Moral Behavior

[mark_a]

But isnt that PRECICELY what is mandated in the old books of the Bible and Koran? The raping and pillaging of your enemy, The taking of the women of other tribes as chattle. The stoning of a woman to death for adultry whille the man can pay a fine. The raping of a virgin girl before killing her as you cant kill a virgin in islam?

Could it be that secular societies actually got the ideas from the religious writers?
I dont know and Im not suggesting they did - Im just exploring the idea.

Sarah x

Those are great questions too.

I don’t presume to be the mouthpiece of Catholicism (that job is already taken), much less Islam (they don’t even have such an office).

Arent most of these horrific behaviours and punishments actually madated in the old religious books?

The teachings of Jesus, although they still haven’t completely sunken in on all of us, have been *the *driving force that has changed all that. Remember, we live in a waning Christian culture.

 

[Touchstone]

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?

That was me, rather than Antitheist, by the way, above there. Dunno if he’d agree with what I’ve said or not here.

As to “right”, I don’t know if you are asking if that seems like the way it should be of if that is the way it appears to be. In both cases, it doesn’t seem a problem. If we have developed social contracts as gregarious beings, the values that drive those contracts have to evolve from somewhere.

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.
I don’t know what you mean by arbitrary. “Could have been otherwise” does not entail abritrariness. If we rewound the tape of history, man (and the other species) would have turned out somewhat different (or perhaps dramatically different) due to stochastic processes inherent in the environment (and thus evolution).

If there is no God involved, and thus no choice of mind or personality in all this – it’s objective in its obtaining. It’s only arbitrary to the extent a volitional will gets involved. Many events at the quantum level are random, but that’s something more like the opposite of 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.

“Could have been otherwise” doesn’t change the objectivity a bit, so long as the “otherwise”, or any of the outcomes are not determined by a will, a mind. So, on atheism, “could have been otherwise” is irrelevant in terms of objectivity. It may have been otherwise, but it is what is, and was not determined by a mind, a will that would make it a subjective reality.

On theism (or common, major forms of it, anyway), the “could have been otherwise” does negate the objectivity of that reality, BECAUSE A MIND DETERMINED IT. It’s not the “otherwise” that’s problematic, then, but the cause of any otherwise. On atheism, nature is just being its impersonal what-it-is. On theism, reality is just conceptual play-doh in the mind of God, as plastic and malleable as play-doh is in a child’s hands, just as subject to whims and will.

That is where subjectivity obtains.

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.

Hopefully I’ve addressed that to your satisfaction above.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

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.

Do you need to accept the premise of that accusation? Can’t the moral knowledge you lay claim to function as an absolute authority? (I don’t think there’s an obvious answer to this question.)

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?

Of course there’s a conceptual difference, but you state it in a way that is suggestive of a false dichotomy. Can you see that? It is best to recognize both the nature of moral prohibitions as ‘commands’ and the fact that they are not arbitrary commands, foreign to our intuitive moral sensibilities.

As far as the most advanced state of moral virtue, Augustine says, “Love and do what thou wilt” (i.e., emphasizing the transcendence of the stage of obeying commands by needing to defer to them as such).

As a believer, is your morality somehow superior to mine?

Probably - but it’s probably safer to avoid such abstractly posed questions.

 

[puzzleannie]

A 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 -

we are speaking ;about precisely the same thing
there is a commandment about it because it is wrong, the 10 commandments spell out offenses against natural law and against God because there is an innate recognition in every human heart that is not disordered by sin or psychosis that these things are wrong and cannot be tolerated in a well ordered society. Because we recognize they are wrong, we recognize the justice of the commandment stating it. Because you recognize they are wrong, you are able to construct (as most atheists do) a valid moral code and ethic to live by. They were wrong before the commandments were given to Moses, because God says so, that he has already instilled them in every human he creates. Whether or not you acknowledge existence and operation of such a Creator, who by definition would have authority over his creation and define the rules for its ordered existence, you still, by virtue of being human, know the moral law. There is a corresponding innate recognition of God, higher power, laws of existence, laws of nature however one wishes to designate it, that govern how the universe, and the human race, operates and functions properly.

