morality within evolution

juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, PNG!
Yes, it was. Of course, it left me wondering, what does a biography page about Darwin have to do with the subject of this thread? I saw nothing pertaining to morality. Did I overlook something? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
get a life juan ;
 
got a wee-wee )
ewww the levels dropping, got a run.. what do you look like?
 
Kindest Regards, Alexa and all!

:) Yes, your article looks like it is a good one. I only glanced at it, so I will give you an opportunity to pull out the pieces you might like to discuss.

I found this in my search. It is from another forum or newsgroup. I was searching to see if a certain researcher I like (Glenn R. Morton) had anything to say in this matter of morality as it relates to evolution. I didn't find what I was looking for from Mr. Morton, but a portion of this quote cited here was a response to something Mr. Morton had said earlier. So far, it is the closest discussion to what I have been trying to explore that I have seen. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

2. A second critical point is to emphasize the distinction between
ONTOLOGY (i.e., what is objectively the case, independently of our beliefs
and knowledge-claims) and EPISTEMOLOGY (i.e., what we can "demonstrate" that
we know).
A Christian ethicist doesn't (or at least shouldn't) claim that she
can epistemically PROVE the existence of an objective, universal moral code.
Such an approach makes the ontological implications of a philosophical
system dependent upon one's epistemological limits. Christian theism offers
a transcendent and objective ontological ground for morality, even if
arguing for it must "pass through" our epistemology. One can, however,
understand the LOGICAL connection between such an existing transcendent and
communicating God and a universal morality to which all are held accountable
(regardless of their acceptance or rejection).
But to say, as Russell Stewart does, that "since Christian morality
is as subjective as any other [morality], it is just as non-applicable"
fails to recognize this critical distinction between ontology and
epistemology. My ability to "demonstrate" the TRUTH of the Christian system
undoubtedly has a "subjective" component--after all, I am a human "subject"
who reasons! But this fact does not at all make "Christian morality as
subjective as any other." ONTOLOGICALLY, the sufficient logical connection
exists between a transcendent, revealer God and a transcendent and universal
moral obligation. But the ONTOLOGICAL connection between an atheistic
philosophy and having sufficient grounds for universal moral obligation
cannot be found.
This, by the way, is where Peter Grice goes wrong in his little
dialogue between the theist and atheist: (just an excerpt)

Monotheist: I can prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction, since I
believe in God, and can refer all moral questions to Him as
the objective, transcendent moral standard - will you grant
me this?

Atheist: Yes of course, but now it's my turn! I can also prove right
and wrong to my own satisfaction,..."

The monotheist does not (or should not) say or imply that, SINCE the
God-believer can "prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction," all moral
questions have an "objective, transcendent moral standard." This
mistakingly makes the ontological ground of morality dependent upon one's
subjective state and epistemic capabilities.


