Absolute morality question

[Blue_Horizon]

You used the term “human nature”. Yes, I can see things that look like squirrels. Is there a “squirrel nature”?

I don’t know where you’re going with this.
I asked you to tell me what the origin of what you call “human nature” is. Where did it come from? It seems you didn’t want to answer that or try to understand it?

As I observe you seem to be over thinking my use of the word nature to express our apparant self evident use of the word to readily identify certain types of common beings/objects with little error. The recognition of a universal in particular objects by many different people must be founded on something we all self evidently, independently and objectively recognise. What might that be?

Is there a reason you are unwilling to answer my fairly simple questions but just reply with others.

 

[reggieM]

Is there a reason you are unwilling to answer my fairly simple questions but just reply with others.

I’m just trying to stay with the one question I posed.
Perhaps I can help. The term “human nature” means something. It identifies something that is called “human nature”. You used that term so I asked where you thought “human nature” came from. Not the term, but the thing. Where did this “nature” which is “human” originate?

That’s all I was getting at. It seems you don’t want to go down that path and that is certainly fine. I was thinking you might want to consider that if we say that first principles are embedded in human nature, then a question about that might arise.

But I didn’t answer any of your other questions because I didn’t understand them.

It’s probably best if we just let it go at this point.
But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[rossum]

It’s more than obvious to me that the universe does not have embedded in it a set of moral laws for monks and a different one for laypeople.

Monks take extra vows. The underlying moral rule is “keep any promises you make” which is a part of avoiding false speech.

The idea that gods are bound by a moral norm that forbids them from dancing or drinking coffee doesn’t seem to me to be coherent or reasonable.

Only if that god has taken monastic vows.

I realize, we’re not supposed to have a mind that “needs well established positions” or has “arguments” but the idea that everything is nothing is pretty classic and standard in Buddhist thought as I have understood it, and Fr. Merton says it explicitly.

Not quite. “Everything is emptiness (sunyata)” Emptiness is not nothing, it is the absence of self-existence, your “Being”, in everything. There is nothing that exists purely on its own without being contingent on something else.

Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield

Things appear to have “Being”, but that is just appearance. The “Being” is as real as the water that appears in a mirage.

and in a visit to Thailand

Polonnaruwa is in Sri Lanka. Merton was visiting there on his way to Thailand, where he died.

rossum

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m just trying to stay with the one question I posed.
Perhaps I can help. The term “human nature” means something. It identifies something that is called “human nature”. You used that term so I asked where you thought “human nature” came from. Not the term, but the thing. Where did this “nature” which is “human” originate?

That’s all I was getting at. It seems you don’t want to go down that path and that is certainly fine. I was thinking you might want to consider that if we say that first principles are embedded in human nature, then a question about that might arise.

But I didn’t answer any of your other questions because I didn’t understand them.

It’s probably best if we just let it go at this point.
But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

What is so hard to understand that 10+ year olds from all around the world, educated or uneducated, know when they see a human as opposed to a squirrel or a mannequin, an animal as opposed to a plant?

This is all that most people understand by “a nature”.
If anything is self-evident and agreed I would think this is.
We recognise universals in particulars.

The question then arises on what basis is this identification of natures made.
I suggest a knowledge of distinctive teleology or functionality or even history is involved.

From this objective and predictive self-evident “nature” we can possibly formulate basic “natural laws” how such a class of beings best thrive and grow together…or not.

I really don’t understand why you have difficulty understanding what I am saying - though whether it is an accurate model of reality or not is another matter of course…

 

[reggieM]

This is all that most people understand by “a nature”.
If anything is self-evident and agreed I would think this is.

Well, you may be correct. I don’t know that’s the case, but I can just accept it.

The question then arises on what basis is this identification of natures made.
I suggest a knowledge of distinctive teleology or functionality or even history is involved.

Ok, that seems to be getting closer to what I was asking initially.

I really don’t understand why you have difficulty understanding what I am saying - though whether it is an accurate model of reality or not is another matter of course…

You offered some clarifications there, so I appreciate that.