 

[vsedriver]

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

without a universal agreed upon standard for ‘sufficient proof’ you can’t make that statement. Because I have sufficient proof that there is a God.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

if they innately already knew right from wrong there would be no need for you to teach them the concept.

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

then how do you explain those children who do need to be taught over and over what is right and what is wrong?

a child learns moral behavior from the parent. that’s how they form their inner conscience. If you were raised in a culture that said it was OK to steal from your neighbor you would have no pangs of conscience when you helped yourself to your neighbor’s goods.

One of the most interesting parables is that of the Good Samaritan where Christ pointedly defines who our neighbor is. He eliminated a lot of loopholes.

Without God as the final authority on morality and the Holy Spirit protected Church you can not have absolute morality. The evidence is all around you! Abortion, pornography, teen pregnancies, etc.

 

[mdrummer5]

if they innately already knew right from wrong there would be no need for you to teach them the concept.

This.

Morality is entirely learned. There is no innate sense of it. Atheistgirl if that appeared to be the case that means that you simply served as a good example to your children

In terms of psychology there are considered to be 6 steps in the development of morality called Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. It’s actually quite interesting especially when you see grown people that are still in or have regressed back to a reward/punishment mentality.

To answer the question from your original post. Is my belief that it’s wrong to steal better than yours because of where it is derived? I don’t see how it could be unless it’s the reasoning behind it.

However, if it’s a case of what causes us to feel that way then maybe. In other words…

Bob doesn’t steal because it’s wrong. It’s against God’s commandments, he wouldn’t want it done to him etc.

Joe doesn’t steal simply for no reason other than he doesn’t want to go to jail.

In this case I would say that yes Bob’s belief is better because his not stealing is a true act of morality where as Joe’s is a selfish desire to simply avoid punishment.

Based on several of your previous posts I’m sure that you’re more of a Bob than a Joe (sex aside )

 

[fhansen]

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

The fact that the majority of people behave similarly on major moral issues is a proof for objective morality-they’re following the “natural law” for humankind. IOW, it’s not natural for humans to lie, steal, or kill. The fact that many do these things anyway is proof that man can deny or override his own nature-he can act unnaturally. That’s why the granddaddy of all sins isn’t a particular one like murder-rather it’s the one that makes all the others possible-man becoming the arbiter or determiner of right and wrong for himself.

Without this all humans would simply always obey the natural law spontaneously. With this “original sin”, man is free to pick and choose his moral behavior. This is why a man can commit murder or why something that’s consider right in society today may be tomorrows wrong. And this constituted a breech with the maker of the law, a breech which leads to all human unhappiness.

 

[PowderBear]

But isnt that PRECICELY what is mandated in the old books of the Bible and Koran? The raping and pillaging of your enemy, The taking of the women of other tribes as chattle. The stoning of a woman to death for adultry whille the man can pay a fine. The raping of a virgin girl before killing her as you cant kill a virgin in islam?
Arent most of these horrific behaviours and punishments actually madated in the old religious books?

I’ve never read the Koran, so I can’t speak for or against it, but that’s not Biblical.

Could it be that secular societies actually got the ideas from the religious writers?
I dont know and Im not suggesting they did - Im just exploring the idea.

Sarah x

It’s possible. In fact, a lot of modern atheist writers get their arguments from famous Christian theologians-- But they conveniently leave out the rebuttal.

 

[atheistgirl]

if they innately already knew right from wrong there would be no need for you to teach them the concept.

