Lumping your first three points together as they are related" Morality" as a behavioral trait is evolutionary. It is noted in several species.
I am not paid as a teacher here so a quick google search under “Evolution of Moral behavior in Human Society” should serve you well and get rid of those basics you seem to have trouble with in your life.
Evolutionary morals can be easily observed in recent societies:
We now consider owning a person as property immoral, when before the mid 18th century it was a staple of several economies.
We now consider peadophilia a heinous immorality when as recently as 100 years ago it was not punished at all and in many societies children of ordinary families were “married”, in some cases to unsuitably older men. (And are still in certain societies, even in the supposedly “moral” United States)
A well known victorian cure for syphilis was to sleep with a prepubescent virgin.
Those with a taste for boys are well recorded in the annals of the day, from Ancient Greece right up until the Second World War, and only recently been the subject of moral outrage.
Child pornography was hardly considered worth the time of the courts until the late 1980’s…and was readily available in various “Photographic” or “Nudist” publications.
*The sale of a daughter to a stranger is no longer considered moral, nor is the stoning to death of unruly children.
Morals evolve. As they are evolutionary they are necessarily subjective to individuals and society as a whole. That also answers your “validity” question. When society around you legislates or accepts a behaviour to be moral then it is a valid moral behaviour. Viz: Homosexuality in civilised society.
In one sense all “morals” are illusionary as they are an evolutionary trait designed to help our species survive and co operate, procreate and live. However in certain circumstances even the most “moral” of codes can/may be disregarded where the existence of a particular society is threatened or the existence of an individual is threatened.
Before you talk about your particular godofchoice it would be well to identify which of the thousands you prefer so I can show you where even that deity’s morals are transitionary, that is evolutionary.
For your “all ears” complaint, I would suggest some surgery.
Now here is our problem. If you choose to follow some divine authority, be it Allah, Yahweh, The Trimurti, Ahura Mazdā, or a religious philosophy like Buddhism or Raja Yoga, you are in fact, making a “Subjective Choice.”
Within any system there are rules. Think of each system as a game. There are rules for every game. If you play checkers, baseball, poker. it does not matter. there are rules. Your objective sense of morality comes from following the rules of the group you identify with and not from some magical morality that all humans must follow. Your moral precepts are just as subjective as anyone else’s. The average person simply gains their sense of moral behavior from the culture and society in which they are raised. They learn to bow or shake hands at the right time. They learn how close to stand to another person when talking. They learn how to talk to and treat the opposite sex. They also learn which religions are available to choose from and which are socially acceptable in their own culture.
Psychopaths, by definition, do not have moral compasses. However, that is not exactly right. Having known a few psychopaths, their moral compass just happens to be different than that of the average person. Psychotherapists like to call it a “code of conduct” to separate it from a moral stance. But, for example. I have known psychopaths that will kill you if you say something bad about their mother. They have a very clear boundary. They might not care that your family gets murdered but if you harmed a member of their family, they would kill you. Many have a very strict sense of morality and this can be offended easily. This strange sense of morality is often accompanied by low impulse control.
All moral behavior is standing on our desire to live a better life. (Even your choice to become a God believer.) This is what Humanism recognizes. It is grounded in the belief that one should be concerned with his or her own well-being. It is in our best interest and in the best interest of others to help ensure everyone’s well-being. In doing so, we all live better lives. Alas, humanism like the other forms of philosophical morality is a subjective choice. But it may be one of the better choices out there. It does not require you to believe in magical afterlives, dictated morality, blind dogma, or rituals. It does not tell you to kill non-believers, witches, unruly teens, or poor animals that are sodomized by their owners. And belief in humanism would never cause a woman to be forced to marry her rapist. That puts humanism miles above the ancient Iron Age book that Yahweh inspired.
Agreed, we need to evaluate to decide our next course of action… doesn’t mean such decisions are right or wrong.
What “Standard”?
So your argument is based on an assertion you’re making without fact?
Why?
I don’t. There are many examples in human history of morality being non-objective.
Ah yes, the barnyard argument. Yes, it’s true that if morality is relative (which it is) it could be used to justify any kind of bad behaviour and probably is by some however we are human and humans are social animals that agree certain standards of behaviour and from such behaviour we derive our morals… no need for gods, just people that agree on something and are willing to enforce it.