3. Just because an individual can, given a philosophical system,
provide sufficient personal reasons for not e.g. killing his neighbor does
not mean that the philosophical system offers a logical ground for universal
morality. Just because an individual IMPUTES reasons for morality to a
philosophical system does not mean that a LOGICAL connection is present. To
be more specific: to give an evolutionary basis for a moral act (e.g. not
killing your neighbor), as Glen Morton does by scenario, does NOT mean that
universal morality has been given an evolutionary and sufficient basis.
Glen Morton's "demonstration" "from the evolutionary worldview why
killing fellow humans is wrong" is flawed at several points, including this
one. Even IF he "demonstrated" that evolutionary considerations would
prevent killing SOME individuals--which is MAXIMALLY what he did--he did not
demonstrate anything about the more significant and relevant question of
whether killing itself is morally "right" or "wrong." In part, the problem
is that EVEN IF evolution DID operate in this limited way, it still cannot
say anything about what behavior OUGHT or OUGHT NOT to occur. As a
consequence, it cannot LOGICALLY condemn any behavior. (With God gone, are
we to believe that our behavior now becomes accountable to the "evolutionary
SCHEME of things"?) (Cf Morton's statement: "Without such a selective
advantage, murder provides no benefit in the evolutionary scheme of things.")
Furthermore, to posit that the "scheme" of evolution is to safeguard
one's associated gene pool seems not only extremely tenuous, it misses a key
point. [Note Glen Morton's statement: "statistics show that you are more
likely to kill members of your family than strangers. Thus by killing a
member of your family, you are eliminating your own genes from the gene
pool. Thus assuming your genes are
the fittest, you with your gun have eliminated those fit genes."]
It is tenuous because it posits a "scheme" to evolution in the first
place. Why should EVOLUTION care about what genes survive? And the key
point that is missed is that naturalistic evolution, even if true, can only
describe in the long run of things why some genes survive; it can't be
logically used, E.O. Wilson notwithstanding, to show why any genes SHOULD or
SHOULD NOT have survived.
Glen Morton's second point for why evolution can provide a "good
reason" for murder being "wrong" seems to misapply the very concept of
evolution. [Cf. G. Morton: "ince even a mutant with no legs and an IQ of
50 can pull a
trigger eliminating Einstein, murder provides no basis for natural
selection."]
First, I think it's undeniable that "murder provides no basis for
natural selection." But the REAL question is whether natural selection
provides any basis for murder! Secondly, I don't know why ANY evolutionist
would want to claim that the "fittest" individual ALWAYS defeats the "less
fit." So what if the mutant kills Einstein. In the long run, there will be
other "Einsteins" who will do in the mutant. IN THE LONG RUN, the fitter
organisms will prevail. But even with this understanding, evolution still
can't provide a LOGICAL basis for telling me or anyone that murder is
"wrong"--that the Einstein's SHOULDN'T eliminate the mutants. And it can't
tell me why, if the Einstein's do eliminate the one's with a 50 IQ, those
Einstein's should be held not only morally culpable but punitively accountable.


4. Just because the focus of the thread has shifted some from the
original question of the relationship between evolution and racism does not
mean that the original discussion was "resolved." Brian Harper claims,
however, that since "no one has given any rational arguments as to why the
theory of evolution should be blamed for such things I will consider that
phase of the discussion resolved."
From my perspective (having read all the posts), there IS a
plausible logical connection between naturalistic evolution and racism, and
several posts have helped to bring this to light. And those who have argued
that there isn't any logical connection have not only failed on that point,
they have failed to explain how naturalistic evolution can provide a
justification for (or against) ANY morality. If the discussion has been
"resolved," it's been resolved in favor of those who were contending FOR the
connection.
In a related post, Brian Harper specifically asks three questions
(points a,b,&c). Based on my position as expressed above, I offer my own
brief responses.

(a) How would you answer a person who refuses to accept your
views of morality?

I would say that, relative to the objective nature of morality, it
is irrelevant whether they accept it or refuse it.

(b) How would you answer a person who refuses to accept the
existence of a transcendent moral system?

I would say, once again, that it is irrelevant with respect to its
truth. Secondly, I would contend that they can claim whatever they want,
but their behavior will undermine the very point they profess. They can't
(and don't) live that way when it comes to what somebody does to them or
their wife or kids. So someone who refuses a transcendent moral system is
either saying something IRRELEVANT to its truth or they are INCONSISTENT
with themselves. In either case, it's not a very effective basis for
justifying one's rejection.

Rich Knopp, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, IL. 62656

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0241.html
Click to expand...
I recommend the full quote, but as the subject matter does consider racism in relation to evolution, I edited those portions. I do think the subject is handled tastefully, and with a minimum nod to politics, but it treats the overall subject of morality in relation to evolution in a very respectful manner, IMO.

Sincere comments?