Well, the ability to walk upright is also innate, but they took a while to get it and needed my (name removed by moderator)ut, prompting and encouragement
They didnt so much need to be taught it, as prompted to use what was already there when the time wasd right - which is why they slinked back when caught with their hand in the cookie jar They knew - I didnt have to go through the whole thing again with them - they just decided to take their chances The subsequent consequences reinforced what they aleady knew, and decided to ignore due to their innocent age, lack of being able to take responsibilty in the fullest sense, and the fact their mommies cookies are devilishy irresistable

Sarah x

 

[momor]

Well, the ability to walk upright is also innate, but they took a while to get it and needed my (name removed by moderator)ut, prompting and encouragement
They didnt so much need to be taught it, as prompted to use what was already there when the time wasd right - which is why they slinked back when caught with their hand in the cookie jar They knew - I didnt have to go through the whole thing again with them - they just decided to take their chances The subsequent consequences reinforced what they aleady knew, and decided to ignore due to their innocent age, lack of being able to take responsibilty in the fullest sense, and the fact their mommies cookies are devilishy irresistable

Sarah x

I think you actually are disproving your own point here. Your children do not have an inate sense of right and wrong, They are learning it from you and they are primarily learning it through reward and punishment. They want the reward but they fear the punishment. They will go after the reward all day long as long as they can escape the punishment. There is no sense of right and wrong other than what you have taught them. You could have just as easily reversed the lesson and they would have learned it the opposite.

Someone else answered the question of whether it’s better not to steal because of a commandment from God (which is about love of neighbor) or simply out of fear of punishment (going to jail). The morality learned from God’s commandment is better because it teaches the golden rule and it becomes a morality we embrace as righteous whereas the other is a sense of right and wrong that is merely practical. If the man with the practical morality figures out a way to steal without getting caught, there is nothing to hold him to his “morality” since it’s no longer practical if he can steal and get stuff he wants without going to jail. There is also the practical (relative) morality of the lowest common denominator - it’s OK to do what everyone else is doing.

Morality which is embraced because of love for God and fellow man will always be greater than the morality that is adhered to purely because it’s practical and a learned response (which IMO is the only morality that is possible without God).

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Well, the ability to walk upright is also innate, but they took a while to get it and needed my (name removed by moderator)ut, prompting and encouragement

I thought this was an interesting article:

Infant Behav Dev. 2007 Feb;30(1):36-49. Epub 2006 Dec 5.

How and when infants learn to climb stairs.
Berger SE, Theuring C, Adolph KE.
College of Staten Island, The City University of New York, United States.

Abstract
Seven hundred and thirty-two parents reported when and how their infants learned to climb stairs. Children typically mastered stair ascent (mean age=10.97 months) several months after crawling onset and several weeks prior to descent (mean age=12.53 months). Most infants (94%) crawled upstairs the first time they ascended independently. Most infants (76%) turned around and backed at initial descent. Other descent strategies included scooting down sitting, walking, and sliding down face first. Children with stairs in their home were more likely to learn to ascend stairs at a younger age, devise backing as a descent strategy, and be explicitly taught to descend by their parents than children without stairs in their home. However, all infants learned to descend stairs at the same age, regardless of the presence of stairs in their home. Parents’ teaching strategies and infants’ access to stairs worked together to constrain development and to influence the acquisition of stair climbing milestones.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17292778&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[atheistgirl]

Hello again,

Thanks for responding …

Im coming back to this - I havent forgotten - and your post kinda ties in with some other points made by other posters - and Ive been doing some more thinking based on some of the points raised - BUT… …
… it’ll have to wait until tomorrow - we’ve a big order to get out and I feel guilty sitting in the office talking morality when I should be walking around saying ‘‘what in the world ####’’ and ‘‘Lets go, Lets go people…’’ and making ‘‘uh huh’’ noises…

Sarah x

 

[Formosus]

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

I apologize in advance for not reading the entire post. But the person who is virtuous for the sake of virtue is morally superior to the person who is only virtuous because of a law or commandment. With that said, it is possible for a believer or a non believer to love virtue for the sake of virtue. Just as it is possible for a believer to abhor theft because of a commandment or the non-believer to abhor it because of the law.

 

[ausculta]

That was me, rather than Antitheist, by the way, above there. Dunno if he’d agree with what I’ve said or not here.

How careless of me! I apologize for the mix-up. I also apologize for taking a bit long to respond. My computer time is very limited. I appreciate the time you took to explain your position.

