Moral Behavior

[ausculta]

Hello Sarah,

You have put forth a number of really good questions and I look forward to unpacking this difficult topic with you.

What is the difference between the fact that you dont steal because you have a commandment not to, and I dont steal because it is wrong.

There is a difference and a simularity. We both seem to know that “stealing is wrong”. At the heart of the “Argument from Morality” is the distinction between moral epistemology (how are moral values known) and moral metaphysics (the existence of moral values). The Christian apologist is not asserting that non-believers cannot know moral values – which is demonstratably false as per your post. But the apologist is asserting that without a prior belief in God moral values cannot exist objectively (independent of what you and I know or think about them). The classic form of the argument is as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective values and duties do exist.
   Therefore
3. God exists.

What do you think about the first two premises?

 

[atheistgirl]

No, but Christians potentially have an eternal price to pay. Maybe we have more of an incentive to not steal??

Yes. And atheists do not say there is no God. We say there is no sufficient proof there is a God.

You think YOU got problems if there is a God

I’ll be in so much doo-doo a shovel the size of mars and all the time in the world wont dig me out of it



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Hello Sarah,

You have put forth a number of really good questions and I look forward to unpacking this difficult topic with you.

There is a difference and a simularity. We both seem to know that “stealing is wrong”. At the heart of the “Argument from Morality” is the distinction between moral epistemology (how are moral values known) and moral metaphysics (the existence of moral values). The Christian apologist is not asserting that non-believers cannot know moral values – which is demonstratably false as per your post. But the apologist is asserting that without a prior belief in God moral values cannot exist objectively (independent of what you and I know or think about them). The classic form of the argument is as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective values and duties do exist.
   Therefore
3. God exists.

What do you think about the first two premises?

You’ll have to forgive me - since coming here my vocabulary has improved like you dont know I dont have all the nice fancy exact and precise philosophical words, but looking at your first two statements I would say:

1. Objective morals and values do exist - they have developed over our evolutionary history - why do I think that - well, it makes sense to us that as a species we are stronger, better able to survive and adapt, likely to live longer and all the rest if we co-operate with each other. Over a long period of time we can see that not stealing from each other, being honest with each other, and not killing each other actually works to our advantage. We 're not silly (mostly!!) so we absorb these ‘‘values’’ and lessons, and they become objective, because there is no real situation where when as a community we lie steal and kill, that the community thrives. We can see that. You can see that at work today where law and order has broken down. People will break the law, but society as a whole know that’s not a good thing, it’s not good for the individuals in that society. So, I would say the values are objective. It doesnt matter that X thinks it’s ok to steal, and Y thinks it’s not - the fact is for the good of the individual and society it is NOT good to steal. That will always be objectively true. People will steal, we know this, and sometimes they may argue it was necessary - and society recognises this in the sentences it hands down (Im not talking about societies where they cut your hands off!!) but if everyone stole the whole of society would break down. And everyone knows this.
2. I agree - objective morals and values do exist. They are written on our hearts to put it romantically. When I was teaching my youngest to ride her bicycle, I thought there was something wrong with her. She just took forever to ‘‘get it’’. But riding a bicycle isnt natural. We need to work on getting the skill.
   But when I taught all my kids about right and wrong - they got it right away. My words were speaking to something that they innately already knew. Thats why they didnt need to be told over and over and over it was wrong to hit your sister, it is wrong to steal the cookie and so on. (Thats not to say they didnt but they KNEW it was wrong so the punishment was anticipated and accepted in good grace… no, wait, good grace, who am I kidding…

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

…

Hey - Ive just noticed - good luck with your final profession

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Here’s some questions. First, why does something not harming others make it good, or at least neutral? Why is harm evil? Next, why does the feeling in your heart show or determine what is right or wrong? It is merely an emotion.