 

[Russell_SA]

It’s a good thought and interesting way to look at it, but yes I see it differently and I think there is something missing in this view.
Yes, true is what conforms to reality and false does not.
However, reality does not give us this law. It is not the law maker.
Because the law is “there is a difference between true and false”.

Isn’t this ‘law’ just discovered by the entity that is able to interact with reality and it’s predictive truths? It sounds like you are trying to get to the point of how did this specific type of reality, with its physical attributes come about instead of some other type of universe with different interactions for the entity to discover. Since we do not know how universes are made and what other options there could be for those other universes, we only have this one data point. Hard to make assumptions that other universes could be any different than this one. It’s like assuming there could be other flavors of jello when the only data you have for flavors of jello is one and you have yet to figure out how to make any new jello.

But, reality could show this idea to be different: “That which exists is true. Ideas exist. So, every idea is true”.

How can we know what different realities there could be when this is the only reality we have data on and we do not know how reality is created? Reference my jello analogy. If there was a different reality with different values of X, Y, Z that we interact with then I double that humans would exist. There may be life in that universe, but it wouldn’t be human.

So, in your example, The idea of gravity exists - it is therefore true. But Idea B that denies gravity is also true, because it exists.

Ideas only exist in a mind that can think of them. Just as helium only exists once stars are formed. Remove the minds, then there is no more ideas, language, mathematics, etc. Remove suns, then there are no more helium particles.

Also, what does not exist, just is not there. Reality does not tell us to call that “false”.

We could if someone told us something about this reality that does not conform to the current justified understanding of it, such as magic, pixies, unicorns, santa, etc.

So, we could just say there is What Exists. It could have been, that which we consider False, since it does not conform to reality, is non-existence and we wouldn’t even be able talk about it.
But instead of that, we have an actual law that tells us there is a difference between what is true and what is false - and that is different than just exist and not-exist.

Isn’t what is “true” and “false” in reference to what we tentatively understand about realty to be possible? Such as Magic is false, basket weaving is true. Vs what is to exist or not-exist could be in reference to something’s life span. My great-grandmother does not exist anymore, but did at one point because it is true that it is possible for her to exist in this reality. Or were you talking about something different here with exist, not-exist, true, and false?

Importantly, beyond that - the law tells us (universally with no ambiguity) that there is a positive value (good) to true and a negative (bad) to false.

Isn’t that only in reference to it’s affects on humans? Is a volcano on the moon of Io around Jupiter “bad” like Pompeii was? It seems to me that “good” and “bad” are in referenced to the flurishment of sentient creatures. That is how we are able to say that not caring for dogs is bad, but not caring for rocks is irrelevant of the identities of good and bad.

This the basic element that governs human behavior and morality – it is built into human life, forming the structure of the moral law.
Unintelligent physical processes cannot create that law.
Human beings did not create the law.
So, that law (true and false are different and true has positive value) has to come from a lawmaker.

Isn’t the process of saying that “god writes this on our hearts” the same as “natural directed evolution wrote this on our hearts”? We are both referencing where this morality came from, just mine has a naturalistic reference and yours does not. In the spiritual sense, we have not choice to not acknowledge our morality because a deity programed us this way. But it’s the same in a naturalistic sense as well, we have no choice but to act as humans because of evolutionary forces that developed us this way.

 

[reggieM]

Isn’t the process of saying that “god writes this on our hearts” the same as “natural directed evolution wrote this on our hearts”? We are both referencing where this morality came from, just mine has a naturalistic reference and yours does not. In the spiritual sense, we have not choice to not acknowledge our morality because a deity programed us this way. But it’s the same in a naturalistic sense as well, we have no choice but to act as humans because of evolutionary forces that developed us this way.

This seems to be the essential part of the discussion so I will just focus here.
You started by questioning law and law maker, with objective morality and the ambiguity of moral norms.
I referred you to “what is written in our hears” if you want to put it that way.
From this, we have either God or evolution.