As long as they are dealt with by the society I am part of (and typically they are), am I supposed to care?
Or not as explained above.
Maybe. Honestly … who the f*** cares? Society works the way it is, with the right people in charge we progress, things get better without the need for gods, so why should anyone worry?
Sorry for my limited time as having a life, family friends after the screen goes black
And for not putting my priority on a website i find interesting recently among many things in my life
But anyways i dont feel offended . And i hope this website widens my perception
And im having fun so far
Oh wow lets say my topic is garbage
my topic is morality relies on a basis and standard, to it doesn’t seem theres a source for it. Unless you can prove it (as if you all are living with 100%proof) its still is a mystery
And you base your morality as a product of biology and the physical brain but you can never prove it empirically at the end of the day its still an assumption. It may be a genious assumption but still an assumption
Because if i crack open your brain do you think i will see thoughts? no it will just be a splashing of your brain
All these thoughts, believe etc. Are happening meta physically which could not be proved physically
And you are placing your belief (meta physics) on morality to which again you cannot prove its basis for it
Looks like someone’s also in a fantasy world where things doesn’t need prove
Looks like the garbage you talked about is too similar with your reliance system on morality
You demand atom of evidence (Physical) give me an atom of evidence of your believe in morality
Perhaps i could slice your brain and find an atom of evidence regarding how your morality foundation exist
So far my belief in my magic man and your belief in your morality is looking the same
So lets accept that my morality topic is garbage and well your belief in morality is also garbage
Ohh hold up. I cannot prove why i believe in my magic character through (emperical evidence) so its a total myth and therefore destroyed by real world data, so im a man living in fairy tales ohh nooo , but wait a minute… You also can’t prove why you believe in your morality standard (a standard that have no backbone) through emperical evidence therefore destroyed by real world data. So im not the only one dancing in a fairy tale story
Facts? Your topic is on Ethics which is literally morality…
Facts mean things that are proved to be true
You sure you can prove your morality standard is valid?
As far as im concerned you are making a fantasy claim that you proved meta - physics physically
Which is subjective, as has been explained. You have also been asked repeatedly if you can offer a single example of an act that is objectively moral or immoral, and have failed to offer even one.
Please read through the responses, more than one poster has offered objective evidence that the origins of our morality are in our evolved past, and that all species that evolve to live in societal groups exhibit moral behaviour and empathy.
Wrong again…and even were it true, we observe morality among evolved species, and you’re the one adding an unevidenced deity, that you can’t demonstrate is even possible.
I know you’re new, but please avoid using unnecessary line breaks, and learn to use the quote function properly, when you highlight ant text a quote icon appears, clicking on it places the text in a response window as a quote, with a link to the original post.
That’s a lie, everyone has ex[lained to you that is subjective.
Actually a fact is something that is knownor proven to be true.
You have yet to offer a single word of what this means, valid to whom and why? It has been explained exhaustively that most people here accept that morality is subjective, so your request is like asking someone how their favourite colour “is valid”
I’ve just found this. The in tray is full again … full of predictable mythology fanboy garbage.
Oh wait, experiments have been conducted, by researchers such as Frans de Waal among others, establishing that we don’t need a cartoon magic man in order to function as ethical beings.
Those experiments by Frans de Waal and others I’ve just mentioned above maker a lie out of your above assertion.
Again, those experiments by Frans de Waal and others destroy your assertion.
Ah, playground discourse. Which is what I’ve learned to expect from a mythology fanboy.
Guess what, Looby Loo? A fair amount o research has been conducted in the field of cognitive neuroscience, including the little matter of working out what someone has been thinking using fMRI scanning data. The research is admittedly in its infancy, but it’s already yielding some remarkable results. Unlike infantile attachment to Bronze Age “Magic Man did it” fantasies.
That research by cognitive neuroscientists I just mentioned destroys your assertion.
Indeed, scientists have known for some time that thought is a product of human brain chemistry. But you were too busy wasting your time with a Bronze Age mythology to learn genuine facts.
I’m really enjoying your failure here, given that I’m aware of experiments in relevant disciplines that destroy your infantile assertions.