It’s more than a feeling, and emotion, it’s knowledge. We both feel and know it is wrong. It’s something innate to all of us, excluding those that are seriously mentally ill where judgement is seriously impaired and empathy is lacking.
Harming is not always bad or evil. If my doctor gives me an innoculation, she is harming me. She is stabbing me, and then injecting a poison or virus into me - but we know from the wonderful scientists and researchers that the correct small dose of a poison or virus can immunise us against it.
But that cant compare to the harm that raping someone, or robbing them at knifepoint does. That harm is evil and wrong, precisely because of the harm and damage and hurt it inflicts on the person.

Sarah x

 

[hxcCatholic413]

A lot of threads that touch on atheism invariably touch on morals and morality, and the accusation is usually something along the lines that the morality of atheists is relative, as we do not defer or refer to an absolute authority on the matter.
I’ve been thinking about this - so let me couch my question like this:
What is the difference between the fact that you dont steal because you have a commandment not to, and I dont steal because it is wrong.
What is the difference between the fact that you dont kill because you have a commandment that says you shouldnt, and the fact I dont kill out of respect for all human life - this includes by the way the unborn, and I am also opposed to the death penalty - something not all churches say.
What is the difference between the fact you dont tell lies because you have been commanded not to, and I dont tell lies because I love the truth and hate lies because you can never know where you are with lies and liars.
Is there a difference?
As a believer, is your morality somehow superior to mine?
Can you hold a moral view that I cant by virtue of the fact that you say your morality is absolute and mine you claim is relative?
I ask out of a heady mixture of interest, curiosity and ignorance and hope the way Ive posed the questions are charitable and do not cause anyone any offense.

Sarah x

sounds to me that the Holy Spirit has inspired you! Good Luck and God Bless!

 

[atheistgirl]

WHY is it human nature? Where will you find it written in the genetic code? Where is your evidence? Why should we accept that you say, "It was ‘glamorized’(regarding those who did wrong)? What of the many criminals (you can find examples just Googling) today, often young adults, who simply do not seem to know right from wrong? (Often called ‘amoral’). Where is your proof that a knowledge of right and wrong is ‘human nature’ and how do you explain that to one person or group something is ‘wrong’ and to another person or group it is 'right?'

Because we’re human and we have evolved to work in co-operation with one another. I dont think scientists have yet found a gene for morality, but we know for example, that when the brain is damaged, behaviors that are harmful to the individual and to others can come to the fore - so that might suggest there is some sort of connection between whats happening chemically inside us, and how we behave??
You just have to look at movies today, and look at the histories and infamy of people like Bonnie and Clyde, Ned Kelly, the pirates of old, and not so old, fictional characters like Robin Hood to see how these people are glamorized.

Sarah x

 

[AntiTheist]

**WHY is it human nature? Where will you find it written in the genetic code? Where is your evidence?**You might find interesting Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, where he explores the implications of what neuroscientists are discovering about our evolution of behavioral patterns.

Your posts strike me as coming from someone not aware of all of our findings in this area of biology. Social animals – unsurprisingly – have codes and rules that they follow, “hardwired” into them by the evolutionary process (i.e. their ancestors who were inclined to cooperate tended to survive – strength in numbers and all that – and passed on their cooperative genes).

For example, wolf packs have rather strict codes of behavior. There have been cases where we’ve observed wolves being literally exiled from the pack for violating one of their “laws” (one of the most serious being never to attack the young of the pack).

So, given all of this, it’s completely unsurprising that humans – being cooperative animals – similarly have a sense of “morality” hardwired into them naturally.

Sometimes, I use the analogy of a game of chess. Is there a “best” move in the game of chess? For example, is Knight to Q3 always the best move to make? It would be silly to declare one “the best” for no reason at all. But given a specific goal and a specific set of circumstances, it’s quite possible to determine the move or moves that would be the best ones to allow you to reach the goal (and it’s certainly possible to identify the ones that would absolutely hinder reaching that goal).

Similarly, our societies tend to be made up of people with common goals (cooperate, have private property, not get killed). Given those common goals and a specific set of circumstances, it is very possible to determine what we should be doing and what we clearly should not be doing and what we should try to discourage through laws.