To Vaj, I understand your position regarding "God." :) This quote was originally directed to atheists. So while the context is Christian to Atheist, I would hope you would look to the essence behind what is being said, if you would be so kind as to provide your view. Thanks, :)
 
Last edited:
Dear Juan,

I'll begin with a quote from William Shakespeare ( Hamlet) :

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Click to expand...
Are you looking for a black and white theory about evolution ?
There is nothing about doutheist and polytheist beilefs. Just because we have a monotheist religion, this doesn't mean the others don't exist or have no value at all.

juantoo3 said:
I recommend the full quote, but as the subject matter does consider racism in relation to evolution, I edited those portions. I do think the subject is handled tastefully, and with a minimum nod to politics, but it treats the overall subject of morality in relation to evolution in a very respectful manner, IMO.
Click to expand...
I cannot accept in any way the racism as a result of evolution. The racism, in my opinion is the result of ignorance.

Please do not answer yet, to this. I have no time left to finish. I'll be back this evening. ;)

Regards,

Alexa
 
Kindest Regards, Alexa!

We have a big storm coming, so responding tonight will likely not be possible. So please forgive me, otherwise I would abide by your request.
alexa said:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Click to expand...
I love this quote, it is so appropriate!

Yes, I know I cannot dream it all, that is why I began this thread to find what others have considered in this subject.

Are you looking for a black and white theory about evolution ?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Evolution can only explain so much about morality, then it falls short with collective experience. So unless there is mass delusion that affects (effectively) all humans since the dawn of civilization, there is a spiritual component to morality that evolution cannot dare to properly address. Even in drawing upon the concept of memes (Vaj will understand), memes readily explain the subjective components of morality, but do not adequately address the universal components.

There is nothing about doutheist and polytheist beilefs. Just because we have a monotheist religion, this doesn't mean the others don't exist or have no value at all.
Click to expand...
I agree, certainly. :D Of course, that is a side benefit to this discussion. I accept, in a spirit of tolerance, that all paths lead to the same end. This discussion is an opportunity to demonstrate that, an opportunity to test the theory.

I cannot accept in any way the racism as a result of evolution. The racism, in my opinion is the result of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Nor do I accept racism. The problem with pulling a quote from the middle of a discussion is in not knowing what went before. In pulling the quote I did from the middle, the conversation had moved on from racism as a specific example to morality in general, in relation to evolution.

Nature, including human nature, is not all "cut flowers and chardonnay." Nature, including humanity, has an ugly side that is difficult to look at, but important to consider if we are to be genuinely truthful to ourselves as seekers. Humanity has a natural tendency to be un-moral.

This is another quote from further in the conversation:
What you may be overlooking is the extent to which this "subjective system of emphatic morality" could simply be the transcendent system expressed through the hearts and minds of all men. One of the important ideas expressed in Christianity is that G-d did not just communicate His laws to Christian believers. On the contrary, He gave everyone an innate understanding of the *spirit* of His moral law. Consider the following passage from our scriptures:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Romans 2:14-15 KJV

For a moral system to be truly transcendant, we should expect to find it outside the philosophy that described it, and that is exactly what we do find. That you feel secure in the "subjective system of empathic morality" is due entirely to the transcendant nature of G-d's law.

Russell T. Cannon

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0262.html
Click to expand...
It is kinda nice to see someone else quote a passage I use a lot myself.

Evolutionary science can only go so far in describing morality. There are components to morality that evolutionary science dares not address without some type of compromise, and it is there that I have focussed this discussion. A great deal of morality is subjective, no argument. But it seems there are components that tend to be "universal", accepted by (effectively) the whole of humanity since the dawn of civilization. If nature is amoral, or somehow immune to morality, it seems to me evolution cannot properly address the whole of morality. If humans have a tendency towards un-morality, why are certain components of morality universal? It seems to me an essential core to morality is outside of nature, or at least nature as we tend to view it from the eyes of evolutionary science. Why are we moral, or at least cling to the trappings of morality, if it is against our nature, if we have a tendency towards un-morality?

