERE and WHY?

That evolution is creating "goodness" is less believable to me.
That goodness IS and WAS and the program steers man up towards that standard is more what I see if evolution is true.

And I find a designing moral Creator of eternal existence more logical an explanation of our moral being. If that is "brute" I guess someone else will have to address that.

I know it is a brute fact that if I jump up I will also be pulled down towards the earth. It has been a brute fact for thousands of years of man's existence. Brute facts may exist before and after we well understand them.

Originally posted by sonship
In the OP or recently in a post ?

The one I gave in a recent post.

I think the motivation has much to do with living with ourselves. A conscience not condemning us makes us happier.
That is definitely the case. However, I believe we are remarkably good at rationalizing our actions to deal with our conscience. I have noticed that when we think we can get away with something, we tend to do it, then rationalize it afterwards (eg downloading pirated movies). Only when we totally fail to rationalize something does our conscience kick in and cause us to feel guilt and either avoid an action or try to reverse the wrong.
But the above are cases where we do something selfish at the cost of others or avoid helping others for selfish reasons. In cases where we can help others at little or no cost to ourselves, I think most of us would do so, because it makes us feel good about ourselves (but this is not through guilt relief).

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]BTW, Jesus was not claiming to be God or to being the literal son of God in claiming that He and God were "one". Just that they were of "one mind".

Well we finally agree on something..🙂[/b]

Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Originally posted by sonship
This would appear to me to a natural process creating what is morally right as it goes along.

No, there is a distinction between the definition of morality, which defines what is morally right or wrong, and our tendency to follow that definition. Generally, living in society requires some adherence to morality.
Its interesting that the definition of morality is actually a perfect fit to what we expect to arise from evolution, but not a perfect fit to what one would expect from divine decree. If anything, if I were to question your divine decree morality you will quite quickly admit that either it got modified by evolution or that God modified it to enable survival or something along those lines. Just think about why you would sooner save a family member over a stranger.

If not then the moral right is being worked out and created by the interactions of chemicals and atoms. This makes less sense to me.
I am claiming that morality is based on the mathematics of survival in society. Its a natural outcome of game theory. So whether or not you believe it is dictated by God, it is nevertheless derivable mathematically just as 2+2=4, may come from God, but can also be derived mathematically. (and no atoms are required)

That is a question that involves discussion of before and after I met Christ.
And I notice almost no answer to my actual question. You asked about who would discover our secret crimes, and I wanted to know why that was important. I don't think you give an answer to that.

And how does the calling into account, enforcing, judging, pardoning and rewarding all fit in? Especially as it has no real effect whatsoever on the behaviour of non-believers.

It does have effect on the unbeliever, just not right away.

The Law of Gravity has an effect on people whether they are believers or unbelievers.

There are consequences to the final moral law upon all created people. Not wishing there was does not make final consequences go away.

The ostrich may stick her head in the sand to convince itself that there is no danger. Not wanting to SEE the danger does not make it not exist
But what purpose does this effect have? I asked what effect on the behaviour it had, your answer is apparently 'none' despite your failed ostridge analogy, so it must have some other purpose. What is it?

Whether and to what extent evolution is true or not, I cannot shake the intuitive sense that it requires some "look ahead" ability to know where it wants to arrive. There has to be forethought, foreconcept, a plan, a direction in which it wants things to go.
Whether you can shake it or not, is irrelevant. It is mathematically provable that no such forethought is required, and if you want you can design a program to prove it.

Now if moral goodness is a direction towards which this evolution is rising up, this means that the standard must have existence in some sense beforehand.

WHERE and WHY?
As I explain above, it is part of game theory.