Doubtlessly, someone will object, “But…but…that’s not absolute!” And of course it’s not. The universe doesn’t give two quips about what people do. There’s no cosmic record keeper watching you and marking ticks in his book when you do “good” things or “bad” things: “good” and “bad” are terms we’ve invented for discursive convenience – they don’t designate absolutes or imperatives.

And if you’re uncomfortable living in a universe like that, then too bad. You don’t get to choose what reality is like.

 

[JDaniel]

1. Objective morals and values do exist - they have developed over our evolutionary history - why do I think that - well, it makes sense to us that as a species we are stronger, better able to survive and adapt, likely to live longer and all the rest if we co-operate with each other. Over a long period of time we can see that not stealing from each other, being honest with each other, and not killing each other actually works to our advantage.

Hello, Sarah:

Whenever I am tempted to think along those lines I ask myself to consider the beginning, when the first 40 to 50 people lived in the fertile crescent. By way of your theory, it would be safe to say that no moral values existed at that time. 40 - 50 people could have self-annihilated themselves very quickly, and left only bones for the imaginary people of the future to maybe find.

We 're not silly (mostly!!) so we absorb these ‘‘values’’ and lessons, and they become objective, because there is no real situation where when as a community we lie steal and kill, that the community thrives.

And, is that so when there were but 5 - 7 people on this planet? (Notice I am entailing odd numbers.)

We can see that. You can see that at work today where law and order has broken down. People will break the law, but society as a whole know that’s not a good thing, it’s not good for the individuals in that society. So, I would say the values are objective.

If ‘values’, such as those you’ve expressed are, as you say, ‘objective’, from whence do they come? If they come from humans, they are not “objective” they are “subjective.”

It doesnt matter that X thinks it’s ok to steal, and Y thinks it’s not - the fact is for the good of the individual and society it is NOT good to steal. That will always be objectively true. People will steal, we know this, and sometimes they may argue it was necessary - and society recognises this in the sentences it hands down (Im not talking about societies where they cut your hands off!!) but if everyone stole the whole of society would break down. And everyone knows this.

All of this seems fine, until one wonders how this was accomplished in the earliest of days.

1. I agree - objective morals and values do exist. They are written on our hearts to put it romantically.

What does this mean?

When I was teaching my youngest to ride her bicycle, I thought there was something wrong with her. She just took forever to ‘‘get it’’. But riding a bicycle isnt natural. We need to work on getting the skill.

Hmmm.

But when I taught all my kids about right and wrong - they got it right away.

That’s wonderful! Your children were very, very different from mine.

My words were speaking to something that they innately already knew. Thats why they didnt need to be told over and over and over it was wrong to hit your sister, it is wrong to steal the cookie and so on. (Thats not to say they didnt but they KNEW it was wrong so the punishment was anticipated and accepted in good grace… no, wait, good grace, who am I kidding…

See?

God bless,
jd

 

[AntiTheist]

So, I would say the values are objective.

There’s a potential language problem here.

When Sarah says “values are objective,” I assume that she means something along the lines of “the core values of human beings are hard-wired into them by virtue of their evolutionary history and are very consistent from person to person and from culture to culture.”

For this to make sense, we have to be talking about “core values” – things like desiring not to be killed and desiring to work with others to ensure survival. We’re not talking about values in the sense of individual taste, such as, “Horror movies are fun to watch.”

While Sarah probably means something like that, the theists tend to mean something different by “objective” – they mean something along the lines of, “True in an absolute sense for all people and for all time because a god declares it to be so.”

Oddly, they don’t see any problem with calling these values “objective” in this sense, even though they simultaneously claim that theses values come from the mind of god (and should thus be considered subjective).