But I think the point here is that evolution is an unintelligent process and it cannot create moral laws, as such.

If you want to take that path, you have to use only what evolution uses as a purpose or meaning (which it doesn’t really have) and that is the survival and reproductive success of a species.

Rape exists, it was preserved from a beneficial mutation. So, rape is a benefit to the human species. The same with torture and murder. That’s how evolution works.

From a view of God, He places moral norms within us so we know rape, torture and murder are wrong. They exist, not because evolution preserved them for our benefit, but because people choose them as sins.

That’s why the evolutionary model for moral norms doesn’t work.
Evolution doesn’t even care if the human species survives. It would be beneficial to other species if we died. Evolution doesn’t care if any life form at all exists on earth. It is a mindless, blind, unintelligent process using random mutations and selections.

That’s what atheism is proclaiming as the source of morality. That’s why people will say that atheism is evil.

 

[meltzerboy]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:
A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

The argument was addressed to the first assumption, “All people are conscious of an objective moral law.” If someone does not acknowledge that there are objective moral truths, then anything is possible as a choice and there is no right or wrong. Isn’t that becoming a defense for, “This is not how I would like the world to be, so therefore there must be absolute morality because I would not want it otherwise.” ? How we would want the world to be has no bearing on how the world actually is.

Many people believe that all morals are subjective to a point. They give the example of using the numerical value of pi. To solve the problem, group A uses pi to the 15th decimal place while group B uses pi to the 8th decimal place. Both have a result that is not measurably different, aka neither group can point to who’s result was better over all. So is group A more morally correct than group B? Neither has an ultimate value of pi since it has not ultimate value though.

Ideas like ultimate good and bad, seems to be the same subjective conversation, like the ultimate subjective value of smelliness. Is there an ultimate smelly? good? bad? etc? Or is there just really smelly in reference to humans, really bad and good in reference to human well being, etc.

Doesn’t morality become subjective until you subjectively ground it to a reference point? Such as wanting to play a game. Are there good and bad moves for just wanting to play game? No, not until you pick a referenced game to play, such as chess. Once you subjectively pick chess, then you have objectively good and bad moves to make when playing the game of chess correct? So if someone picks their reference point of a deity as their grounds of absolute good and bad morality, don’t they then have to convince everyone else why picking a deity is any better than someone else’s reference point?

Not exactly an answer to any of your questions, but I’ve always admired Shakespeare’s verse from Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

BTW, Judaism is opposed to the argument of objective morality based on natural law.

 

[reggieM]

Not exactly an answer to any of your questions, but I’ve always admired Shakespeare’s verse from Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

BTW, Judaism is opposed to the argument of objective morality based on natural law.

St. Paul in Romans 2:14 says: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

So, he was thinking that when non-Jews believed in the same fundamental morals as in the Law, they were referring to a natural law moral code in human nature and conscience.

How would the Jewish view look at that or see it differently?

 

[meltzerboy]

St. Paul in Romans 2:14 says: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

So, he was thinking that when non-Jews believed in the same fundamental morals as in the Law, they were referring to a natural law moral code in human nature and conscience.

How would the Jewish view look at that or see it differently?

The Jewish perspective is, firstly, that natural law is an Ancient Greek invention. Therefore, it does not follow the monotheistic principles of one sovereign G-d. Secondly, natural law places itself at a higher level than the Law, in the sense that the Law must conform to natural law in order for the former to be just. However, according to Judaism, there is NOTHING higher than the Law since the Law is the Word of G-d. G-d cannot be limited by natural law. For example, there is nothing inherently good about eating certain foods and not others; but since it was commanded by G-d, this makes it good. And when Abraham was told by G-d to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham obeyed G-d, NOT natural law. (Although later on, Abraham did wrestle with G-d concerning G-d’s intention of smiting all the inhabitants of Sodom, which Abraham believed was unjust.) The commandments contained within the Law do NOT depend on natural law. Insofar as non-Jews are concerned, they are also bound by the moral principles of the Law, without the minute details. These moral principles, however, are not considered to be justified by natural law but rather by G-d’s Word. And finally, there is nothing in the NATURE itself of natural law that makes behaviors based on it either good or bad. Only following the Word of G-d can be inherently good.