Morality is either the convergence point of science and religion, or it is the divergence point of science and religion, I cannot say which. I think Mr. Gould was quite right.
 
morality is not within evolution&some info on memes

Im quoting this down because i want the others to understand what Vaj. understood about the memes ;

The term "meme" (rhymes with "dream") was coined by zoologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book about evolution, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins doesn't claim genes are selfish in the same way as, say, kids who won't share. Rather, he explains, the genes carried by each individual are the driving force behind evolution. As sentient beings we consider ourselves masters of our own fates, but in reality we're just the battlebots in which competing genes slug it out--determining, through the impersonal workings of natural selection, which will survive.
Dawkins proposes that the meme is to culture what the gene is to biology. A meme is a reproducible idea and as such is the basic unit of cultural transmission. In his words: "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation."

A meme isn't just any fleeting impression or random thought. One defining characteristic of a meme is that it reproduces itself with a fair degree of fidelity. A joke is a meme; so is the alphabet. One can argue that language is the ultimate meme (or "memeplex," as some call it). The sum of all memes is culture, transmitted from generation to generation, just as the genome is.

Meme theory proponents argue that, just as we're the pawns by which our genes compete for dominance, so are we the creatures of our memes. You've heard such expressions as "The concept took on a life of its own" or "Never underestimate the power of an idea whose time has come," right? To memeticists, these aren't mere conceits but rather reflections of the true state of affairs.

You're saying: Get out. I'm the boss of my ideas; they aren't the boss of me.

Don't be so sure. Few doubt that genes are real, and I venture to say the notion of the selfish gene is now the accepted scientific view. But genes are really coded bits of information more than they are tangible things, and though they happen to be embodied in the physical substrate of DNA, their essence can also be conveyed symbolically. Memes are much the same, and their substrates can be as varied as a book or someone's memory. Granted, some memes (a chain letter, an urban legend) are trivial or short-lived. But think about the memeplex of organized religion, instances of which have endured for millennia and to which many devote their lives.

Memes arguably have shaped our biology. Some think the human brain has evolved a built-in faculty for language acquisition. Memeticists say language offered an advantage to our early ancestors because it can transmit memes: for instance, how to make a stone ax. Memes thus tipped the evolutionary balance in favor of individuals with language skills. Through this mechanism they may even be responsible for our big brains.

What do memes add to the conventional understanding of the propagation of culture? Just this: They remove the element of conscious choice, making the process purely mechanical. Just as natural selection accounts for mankind's origins without invoking God, meme theory accounts for our cultural edifices without positing a "self" or a "soul." That solves a long-standing philosophical conundrum: If we accept the idea of an unbreakable chain of cause and effect at the molecular level and take the materialist view that our brains are just complicated arrangements of molecules, there doesn't seem to be any room for free will. Susan Blackmore, in The Meme Machine (1999), argues that with memes there doesn't need to be. Free will and the sense of self are illusions. I'm not an independent actor, just an assemblage of memes (a "selfplex"). Things happen not because "I" make choices but because of interaction between the memes of which this "I" is composed. One objects: So how did you write your book, lady? Blackmore's response: Creative types don't create; they're merely vehicles by which evolving memes manifest themselves. ("The book wrote itself.") Sounds like the woolliest college bull session ever, I know, but even if you don't buy it you've still got to think: Whoa.






which nationality are you Juan?
 
juantoo3 said:
But it seems there are components that tend to be "universal", accepted by (effectively) the whole of humanity since the dawn of civilization.
Click to expand...
Such as?

juantoo3 said:
Why are we moral, or at least cling to the trappings of morality, if it is against our nature, if we have a tendency towards un-morality?
Click to expand...
Fear? Does everyone cling to the trappings of a universally accepted "morality?"
 
sorry to pop - up )

but couldnt help myself when someone refers to a writer that i praise to, his 'Notes from underground' is one of the most adorable books ive read so far, though A. Camus' "The Stranger"s anti-hero character Meursault can compete with Dosteyevski himself..




p.s for juan im aware that these have nuting to the with moralitythruevol, sorry pal .