 

[Touchstone]

You’ll have to forgive me - since coming here my vocabulary has improved like you dont know I dont have all the nice fancy exact and precise philosophical words, but looking at your first two statements I would say:

1. Objective morals and values do exist - they have developed over our evolutionary history - why do I think that - well, it makes sense to us that as a species we are stronger, better able to survive and adapt, likely to live longer and all the rest if we co-operate with each other. Over a long period of time we can see that not stealing from each other, being honest with each other, and not killing each other actually works to our advantage. We 're not silly (mostly!!) so we absorb these ‘‘values’’ and lessons, and they become objective, because there is no real situation where when as a community we lie steal and kill, that the community thrives. We can see that. You can see that at work today where law and order has broken down. People will break the law, but society as a whole know that’s not a good thing, it’s not good for the individuals in that society. So, I would say the values are objective. It doesnt matter that X thinks it’s ok to steal, and Y thinks it’s not - the fact is for the good of the individual and society it is NOT good to steal. That will always be objectively true. People will steal, we know this, and sometimes they may argue it was necessary - and society recognises this in the sentences it hands down (Im not talking about societies where they cut your hands off!!) but if everyone stole the whole of society would break down. And everyone knows this.

This is good! From a materialist’s standpoint, there are two levels of answer to the question, and you’ve addressed each well, I think. “Objective Morals” in the first sense is like “square circle” – “objective subjective”. But, while our particular values and morals develop from our subjective impulses, we are “objective animals”. That is, there is a good case to be made, on the evidence, that humans do have an objective “moral grammar”, as Marc Hauser calls it, which isn’t chosen, isn’t avoidable, and is just as objective – independent of mind, will or preference – as the color of that person’s eyes.

Contra William Lane Craig (and this is what makes his bombast so annoying – this is all right there to digest and process one wants), humans do have an “objective nature” in terms of their rudimentary psychology, their basic moral impulses, just as objectively as humans have spines, a certain number of ribs, two legs, five digits on each hand, etc. But beyond this objective, natural core, the particulars are individual centric, subjective, pertaining to the will and preferences of the individual. A bedrock moral substrate that is objective, but layered with purely subjective developments on top.

1. I agree - objective morals and values do exist. They are written on our hearts to put it romantically. When I was teaching my youngest to ride her bicycle, I thought there was something wrong with her. She just took forever to ‘‘get it’’. But riding a bicycle isnt natural. We need to work on getting the skill.
   But when I taught all my kids about right and wrong - they got it right away. My words were speaking to something that they innately already knew. Thats why they didnt need to be told over and over and over it was wrong to hit your sister, it is wrong to steal the cookie and so on. (Thats not to say they didnt but they KNEW it was wrong so the punishment was anticipated and accepted in good grace… no, wait, good grace, who am I kidding…

Sarah x

Yes, what superstition long held out as “natural theology” was… nature. Biology in action, adaptations toward survival and optimization in a challenging environment.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Oddly, they don’t see any problem with calling these values “objective” in this sense, even though they simultaneously claim that theses values come from the mind of god (and should thus be considered subjective).

A language problem indeed. When you have “from the mind of…” and call that “objective”, you’re pretty much hosed, language wise. Words mean whatever we want them to mean, and that’s a good example of that autonomy at the limits, a kind of confusing black for white, or supposing they are well used as interchangeables.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

A language problem indeed. When you have “from the mind of…” and call that “objective”, you’re pretty much hosed, language wise. Words mean whatever we want them to mean, and that’s a good example of that autonomy at the limits, a kind of confusing black for white, or supposing they are well used as interchangeables.

-TS

Now T.S., you know that meaning derives from usage (i.e., common usage). The common usage of ‘objective’ is ‘coming at us from outside of the minds (desires, perequisites, prerogatives, self-intersts, egoism) of men.’

Contrasted with subjective: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
a matter of objective fact. - Oxford Dictionary

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

Now T.S., you know that meaning derives from usage (i.e., common usage). The common usage of ‘objective’ is ‘coming at us from outside of the minds (desires, perequisites, prerogatives, self-intersts, egoism) of men.’
Contrasted with subjective: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
a matter of objective fact. - Oxford DictionaryGod bless,
jd

The “of men”, though, is ad-hoc, and contrary to the principle. If aliens showed up, objective reality is what is, objectively, independently of their minds, will, and preferences, too. It’s not got anything to do with “men”, but mind, will and preference as mind, will, preference. God doesn’t change that any more than aliens would. If reality is dependent on the mind/will/preference of God, then on the principle, reality is subjective in the final sense, rather than objective.