As to “right”, I don’t know if you are asking if that seems like the way it should be of if that is the way it appears to be. In both cases, it doesn’t seem a problem. If we have developed social contracts as gregarious beings, the values that drive those contracts have to evolve from somewhere.

Agreed. The values expressed in the moral propositions of those “contracts” must have an origin. The nature of that origin is what is in question: 1) is it natural or supernatural AND which grounding for “objective moral values” best explains the actual existence of these values. Objective meaning true in all cases, universal or valid independently of our apprehension of them.

As a part of our core psychology – not the final determiner of our particular adopted values, but of the ‘moral grammar’ that humans come pre-wired with by evolution – yes, very much the same. It’s a brute fact. Humans have adapted to their environment in ways that embed impulses like empathy, aggression, selfishness and altruism, all as dynamics that provide the substrate for our social behavior such that we are effective at reproducing and thriving as a population.

If there are “objective values and morals”, this is how it would obtain, as “givens” in brute biology. If “God put them there”, of course, all bets are off, and these are merely subjective extensions of God’s will, and all morality is finally subjective, rooted in God. But if there is no God, here is how we come by the objective parts of our moral disposition.

Thanks for explaining this. I think I understand your position a little better now. However, I disagree with your conclusion that if objective moral values are grounded in God that they are subjective. In my position they are grounded in God objectively in the same way that they are grounded in a human nature’s psychological make-up (per your naturalist position). God has a nature, too. “Goodness”, “Justness” and “Holiness” are properties of his immaterial (spiritual) nature in the same way that “selfishness”, “altruism”, “aggression” etc are properties of our material human nature. In both situations values are stated by a subject but they obtain in the objective nature of that subject. I think we both agree about that. But the difference is that in God’s case the objective moral values are issued in his commands which extend from his immutable and eternal nature, i.e. they “cannot be or could not have been otherwise”. The values are good because God is good. They have been and will always be good. In the case of a human nature given a number of psychological properties, the values are extensions of this mess of conflicting dispositions. I don’t mean to be insulting, but the idea of a “moral grammar” seems more like an emotional “alphabet soup”. We are the capricious ones in the comparison while God remains God, and the good remains good.

I can see how in both situations the grounding is objective, but the moral values themselves? In my model it seems that the moral value expressed as, “It is evil to torture children for entertainment” could be a true in both systems, but only objectively (for all times, places, and with or without people) in mine given God’s nature. Human material nature could have been crueler than it is now. Human males could be eating some of their young to better the propagation of their genes.

I don’t know what you mean by arbitrary. “Could have been otherwise” does not entail abritrariness. If we rewound the tape of history, man (and the other species) would have turned out somewhat different (or perhaps dramatically different) due to stochastic processes inherent in the environment (and thus evolution).

If there is no God involved, and thus no choice of mind or personality in all this – it’s objective in its obtaining. It’s only arbitrary to the extent a volitional will gets involved. Many events at the quantum level are random, but that’s something more like the opposite of arbitrary.

“Could have been otherwise” doesn’t change the objectivity a bit, so long as the “otherwise”, or any of the outcomes are not determined by a will, a mind. So, on atheism, “could have been otherwise” is irrelevant in terms of objectivity. It may have been otherwise, but it is what is, and was not determined by a mind, a will that would make it a subjective reality.

On theism (or common, major forms of it, anyway), the “could have been otherwise” does negate the objectivity of that reality, BECAUSE A MIND DETERMINED IT. It’s not the “otherwise” that’s problematic, then, but the cause of any otherwise. On atheism, nature is just being its impersonal what-it-is. On theism, reality is just conceptual play-doh in the mind of God, as plastic and malleable as play-doh is in a child’s hands, just as subject to whims and will.

That is where subjectivity obtains.

Hopefully I’ve addressed that to your satisfaction above.

Yes, you did. And I hope I explained where I am coming from a little better, too.

Thanks for the dialogue. I find it all very refreshing. Your position has helped me to think more critically about my own.