ItAly is a nice country
 
Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Abogado del Diablo said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
I am glad you asked! It seems like most of the material I went through yesterday made some claim like the following:

Peter La Casse wrote another review of the same debate:
(begin quote):
Dr. Craig stated that without God, there is no reason why objective moral laws must exist. That is not to say that people who do not believe in God cannot live moral lives; the question is, are there objective moral standards without God? The answer is no: without God, there is no reason to believe in objective moral standards. Yet we all (or most of us) recognize that there are objective moral standards: rape, murder, etc. are morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Allow me to draw to the attention of the reader, that this is an atheist speaking to a christian. An atheist noting "...we all (or most of us) recognize that there are objective moral standards: rape, murder, etc. are morally wrong." (emphasis mine-jt3)

Fear? Does everyone cling to the trappings of a universally accepted "morality?"
Click to expand...
Fear, for clinging to trappings of morality? I guess I can see that, fear of the larger community.

But I don't think fear applies to "universal" morality. At least, not the conventional anglo-european conception of the term "fear." Either universal morality exists, or it doesn't.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Have you ever read "The Brothers Karamozov" by Dostoyevsky?
Click to expand...
No sir, I haven't, although I understand that to be a classic.

I have read The Art of War a while back, and some thinking I did today reminded me of it.

If I may have permission to play devil's advocate, in order to explore the subject. I might get a little naughty ;) , but I will be very respectful.

A former military person might appreciate a hypothetical that tests where morality, and possibly love, enter the equation. Such as the following:

What can we say of cunning? Cunning is moral to the side that uses it, the side that is on the defensive/done-to/yin end of the bargain considers the matter immoral or un-moral, depending I would think. ;) Essentially, subjective morality in action, even though it can at times such as war countermand such "universal" morals as "thou shalt not murder." In fairness, war is a trying time, particularly for the vanquished. But it is under adversity such as war that human nature shines, or so the philosophers and poets tell us. :)

For example: Is not espionage a form of cunning? I don't recall any quotes off-hand, but I seem to recall Sun-Tzu addressing the matter of espionage, and its relevance to and necessity for successful campaigns. Of course, there are certain political overtures ;) , meaning I don't care for this example. Yet a glimpse at our "ugly" side every once in a while is a good thing, to help keep things in perspective.

Maybe better to focus on other aspects of cunning. Bravado? What did Sun-Tzu say about bravery? Many, many things I vaguely recall, if not about bravery of the troops directly, then in how to provide circumstances to best procure bravery from your own troops. Even so far as pointers on how to upset your enemy's bravery. Is it moral/ethical action to incite bravery in your troops? The other side might not think so, but the other side's thoughts really don't count. Especially since morality is ultimately up to the individual. It is moral for a group of like-minded individuals to be patriotic to each other for the sake of the whole group, for the selfish reason of self-preservation. Is this ethical action? Politics aside. Animal nature seems to be the will to survive, self-preservation. How does this compare with a mother bear and her threatened cub? Where does love figure into the equation?

Is love the driver for patriotism? Or maybe just the raw energy? How, or does, Kundilani (sp?) enter the equation? (maybe how closely tied to "spirit?", or "animal?") And which end of the spectrum is it? (which way is up?)

Where does "spooky action at a distance" tie into the flow of the river of life? What is at the source of the river of life?

Is ego natural? Is natural "good?" Else, why rise above ego? Or have I missed something, unless the destination is the super-ego?

Maybe I just think too much.
 
juantoo3 said:
No sir, I haven't, although I understand that to be a classic.

I have read The Art of War a while back, and some thinking I did today reminded me of it.

If I may have permission to play devil's advocate, in order to explore the subject. I might get a little naughty ;) , but I will be very respectful.