 

[Russell_SA]

But I think the point here is that evolution is an unintelligent process and it cannot create moral laws, as such.

Isn’t this an argument from ignorance fallacy? We have evidence of the natural and of people acting morally, so it would follow that this is a natural development. We don’t appear to have the same evidence of the supernatural that we do for the natural though to make the same connection as I understand it.

Rape exists, it was preserved from a beneficial mutation. So, rape is a benefit to the human species. The same with torture and murder. That’s how evolution works.

We have evolved other values that help promote the human species such as empathy and caring of others over the rape approach for human propagation. Perhaps back when we would not survive long after reaching sexual viability, rape was part of that culture, but that is no longer the case now. That is why other social values have developed just as strongly or more so than just procreation. We live beyond our time when we breed, so we have also evolved to care for each other beyond just having children. This is genetically and socially reinforced with every new generation.

That’s why the evolutionary model for moral norms doesn’t work.
Evolution doesn’t even care if the human species survives. It would be beneficial to other species if we died. Evolution doesn’t care if any life form at all exists on earth. It is a mindless, blind, unintelligent process using random mutations and selections.

Using ‘care’ the in the context you are here: The universe may not care overall, but evolution has directed us to care for our species’ propagation and its psychological well-being too.

That’s what atheism is proclaiming as the source of morality. That’s why people will say that atheism is evil.

Atheism is not a world view, political view, or any other governing social view. Secular humanism is, liberalism is, conservatism, republican, democrat, nihilist, anarchy, etc are though. Ex: Person A believes 2 exists and presents the argument to Person B as 3+1=2. Person B does not believe 2 exists based on Person A’s bad logical presentation. Has Person B made a claim about the actual existence of 2? No, no they have not. 2 may still exist and if Person A presented the argument as 3-1=2, then Person B would be convinced that 2 exists. Now, can you get to a world view about Person B at all? I don’t believe you can.

 

[goout]

Isn’t this an argument from ignorance fallacy? We have evidence of the natural and of people acting morally, so it would follow that this is a natural development. We don’t appear to have the same evidence of the supernatural that we do for the natural though to make the same connection as I understand it.

The word nature can have so many shades of meaning.

In any case, nature does not exist of itself. Nothing creates itself. Everything comes from somewhere, or something, or someone. Evolution (science generally) is observation and description, can also be predictive etc…But it’s not meaning itself.

So nature can never provide an objective source of anything. We can merely look at how nature plays out and describe what has happened and continues to happen, and maybe predict what may happen.

You say “we have evidence”…Think about the etymology and meaning of the word evidence. Evidence requires a relationship between an observer and a reality.
Evidence is not “a priori” to other realities. Evidence is not a thing in itself. It points to something larger than the observer or the thing observed.
Is it fair to say evidence points to transcendence? Especially when we are talking about something outside the physical science realm?

 

[Russell_SA]

The word nature can have so many shades of meaning.
In any case, nature does not exist of itself. Nothing creates itself. Everything comes from somewhere, or something, or someone. Evolution (science generally) is observation and description, can also be predictive etc…But it’s not meaning itself.

I don’t agree with people that state the universe came from “nothing”. Only that we can only look at the universe from the point of the Big Bang and move forward. What happened before that is a big fat, “We don’t know.” It’s just a temporary barrier that we can’t look beyond yet.

So nature can never provide an objective source of anything. We can merely look at how nature plays out and describe what has happened and continues to happen, and maybe predict what may happen.

What makes you think that my selection of the promotion of human well-being does not have objective morality within that framework? I’m natural, I picked a reference point that allows for moral absolutes. So again it’s back to the reference point of your moral absolutes, were they instilled by a deity or by natural selection? Can’t tell the difference at this point, but since all we have is evidence of the natural, why suggest the supernatural at all? Replace supernatural with magic and it’s the same argument it seems to me. Or is that not a fair assessment of the point I presented?