Peace,

 

[ausculta]

Im coming back to this - I havent forgotten - and your post kinda ties in with some other points made by other posters - and Ive been doing some more thinking based on some of the points raised - BUT… …
… it’ll have to wait until tomorrow - we’ve a big order to get out and I feel guilty sitting in the office talking morality when I should be walking around saying ‘‘what in the world ####’’ and ‘‘Lets go, Lets go people…’’ and making ‘‘uh huh’’ noises…

Sarah x

Ha ha! I do the same thing at work. We’re both guilty.

Take your time. Life is busy and I think we all understand.

Peace

 

[atheistgirl]

Ha ha! I do the same thing at work. We’re both guilty.

Take your time. Life is busy and I think we all understand.

Peace

Ok - as promised

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

Ok Im a kinesthetic learner - I almost failed in school but at the same time was a great cook and baker I could only get my degrees in business once I started my business and started doing things.

I agree. Stealing does have natural consequences - 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.

I dont think we can uninvent the wheel. By that I mean, if we did imagine a society that said it was fine to steal, in fact it was the norm, I dont think such a society would last long. Can you imagine the vacation guides - Visit sunny Brataslovia, the food is great, the night life rocks, but mind your purse - they steal everything not nailed down and there’s no police to report it to because it’s not a crime!!!

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.

I dont think it is arbitrary. We look for the greatest good of the whole group to ensure our survival - so we have goals and standards we want to meet. Being healthy is better than being sick. Living to a nice old age is better than dying young. Caring for the planet so we can help future generations survive is better than destroying the planet now.
As to still evolving, I think they are. For example, nothing, no part of me, ever, could think it was right to own another human being, or exploit them for my gain, and yet 150 years ago, we had slavery, and it has to be said, very few church people found anything wrong with it. In fact they would point to their Bibles or Koran and say it was fine to have slaves as it’s in the good book.
Take another example - church people, all over the world, believed in witches and killed them in the most barbaric fashion. Even today, in Nigeria, christian families are burning people to death when they are accused of witchcraft, because it says in the Bible you will not allow a witch to live.
For the greater part though, most places no longer conduct witch hunts, or burn people to death. But it was perfectly moral only a few hundred years ago.
A few more quick examples I can think of - kids were sent up chimneys as sweepers, suffocating to death or dying of horrific lung diseases in their teens, girls could get married at 12, and women - wives -could be beaten legally. Women had to die in some cases for women to win the right to vote.
Now, most laity and most church people did not see anything wrong with the above, at the time. It was all perfectly moral. But now, any of the above would be considered completely immoral. So, our morals do evolve.
But it does leave the question in my mind about refering to an absolute moral authority from above. In the case of salvery, was it or was it not immoral at all times and for ever to own another human being. The answer has to be yes or no if its absolute. But if we look at the bible, and churches behavior, it would seem it was moral, and no its no longer moral. Thats not being absolute to me - thats being relative.

Continued below as original post was too long -

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Continued from above post:

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.

Well, in theory yes they could, but in actuality, as we are driven to ensure the survival of the species, I dont think they could have been otherwise. Because working in a co-operative group we learned very quickly actions have consequences, and we can learn the lessons of these consequences, and come to a clear decision as to whether they will help us achieve our goal or not.
When my kids were really young, too young to have a conversation with, they did what mommy told them to. So, to use the same example as before with the cookies, the first lesson is it’s wrong to steal because mommy said so. I know the consequences for the group, family, individual, but the best I can do a that age is say NO! As they grow older, they learn that if they steal the cookies, the whole family are mad at them, and theyre shunned by their siblings who are furious with them, and family time is shortened, and theres not a nice atmosphere, and that feeling is so much worse than anything mommy can say!! Still a little later on, they can appreciate that being seen as a co operative member of the group, sharing, pulling their weight, makes life so much better for everyone, no just immediately around them, but even further, such as relatives, or strangers in public. So it becomes hardwired into them, part of their conscience, stealing hurts the individual, those around her, the family, friends and neighbors, and ultimately the whole group or society. And now its not a case of not stealing because mommy said so, it’s because the whole of society says so, and the consequences are clear. Properly informed they wont steal not because they fear being caught, but because they have a deep understanding of how it hurts the whole group, or the whole of society.
So, yeah, I can see how they are subjective now, rather than what I was calling ‘‘objective’’ but I wonder if simply moving the decision on what is acceptable or not onto God, as opposed to the group, is not just the same thing.