A former military person might appreciate a hypothetical that tests where morality, and possibly love, enter the equation. Such as the following:

What can we say of cunning? Cunning is moral to the side that uses it, the side that is on the defensive/done-to/yin end of the bargain considers the matter immoral or un-moral, depending I would think. ;) Essentially, subjective morality in action, even though it can at times such as war countermand such "universal" morals as "thou shalt not murder." In fairness, war is a trying time, particularly for the vanquished. But it is under adversity such as war that human nature shines, or so the philosophers and poets tell us. :)

For example: Is not espionage a form of cunning? I don't recall any quotes off-hand, but I seem to recall Sun-Tzu addressing the matter of espionage, and its relevance to and necessity for successful campaigns. Of course, there are certain political overtures ;) , meaning I don't care for this example. Yet a glimpse at our "ugly" side every once in a while is a good thing, to help keep things in perspective.

Maybe better to focus on other aspects of cunning. Bravado? What did Sun-Tzu say about bravery? Many, many things I vaguely recall, if not about bravery of the troops directly, then in how to provide circumstances to best procure bravery from your own troops. Even so far as pointers on how to upset your enemy's bravery. Is it moral/ethical action to incite bravery in your troops? The other side might not think so, but the other side's thoughts really don't count. Especially since morality is ultimately up to the individual. It is moral for a group of like-minded individuals to be patriotic to each other for the sake of the whole group, for the selfish reason of self-preservation. Is this ethical action? Politics aside. Animal nature seems to be the will to survive, self-preservation. How does this compare with a mother bear and her threatened cub? Where does love figure into the equation?

Is love the driver for patriotism? Or maybe just the raw energy? How, or does, Kundilani (sp?) enter the equation? (maybe how closely tied to "spirit?", or "animal?") And which end of the spectrum is it? (which way is up?)

Where does "spooky action at a distance" tie into the flow of the river of life? What is at the source of the river of life?

Is ego natural? Is natural "good?" Else, why rise above ego? Or have I missed something, unless the destination is the super-ego?

Maybe I just think too much.
Click to expand...
i maybe able to help you with all those bullies going on in your brain juan, but moral or immoral i dont know but, theres smthng that i couldnt get used to your style. theres smthng that wanted myself to stay away from you,
so i will.
kundalini... had its tatoo on my back when i achieved it ))



Zuzu doesnt make me sleep with all that murmuring its making whilst sleep.(ing)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Abogado!

I am glad you asked! It seems like most of the material I went through yesterday made some claim like the following:

Allow me to draw to the attention of the reader, that this is an atheist speaking to a christian. An atheist noting "...we all (or most of us) recognize that there are objective moral standards: rape, murder, etc. are morally wrong." (emphasis mine-jt3)
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that because an atheist admits of a "universal" morality that demonstrates there is one. I'm not sure I agree with that. There are lots of instances where rape and murder would be considered laudible given the right cultural and historical circumstances.

juantoo3 said:
Fear, for clinging to trappings of morality?
Click to expand...
I should have put a line break in there. Those were two different questions. First, I propose - questioningly - whether the motive for subjugating oneself to a moral code is really simply motivated by fear. That could be a fear of reprisal or consequences in the here and now and it could be a fear created by the perception of truth in a judgment in the afterlife (or subsequent lives, etc.). Do you perceive that those with less to fear are more likely to "violate" what you perceive as "uiversal morals?"

The second question is "does everyone cling to the trappings of a universal morality?" It seems that many do not. It also seems that one would be hard pressed to find words to express or describe a universal morality.

juantoo3 said:
Either universal morality exists, or it doesn't.
Click to expand...
It does as a concept, certainly. The question is - does it exist aside from the concept? If so, what is the mode of its existence? What is the description of its attributes? How do we know of its existence or its attributes? And what is its source? That's why I asked about "Karamazov." In Book V, Chapters 4 and 5, Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamozov utters some of the most brilliant prose I've ever read on the subject of morality.

Thank you for this very challenging discussion. I am enjoying it greatly.
 
Hi Abogado,

I would like to thank you for bringing back in my life Dostoyevsky.

In front of him, I have no choice than to incline and be silent.

Alexa
 
Dear Juan,

As promised, I'm back to continue my dissertation on Glenn. R.Morton's opinion.

As you have had the time to post again (this is not a reproach :D ), I'm a little confused about the subject.