You mean the fantasy world of being a fanboy of Bronze Age mythology? Yes, that’s a fantasy world all right. Again, I’m enjoying your failure here.
The only garbage I see on display here is yours. Oh wait, I have evidence to support the postulates I present. Oh wait, I already pointed you at the evidence in question, but it seems you never bothered even to acknowledge the existence of the thread, let alone address the contents thereof.
I already did, and in quantity. Going to read that document sometime, and learn something? Let’s see, there’s how many citations in there for relevant peer reviewed scientific research? Oh that’s right, no less than seveneen citations, accompanied by expositions of the papers in question in some detail.
Come back when you can match this level of diligence.
Perhaps I could slice your brain, and discover the complete absence of functioning neurons therein?
Look, I can even play this game better than you, let alone conduct proper discourse better.
Those experiments say otherwise. A good many of which are documented in the scientific papers I cited in my exposition here. Try reading that document and learn something.
No, let’s accept that I have evidence for my postulates, and you have nothing but blind assertions, snide condescension and bluster. Evidence which I provide in detail here, which you didn’t even bother to acknowledge the existence of the first time I presented it to you.
Oh, and do learn basic spelling and grammar, only I keep seeing incompetence in these fields from your ilk. Which makes my task of humiliating you before a global public audience all the easier.
I agree. There is no such thing as objective morality. Just a subjective one. We as humans choose what we consider to be moral behavior, and we wrote it down in a book and claimed it was divinely inspired.
In truth it is just humans being the social creatures and Cooperative beings that they are. Evolutionarily speaking, it would not have done for us NOT to have what we would today call ‘morals’. We would not have survived as a species if we didn’t learn how to cooperate with each other.
Oh dear, it’s more “you can’t be moral without my imaginary cartoon magic man” bollocks. Yawn.
Not all the time. That’s your first mistake among many here, but I’ll address the important mistakes you’re making in due course.
And again, your vacuous apologetics display their vacuity.
I don’t even need to be a software developer, to understand that decision making is, at bottom, nothing more than differential response to incoming data. That it IT. Inanimate CPU chips perform this task at the rate of millions of calculations per second. Ethics do not enter the arena when the data involved has no ethical dimension.
So already, your apologetic fabrications are starting to fall apart. But more awaits. Be patient.
Ah, more apologetic superficiality. Quelle surprise.
It’s obvious that you never attended an actual class covering the subject of ethics. A subject that has tested some of the most brilliant human minds over the past centuries, from Kant to Nietzsche. As a corollary, the idea that some random mythology fanboy posting on the Internet has suddenly alighted upon the answers to ethical conundra that escaped these people, is an idea that the educated will regard with deep suspicion. But once again, be patient.
First you need to establish that any fantastic magic entity you wish to introduce here actually exists. Failure to do so renders all your other assertions on the matter null and void.
And at this point you’re conflating two completely separate questions, from two completely separate areas of philosophy. The former is the remit of ethics, the latter the remit of epistemology. So already you’re demonstrating that you haven’t applied even the tiniest degree of rigour to your thinking.
In the case of the latter, namely epistemology, we already have two reliable metrics for determining the truth of a proposition, namely correspondence with observational reality, or, in the case of pure mathematics, consistency with a properly developed formal axiomatic system. Neither of which require fantastic magic entities.
So again, your apologetics are falling apart.
Er, no. And again, be patient. Your much needed education will arrive shortly.
Ah, so little understanding, so much hot air. The neuroscience literature is illuminating here, but again, be patient.
And again, be patient. Your apologetic castle in the air is about to enter an inverted flat spin.
Again, be patient …
It doesn’t. That’s your first mistake. Ethics only enters some of our decision making.
Your illusion will now be shattered.
If you think you’re the first mythology fanboy to come here, peddling the “You can’t be moral without my magic man” assertion, boy are you in for a shock. We have you ilk turning up here regularly,none of whom bother with the basic diligence of finding out if the requisite discoursive territory has already been covered (it has, and at length), or if any of the previous smug, self-satisfied mythology fanboys enjoyed even an atom of success with their vacuous ex recto apologetics (they haven’t).
With respect to the assertion “you can’t be moral without my magic man” from the usual suspects, I have several retorts, all of which usually result in silence once delivered.