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?

This is the point I was refering to where I said your post and some other posters made me think, which is great.
Good question - and I dont think they do exist outside of our human evolutionary development. They couldnt, because they evolved as we evolved. We have the ability to see way into the future and imagine, something the other animals as far as we can tell cannot do. This gives us the ability to plan for the future, to look at actions and consequences, and decide what is morally acceptable and what is not, based on the driving urge to survive as an individual in a co operative group setting.

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?

I loved the way you made my brain dance with those last two questions. I guess my answer is see above. In theory I suppose it could have been otherwise, but not really if we wanted to ensure our survival, which we are driven to.
And in fact our morality *was *otherwise with Holy wars, inquisitions, burning witches, stoning homosexuals, keeping slaves, denegrading women - but I would argue that it was our own secular morality, driven by a sense of injustice, wrong, and ultimate harm to our society and survival that started the processes to bring these immoral actions to an end.

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

You too - and you’re very welcome. I told my husband I was talking about morality with, amongst others, a soon to be priest and he nearly blessed himself

Sarah x

 

[ausculta]

Ok - as promised

Ok Im a kinesthetic learner - I almost failed in school but at the same time was a great cook and baker I could only get my degrees in business once I started my business and started doing things.

That is awesome. I am not sure what type of learner I would be classified as.

I dont think we can uninvent the wheel. By that I mean, if we did imagine a society that said it was fine to steal, in fact it was the norm, I dont think such a society would last long. Can you imagine the vacation guides - Visit sunny Brataslovia, the food is great, the night life rocks, but mind your purse - they steal everything not nailed down and there’s no police to report it to because it’s not a crime!!!

I will start with end of your original post. The bible does not explicitly condemn or approve slavery. It simply mentions cases of slavery and, for example in St. Paul’s letters, gives advice to converts who are slaves on how to focus on their new-found faith while being slaves. Slavery was condemned by the Catholic Church and the various protestant communities eventually followed (some only after civil war). The process involved in this condemnation is a different issue: how do we discern God’s will on matters of morals that are new to our experience and are not specifically addressed in scripture? Is the bible the only source of God’s revelation? But this is theology and applied ethics and not meta-ethics, which is the focus of our inquiry.

You painted a grim but accurate portrait of history, but you did so – whether you realize it or not – with an absolute standard. You said:

We look for the greatest good of the whole group to ensure our survival - so we have goals and standards we want to meet. Being healthy is better than being sick. Living to a nice old age is better than dying young. Caring for the planet so we can help future generations survive is better than destroying the planet now.

What is the “greatest good” independent of what you or I think? If you or I and the whole human race ceases to exist, are these “goods” still good? Also, to what extent do we pursue these goods? If our health is a good, then would it override the rights of human persons as it would in embryonic stem-cell research where the “cure” of those who were born overrides the “right” to life of the unborn human person? We could build a case where the common “good” of all would trump the “rights” of individuals. But only if goods and rights are arbitrary. Maybe they are social conventions or a power play as they are in civil laws.

Now, most laity and most church people did not see anything wrong with the above, at the time. It was all perfectly moral. But now, any of the above would be considered completely immoral. So, our morals do evolve.

But did the moral values themselves evolve or did the human persons’ knowledge or awareness of an objective moral value become clearer? Think about the natural world for a moment. Did the reality that science aims to describe evolve over the last few centuries or did our descriptions of these realities evolve? I think it would be similar to your examples of human law trying to reflect moral values found in God’s will. How this reflection is accomplished is another matter.

Cont…

 

[ausculta]

I’m out of time this morning, so I will respond to your second part later today.

Peace