That may be the case. But either way, the semantics don’t get inverted that way, as they do when theists flip the poles and suppose that “of God’s will” is “objective”. That defeats the very principle we use the word “objective” for! I get the apologetic value, but it’s linguistic cynicism is transparent.

-TS

 

[John21652]

A lot of threads that touch on atheism invariably touch on morals and morality, and the accusation is usually something along the lines that the morality of atheists is relative, as we do not defer or refer to an absolute authority on the matter.

…

As a believer, is your morality somehow superior to mine?
Can you hold a moral view that I cant by virtue of the fact that you say your morality is absolute and mine you claim is relative?
I ask out of a heady mixture of interest, curiosity and ignorance and hope the way Ive posed the questions are charitable and do not cause anyone any offense.

Sarah x

Hi Sara.

Having read through this entire thread and, of course, beginning with your original post, it is rather obvious that you have cottoned on to objective concepts like Truth and Justice. You ask what is the difference between being good because you think being good is beneficial to all and being good because someone else said so! None, except that you manage to see what many don’t, or can’t see. You ask if the morality of those who do what is good because they are told to do so is any superior to your voluntary morality. The moral acts are the same, but you get lots more browny points for doing it all by yourself. Elsewhere you asked about why people need Commandments, or Laws, to make them be good, which you said was due to ‘human nature’. That’s true - in part. Mankind is inclined to be a bit naughty on occasions. True. However it is only one part of human nature and not the whole.

However, the fact that you see the objectivity of what is good and what constitutes good outcomes, leads me to the conclusion that you have discovered Natural Law morality. You confirm my proposition here -

Because they do not harm to my family, children, community and society, and we can demonstrate they actually do good. That’s good enough for me - and it doesnt require any further validation. We all know in our hearts what natural justice looks like and feels like. Thats why I think its interesting to explore if there is any difference to the above if done for my reasons, or done for religious reasons - or is the outcomes and benefits the same.

Sarah x http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

I’m not sure the “we all know” applies. Perhaps it would be better written as “we should all know”! It has been said Moses was given the Ten Commandments up on the mountain because men had forgotten what was written on their hearts. That was confirmed when Moses came back down to find that his intrepid followers had built a golden calf because they wanted faster action. Of course Moses threw a hissy fit… The point is, you seem to intuitively be aware of certain objectively discernable facts about human nature and t what constitutes the good. That is what we would call an awareness of the Natural Law and its resultant morality.

Some will also say, well hang on a minute, Natural Law is a ‘God thing’. The thing is, God can be left out of the Natural Law enquiry and it still yields valid results. Now, some will say ‘that’s heresy’. I’d then point them in the direction of one Hugo Grotius, who wrote in 1625 in De Jure Belli ac Pacis that -

“…even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has”.

In other words, he was saying that there is an objectively discernable Natural Law and an applicable objective moral order, discoverable through the use of man’s reason and through rational enquiry. That rational enquiry has been underway since the days of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics and Natural Law has underpinned the development of our western Judeo-Christian heritage. The Natural Law is the foundation stone of the Catholic Catechism.

In Post #21 ausculta articulated that a prior belief in God is a prerequisite to accepting that objective moral values exist. That would mean that the enquiry into the Natural Law and Natural Law morality is entirely theological and dependent upon revelation. That is not the case. Since mankind began his philosophical musings he has been learning to use his reasoning powers to arrive at certain conclusions about how the world is ordered and how mankind should order his morality. It would seem that you have joined that rational enquiry of your own volition.