First, there’s the matter that those of us who paid attention in classes devoted to ethics, learned a long time ago that this subject is far more subtle and complex than the fatuous caricature thereof that mythology fanboys embrace, namely “Magic Man says so”. Which of course is recognised by those of us who paid attention in class, as not merely a caricature of genuine ethics, but a dangerous one, as anyone familiar with Susan B. Anthony’s famous and succinct critique thereof is well aware. In addition, a paper I presented elsewhere about differences between secular and religious societies, also has significant input at this juncture, namely this one from the Journal of Religion and Society, which on its own has lethal impilcations for the “you can’t be moral without my magic man” assertion.
In the meantime, while you’re digesting that paper, those of us who paid attention in the requisite classes, learned some time ago of a simple and powerful test that can be performed, to determine the ethical status of an action, that is independent of any “authority” - namely, what benefit or harm is bestowed upon the recipients of the action in question. Being able to perform this test, courtesy of our ability to place ourselves mentally in the situation of others, doesn’t require a comsic Big Brother, but empathy, a property that is actually to be found possessed by eutherian mammals all the way down to rodents (about which I shall say more shortly).
Likewise, the concepts of reciprocity and fairness are to be found distributed much more widely than the usual suspects imagine. Indeed, there now exists an abundant scientific literature, documenting in exquisite detail the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of:
Among the topics discussed in said literature, are:
[3] The evolution of brain development genes expressed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that has been known to be implicated in ethical decision making for over a century;
[4] Observed instances of ethical behaviour in non-human species, none of which know about our mythologies or invented cartoon magic men.
With respect to [4] above, I was recently introduced to peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting experimental determination of ethical behaviour in rats. Which have been shown in the laboratory, to reject behaviours that would inflict pain and suffering upon a fellow rat, even when a substantial reward for those behaviours is offered. Seems rats have a better ability to reject avarice than a good many human beings I can think of.
Of course, the one retort that results in hilarious levels of butthurt emanating from the mythology fanboys, is when I announce that I have a nice little list of “pastors”, who featured in the news after being arrested for playing “Hide The Sausage” with 12 year old girls. That one really has them reaching for the burn cream.
So, those of us who paid attention in class have a coherent, consistent view of ethics, one that is supported by peer reviewed science and experimental data, and which, as a corollary, is as far removed from “illusion” as one could wish for. I’ll enjoy seeing your failure to address any of the points above, as is frequently the case with opinionated but intellectually indolent mythology fanboys.
Oh that’s child’s play, all one need do is create a subjective morality that is at odds with your own, though it would of course have nothing to do with atheism, since morality is subjective.
There is plenty of longstanding research that shows that atheists are at least as moral as theists, when measured on a level playing field. For example, the number of theists in a country like the US convicted of crimes like rape and murder, compared to atheists, just as one example. The level of violent crimes like rape and murder in largely secular free democracies, compared to say the US, with a very high rate (still) of religiosity compared to other western democracies.
There is all sorts of data out there to measure this.
However, what I usually do is repeat the Hitch’s question, name one moral act that a theists can do, that an atheist cannot, they will either become very reticent, or try to claim their religious dogma and doctrine is the only true morality.
You’re missing the point, the claim to be moral is a subjective one, not an objective one, Though you might get a broad consensus on some actions, the claim they are moral or immoral are still ultimately subjective.
I also pointed out that is decades of research that objectively compares behaviours both theists and atheists consider to be immoral or moral, and on any level playing field the evidence suggests that atheists are at least as moral as theists.
There was also some research posted here recently, that demonstrated that atheists tend to weight the consequences of their actions when making moral choices, whereas (perhaps unsurprisingly) theists tend to base their morality on doctrine and dogma.
In order to (subjectively) label someone, anyone, immoral, all one need to is cite any action of theirs and label it immoral. It wouldn’t be objectively true of course, because moral judgments are all ultimately subjective.
I don’t think truthdodger is coming back, I can’t say I am surprised. I sometimes wonder if they scurry off to their pastor with a string of questions, that the nasty heathens have planted in their heads…
They seldom seem keen to answer questions though, as we see here again. He might have saved a lot of time if he’d left the first two words off his thread title…and just gone with “god is an illusion”…
. <—- a whole bunch of people saying, “So what.”