I agree with Glenn when he says we have to do the distinction between what we know, independently of our beliefs, and what we can prove.

This was a good beginning. It was harder to follow him after.

A Christian ethicist doesn't (or at least shouldn't) claim that she
can epistemically PROVE the existence of an objective, universal moral code.
Click to expand...


Do you understand what he's talking about ? What Christian ethicist tries to prove the existence of an universal moral code ?

As you said later :
there are components that tend to be "universal", accepted by (effectively) the whole of humanity since the dawn of civilization.
Click to expand...


So, you do believe we have a ground for an universal moral code.

I agree a Christian theism offers an ontological ground for morality. Still, Christianity is only one among other religions of the world.

Than Russell Stewart says "the Christian morality fails to recognize this critical distinction between ontology and epistemology." Hhm :confused: We talk about a religion and not a science.

But the ONTOLOGICAL connection between an atheistic philosophy and having sufficient grounds for universal moral obligation cannot be found.
Click to expand...


In the Christian religion the 10 commandements are laws for their beilivers. If we accept the equation : moral = law, even an atheist who believes in law (judiciary system) can be a moral person.

I'll pass over the passage about monotheist and atheist. I don't like the "prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction" 's part.

as Glen Morton does by scenario, does NOT mean that universal morality has been given an evolutionary and sufficient basis.
Click to expand...


:D I think that's why we have this challenge on line.

It seems Glen didn't take at all in consideration the eastern religions.

Is he an adept of eugenics ?

I'll wait for your comments.

Regards,


Alexa

P.S. I have realised I was out of connection on Internet :mad: , so it's possible my post will have some discrepancies. I apology for any inconveniance due to it.














 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that because an atheist admits of a "universal" morality that demonstrates there is one. I'm not sure I agree with that. There are lots of instances where rape and murder would be considered laudible given the right cultural and historical circumstances.
Click to expand...
Ummm, that was actually just an example. Being pressed for time, I didn't pull similar quotes from other sources. I found very few who challenged that assertion. As for "rape and murder being laudible" under certain circumstances, I thought I touched on that with my example of patriotism. I admit, that example (patriotism) did begin to make me question the concept of "universal" morality, but I am still open to consideration on the matter.

I should have put a line break in there. Those were two different questions. First, I propose - questioningly - whether the motive for subjugating oneself to a moral code is really simply motivated by fear. That could be a fear of reprisal or consequences in the here and now and it could be a fear created by the perception of truth in a judgment in the afterlife (or subsequent lives, etc.).
Click to expand...
That is why I offered the caveat, perhaps not fear in the traditional anglo-european sense. I do hold in my mind and heart a concept of "fear of God", but I am not sure that fear in this sense is the same. Yours is a valid point.

Do you perceive that those with less to fear are more likely to "violate" what you perceive as "uiversal morals?"
Click to expand...
Perhaps a lack of that specific "fear of God." I understand "God" in this sense to be a relative term, depending on the culture and tradition.

The second question is "does everyone cling to the trappings of a universal morality?" It seems that many do not. It also seems that one would be hard pressed to find words to express or describe a universal morality.
Click to expand...
Everyone? No, that would be an absolute. Effectively everyone, yes, but that allows for a host of exceptions.

It does as a concept, certainly (Either universal morality exists, or it doesn't.). The question is - does it exist aside from the concept? If so, what is the mode of its existence? What is the description of its attributes? How do we know of its existence or its attributes? And what is its source?
Click to expand...
Philosophically, this is the million dollar question.

I am also left with a haunting feeling that if it doesn't, the whole of humanity has been deceived for a very long time indeed. I am also left to wonder, if this should indeed be one of the poles between which humans operate in the tension, without it there would be no tension in which to exist. In other words, if no "universal" morality, what is the other pole? What purpose does love serve in that situation or environment? And it still does not answer why morality exists in humanity to begin with.

Thank you for this very challenging discussion. I am enjoying it greatly.
Click to expand...
Glad to be of service, and thank you very much for your contributions in this quest! I look forward to more! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top