There was a famous Jesuit Priest, one Francis Copleston, (he famously took on Bertrand Russell in a 1948 BBC Radio debate on the existence of God.) In 1955 he wrote a book simply called Aquinas. In it, he wrote this -

“In fine, all creatures below man participate unconsciously in the eternal law, which is reflected in their natural tendencies, and they do not possess the freedom which is required in order to be able to act in a mariner incompatible with this law. It is therefore essential that he [man] should know the eternal law in so far as it concerns himself. Yet, how can he know it? He cannot read, as it were, the mind of God… [but] he can discern the fundamental tendencies and needs of his nature, and by reflecting on them he can come to a knowledge of the natural moral law…. Every man possesses … the light of reason whereby he can reflect … and promulgate to himself the natural law, which is the totality of the universal precepts or dictates of right reason concerning the good which is to be pursued and the evil which is to be shunned.”

 

[dskysmine]

Now T.S., you know that meaning derives from usage (i.e., common usage). The common usage of ‘objective’ is ‘coming at us from outside of the minds (desires, perequisites, prerogatives, self-intersts, egoism) of men.’

Contrasted with subjective: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
a matter of objective fact. - Oxford Dictionary

God bless,
jd

I don’t think that that definition really applies here. Mathematics is dependent on the mind for existence and yet it is objective knowledge, i.e. it is independent of the subject, because it is the same for person A and person B regardless of language, belief, or any other factor.

 

[ausculta]

Hello again,

Thanks for responding

You’ll have to forgive me - since coming here my vocabulary has improved like you dont know I dont have all the nice fancy exact and precise philosophical words, but looking at your first two statements I would say:

No apology is necessary. If terms are a stumbling block for either of us we can take the time to clarify or define them.

1. Objective morals and values do exist - they have developed over our evolutionary history - why do I think that - well, it makes sense to us that as a species we are stronger, better able to survive and adapt, likely to live longer and all the rest if we co-operate with each other. Over a long period of time we can see that not stealing from each other, being honest with each other, and not killing each other actually works to our advantage. We 're not silly (mostly!!) so we absorb these ‘‘values’’ and lessons, and they become objective, because there is no real situation where when as a community we lie steal and kill, that the community thrives. We can see that. You can see that at work today where law and order has broken down. People will break the law, but society as a whole know that’s not a good thing, it’s not good for the individuals in that society. So, I would say the values are objective. It doesnt matter that X thinks it’s ok to steal, and Y thinks it’s not - the fact is for the good of the individual and society it is NOT good to steal. That will always be objectively true. People will steal, we know this, and sometimes they may argue it was necessary - and society recognizes this in the sentences it hands down (Im not talking about societies where they cut your hands off!!) but if everyone stole the whole of society would break down. And everyone knows this.

I agree. Stealing does have natural consequences. I guess my my only concern would be whether or not that renders stealing “wrong” based on consequences alone? If so, that would make the value of the moral claim utilitarian (the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility and minimizing negative utility – per Wikipedia). I wonder if we could imagine a society where it would be beneficial to allow stealing. Some would say that socialism is stealing. The Nazi regime officially stole from certain demographics of its population for purposes of utility for its Aryan majority.

Also, I wonder whether or not this actually grounds the moral value objectively. If these values indeed “developed” along some “evolutionary” line, then perhaps they are still developing. Are the values really objective if they are transient, i.e. potentially still developing? It seems completely arbitrary.

One option posted by Antitheist:

Contra William Lane Craig -](and this is what makes his bombast so annoying/-] – this is all right there to digest and process one wants), humans do have an “objective nature” in terms of their rudimentary psychology, their basic moral impulses, just as objectively as humans have spines, a certain number of ribs, two legs, five digits on each hand, etc. But beyond this objective, natural core, the particulars are individual centric, subjective, pertaining to the will and preferences of the individual. A bedrock moral substrate that is objective, but layered with purely subjective developments on top.