You say “we have evidence”…Think about the etymology and meaning of the word evidence. Evidence requires a relationship between an observer and a reality.
Evidence is not “a priori” to other realities. Evidence is not a thing in itself. It points to something larger than the observer or the thing observed.
Is it fair to say evidence points to transcendence? Especially when we are talking about something outside the physical science realm?

Reality is the evidence of our interaction with it. I can point to reality as my reference point. Can I tell the difference between being in the matrix or reality? No, but I have to deal with the reality as I experience it and thus the reality I interact with is the evidence. I can point to the infinity position of Pi, but in reality we can never reach it, so it’s really meaningless unless we can go there to investigate it. We can point to the idea that there may be something before the big bang, but what that is, no one knows and anyone that does can’t justify it yet. Example: Einstein’s mathematical prediction of gravity waves. Based on his understanding of reality through mathematical representation, he was able to argue that gravity waves exist. So he believed them to be there, but could not support it through actual evidence of referring to the common reality we all experience. Not until 2015 when we actually detected the evidence of gravity waves, did we start teaching this as a fact of this reality. Pointing to realms of alternate realities is interesting, but not really meaningful until we can detect that realm to be any different than any other cultural realm or literary realm imagined.

Off to work on my aquarium, hope I can get the panels installed tonight.

 

[goout]

I don’t agree with people that state the universe came from “nothing”. Only that we can only look at the universe from the point of the Big Bang and move forward. What happened before that is a big fat, “We don’t know.” It’s just a temporary barrier that we can’t look beyond yet.

This is a very Christian point of view.

Depending on how you want to phrase it, creation does not come strictly from it’s own “ex-nihilo”, it comes from the everything that God is. So no, the universe does not spring forth like magic.

“we don’t know” is we what call mystery. Mystery is not the ignorance or intellectual capitulation that modern people have defined, it is allowing for something transcendent in that space where the intellect fails. What we know points to that which is yet to be known. What we know signifies an ever deeper reality. Think about how science does this: it’s an ever growing body of discovery pointing to ever deeper realities.
There is a relationship between the words sacramentum and mysterion.

We consider the barrier to perfect knowledge to indeed be temporary as you say, much as the bride and bridegroom do not have perfect knowledge of each other at once.

 

[goout]

What makes you think that my selection of the promotion of human well-being does not have objective morality within that framework? **I’m **natural, I picked a reference point that allows for moral absolutes. So again it’s back to the reference point of your moral absolutes, were they instilled by a deity or by natural selection? Can’t tell the difference at this point, but since all we have is evidence of the natural, why suggest the supernatural at all? Replace supernatural with magic and it’s the same argument it seems to me. Or is that not a fair assessment of the point I presented?

The word “I” and “my” is at odds with your quest for absolutes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

However, reality does not give us this law. It is not the law maker. Because the law is “there is a difference between true and false”.
But, reality could show this idea to be different: “That which exists is true. Ideas exist. So, every idea is true”.

There seem to be some logical flaws at work here…

First up - what sort of “truth” are you referring to.
e.g. there is “consistent” truth and there is “adequate” truth and there is “existential” truth.

“Unicorns have only one horn” is a consistent truth because the predicate is consistent with the definition of the animal we refer to. It does not tell us if such an animal actually exists or ever existed.

That the earth is flat is an existential truth that some persons with remarkable sophistry continue to logically maintain in the face of serious (but never 100.00000% coercive) evidence against that proposition. So this truth may be both consistent and, to them, existential. However it is not “adequate” as a model because there are simpler models that make more and easier sense of both the maths and the experience of sailors and astronauts. Okchams razor and all that.

So yes, reality is a lawmaker (or at least a judge) - it gives pretty good evidence whether or not a hypothesis or theory is true. If its predictive its better than any model that isn’t or is less so.

 

[reggieM]

“Unicorns have only one horn” is a consistent truth because the predicate is consistent with the definition of the animal we refer to. It does not tell us if such an animal actually exists or ever existed.