Minus the rhetoric, I can see that this is a noble attempt at grounding moral values in material things. In this case they are grounded in the property of an object, i.e. the “psychology” of a human being. So the goodness of moral value “x” is as the color of object “y”. Does that seem right? Are we willing to say that the good is as color, weight, size, shape, etc of an object? In that case it could have been otherwise, which is the point – still arbitrary. We can know through our “psychological” make-up some moral values (a la natural law), but their ontological make-up is still a bit uncertain. I don’t see how grounding them in the properties of human beings gives them solid enough ground for being objective. The properties could still have been otherwise.

At least Antitheist is honest enough to admit that most of our moral values (as expressed in “particulars”) are completely subjective and arbitrary. But I still do not see how the “objective moral core” is not also essentially arbitrary.

1. I agree - objective morals and values do exist. They are written on our hearts to put it romantically. When I was teaching my youngest to ride her bicycle, I thought there was something wrong with her. She just took forever to ‘‘get it’’. But riding a bicycle isnt natural. We need to work on getting the skill.
   But when I taught all my kids about right and wrong - they got it right away. My words were speaking to something that they innately already knew. Thats why they didnt need to be told over and over and over it was wrong to hit your sister, it is wrong to steal the cookie and so on. (Thats not to say they didnt but they KNEW it was wrong so the punishment was anticipated and accepted in good grace… no, wait, good grace, who am I kidding…

Sarah x

I love your personal touches on the topic. The experience of a mother is profound. You are quite right about our ability to “know” objective moral values. Both theists and atheists (and children) can know them without invoking God. But remember my first distinction earlier, the problem is not know-ability but exist-ability. Do these moral values exist objectively as values independently of human development via evolutionary properties? In other words, could the objective moral values be otherwise if we were otherwise hardwired? If so, are they really objective in a metaphysical sense?

Have a great day. And thanks for the well-wishes on my profession.

 

[ausculta]

In Post #21 ausculta articulated that a prior belief in God is a prerequisite to accepting that objective moral values exist. That would mean that the enquiry into the Natural Law and Natural Law morality is entirely theological and dependent upon revelation. That is not the case. Since mankind began his philosophical musings he has been learning to use his reasoning powers to arrive at certain conclusions about how the world is ordered and how mankind should order his morality. It would seem that you have joined that rational enquiry of your own volition.

Inquiry into the Natural Law would constitute the work of moral epistemology, but my distinction is about moral ontology. We can come to “know” moral values by looking at the Natural Law. But how do these laws exist or in what are they grounded is another matter.

God’s Peace!

 

[Biedrik]

It’s more than a feeling, and emotion, it’s knowledge. We both feel and know it is wrong. It’s something innate to all of us, excluding those that are seriously mentally ill where judgement is seriously impaired and empathy is lacking.
Harming is not always bad or evil. If my doctor gives me an innoculation, she is harming me. She is stabbing me, and then injecting a poison or virus into me - but we know from the wonderful scientists and researchers that the correct small dose of a poison or virus can immunise us against it.
But that cant compare to the harm that raping someone, or robbing them at knifepoint does. That harm is evil and wrong, precisely because of the harm and damage and hurt it inflicts on the person.

Sarah x

But why does our “feeling” and “knowing” make it wrong? Why do those show morality? Why aren’t they mere emotions or thoughts?

 

[ignatius777]

But that’s my point. Believers have a commandment that says it is wrong to steal. But is anyone suggesting that the people of the desert, up until Moses came down from the mountain with the ten commandments, had no clue it was wrong to steal? Surely not.
We KNOW it is wrong to steal, we know it innately. It’s part of our social evolution as a species.
No one could pass a civil law to say it’s ok to steal, because we KNOW it is not. Natural justice.
I think it’s interesting that you and I both have come to the same conclusions, but from very different paths.
That’s what’s sparked the question if your not stealing is somehow better than me not stealing, because you have a commandment.

Sarah x

The very fact that you KNOW anything let alone its not nice to steal is not the result of an evolutionary process. BUT if it was then that means at some point people didnt KNOW it wasnt ok to steal.