You’re using logic to establish that there is a difference between true and not true. But logic depends on that difference. It cannot establish it. The ideas true and false come before there can be any logic or rational thought.

So yes, reality is a lawmaker (or at least a judge) - it gives pretty good evidence whether or not a hypothesis or theory is true. If its predictive its better than any model that isn’t or is less so.

Reality does not tell us something is false. Our human reason tells us that, because we have (in our human nature as you said) embedded in us the understanding of what true means and what false means. That distinction does not come from reality, but from our minds.

A rock does not know what is true or false.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You’re using logic to establish that there is a difference between true and not true. But logic depends on that difference. It cannot establish it. The ideas true and false come before there can be any logic or rational thought.

Reality does not tell us something is false. Our human reason tells us that, because we have (in our human nature as you said) embedded in us the understanding of what true means and what false means. That distinction does not come from reality, but from our minds.

A rock does not know what is true or false.

I really have no idea what you are saying…and likely noone else here either.
Once you can provide a coherent and consistent definition of truth do come back.

 

[Russell_SA]

The word “I” and “my” is at odds with your quest for absolutes.

If you replace “promotion of human well-being” with “god”, then it becomes the same argument from a religious point. Once you’ve picked your reference point of morality it can have absolutes. As I’ve heard the argument from the moral absolute point of a deity, the reason its morally absolute is in its benefit to human well-being. So I just jump to human well-being as the reference point of moral absolutes and by pass the cultural add on of the supernatural.

 

[Russell_SA]

This is a very Christian point of view.

Depending on how you want to phrase it, creation does not come strictly from it’s own “ex-nihilo”, it comes from the everything that God is. So no, the universe does not spring forth like magic.

“we don’t know” is we what call mystery. Mystery is not the ignorance or intellectual capitulation that modern people have defined, it is allowing for something transcendent in that space where the intellect fails. What we know points to that which is yet to be known. What we know signifies an ever deeper reality. Think about how science does this: it’s an ever growing body of discovery pointing to ever deeper realities.
There is a relationship between the words sacramentum and mysterion.

We consider the barrier to perfect knowledge to indeed be temporary as you say, much as the bride and bridegroom do not have perfect knowledge of each other at once.

I look at “perfect knowledge” as unattainable goal. It’s like looking for perfect Pi in math, finding the infinite value of it. What makes you think there is a perfect value of knowledge at all? If culture A believes X act is the “perfect way” or has “perfect knowledge” to solve a problem, would they ever challenge that assumption in the future and reassess its truthfulness to the social situation? No I don’t believe they would. It stinks of, perform terrible social action X because my god told me so, and since my god has perfect knowledge, I can not challenge or even think about if this is correct or moral at all. Now if using pi to the 13th decimal place gives you ~100% accuracy for what problem you are attempting to solve, like landing a mars rover on mars, then that would be “perfect knowledge” since it’s “good enough” to solve the problem. If you are talking about “perfect knowledge” the way I would use “good enough”, then I can get on board with that.

How do you know it is a god that everything came from? Seems like the argument just goes back to the temporal idea of A comes before B and so if the universe is B, something must be there for A. But in a place where there is no temporal time, how can you have an A before, after, B at all? Time is necessarily linear as I understand it. I can’t wrap my mind around non-linear time events yet. How does calling A, god, provide any understanding about how the universe came about? It’s solving a mystery with a bigger mystery. Imagining something that can do everything, is not an answer. We explain things that we don’t understand by comparison to things that we do understand as I understand it. Inventing a being that has the power to do anything and the ability to choose to intervene or not to and exists in a place we can not investigate necessarily makes this entity come across as absolutely no different than the idea of “random chance”. How do we tell the difference between the two? If we can’t, why would we be justified in ever concluding that it was a deity at all?

If this conversation shifts to the existence of a deity, then that’s fine, but not really why this conversation thread started. But we can go there. Perhaps we have to for this conversation.