What Defines Morality?

[Rose]

Many Christians think of the Ten Commandments as a template for morality, but is it really?



Is it immoral not to worship Yahweh? No, the god people choose to worship has nothing to do with morality.

Is taking Yahweh's name in vain immoral? No

Is it immoral not to keep the Sabbath? The day people choose to rest on, or worship on has nothing to do with morality.

Is killing always immoral? No, killing occurs for many reasons, such as self defense or in war.

Is not honoring your father and mother immoral? No, many parents have treated their children horribly or abandoned them and deserve no honor at all.

Is coveting your neighbors 'goods' immoral? No, coveting another person's property is not an immoral act.


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

[David M]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or

care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

Hello Richard

I have responded to Rose's post to begin the replies. I have come back to your post to make one main point.

As many would say; God is Love. This is one of God's qualities, but not the only one. Love is arguably the highest quality and God has love for those who love Him. God has shown us that He hates abominations and in that case, God does not show love.

If God is Love, then that would mean our morality must be based on God, because you say; "morality is based on love" I know you disagree that God is Love and as I have explained; God is not just Love; He is more than that. Our problem is; we disagree with each other because of what God does, because we see His love differently (in your case - God has no love).

God can kill reprobates for the greater good of the human race, but when He does, you say that is immoral (by your standards). When you would deny God doing what He knows to be for the greater good of humans (in the long-term), you are in fact, imposing your own set of morals(rules) for which you have no credentials to prove that your rules are better.

I try to be objective and that is why I cannot accept what you say, because you cannot prove to be better than God. Your claims to know better than God have no weight at all. You can say that is my subjective statement, but how are you going to prove that I am wrong in my estimation of your values and for you to be in a position to do with what is best for mankind?

Unlike God, you have no plan to work to. God has a plan to restore the world and bring peace and harmony. Human nature left to its own devices has proved not to be in man's best interest. However, God's love is to all those who accept Him and believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Those people who do, come to understand and accept that God will restore the world and that God is the final arbiter and will select who He wants to be in His kingdom (to come on earth). Of course you do not believe in the kingdom of God to come, and will argue this point. I do not want to get into discussion about this here in this thread.

Obedience to God's rules, is what God knows to be best for Humans. Alas, I cannot base my life on your rules/standards which gives me no hope for the future. If you can offer eternal life, let me know, and then you might get me to agree with you. I know that even eternal life is a subject on its own and you will not agree and that is why I do not want to enter into any discussion that goes beyond the subject under discussion here. I have given you some reasons why I accept God's rules; its my choice. I am not going to get drawn into further discussions here. In this post and my reply to Rose, I have given my justification for why I choose God's rules. I have put up and I am shutting up for now and will see what others have to say. I might join in again later when more members of the forum have made their contribution to the discussion.

This discussion on morality is at the heart of the discussions we are having to do with human rights etc. It will be interesting to get a range of comments to this thread that Rose has started.

All the best,

David

[throwback]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.

Yeah, that sounds like a pretty reasonable description of morality. But what is the foundation of our moral intuitions? Is it just biology? I don't think so. Yes, it begins in biology, but there are layers built upon layers. Our big brains allow use to perceive/create abstract concepts about morality. It's like love - yes, it is based in biology, but something more is going on which I doubt could be fully "reduced" to nothing but atoms moving in space.

This is all linked to the fallacy of the "material reductionist" explanation of everything. The idea of matter itself is just that - an abstract concept, a mental construct. We infer quarks, electrons, and atoms. We don't directly see them. So to say that these mental constructs exist as ontological entities "out there" in the world, and that their interaction "explains" everything from chemistry to the mind, seems to be a self-referential loop. We could just as well start with idealism and say that all "things" are objects of our consciousness, and so consciousness is the ground of being. I'm not committed to any particular metaphysical framework because I have no certain knowledge of such speculative things, but I do tend toward idealism. But I also think the scientific explanations are of central importance. Especially evolution. So I am mystified by it all. On the one hand, I see consciousness being dependent upon the brain. The larger the brain, the greater the consciousness - ant, mouse, cat, horse, chimp, human. So it looks like consciousness is a function of the brain (matter). But on the other hand, I can't imagine how an object becomes a subject. So from that point of view, it looks like consciousness is independent of matter.



I've been meditating on this for some time, and I see both sides of the coin. So the solution may be that there is only "Matter/Mind" - two sides of the same coin.

[Greatest I am]

I would venture to say that morality is a concept that emerges automatically as a function of having multiple sentient life forms existing in a shared reality. If I had to give my personal definition of the term, it would be along the lines of: Morality describes the laws that govern the interaction and interpersonal relationships of a cohabitating populace.

Very nice and not just because I have had similar thoughts.
A darn good way to kill the notion that morality comes from God.
After all, he is just one and was alone for God knows how long before developing all the need that he is said to have and a bitch of a temper if we do not produce and fill those needs.



Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If God is Love, then that would mean our morality must be based on God, because you say; "morality is based on love" I know you disagree that God is Love and as I have explained; God is not just Love; He is more than that. Our problem is; we disagree with each other because of what God does, because we see His love differently (in your case - God has no love).

I don't disagree that God is love. Some of the descriptions of God in the Bible are just fine. But others are in grave error.

I never said that "God has no love." But the God of the Bible is a different matter. Obviously, there was no "love" for the people he ordered to be slaughtered or the virgins he ordered to be distributed to the soldiers who slaughtered their families.

God can kill reprobates for the greater good of the human race, but when He does, you say that is immoral (by your standards). When you would deny God doing what He knows to be for the greater good of humans (in the long-term), you are in fact, imposing your own set of morals(rules) for which you have no credentials to prove that your rules are better.

Sure, God can do what he wants. The problem is that that he didn't do it himself but commanded his people to do it, and that makes him look like he's trying to impersonate a typical brutal Bronze age tribal war god. Why would God choose to do that? How are we supposed to learn about morality if he goes about guiding his people into gross immorality? Splattering themselves with baby-guts. It's ridiculous.

I try to be objective and that is why I cannot accept what you say, because you cannot prove to be better than God. Your claims to know better than God have no weight at all. You can say that is my subjective statement, but how are you going to prove that I am wrong in my estimation of your values and for you to be in a position to do with what is best for mankind?

I'm sorry, but I have never seen any indication of any "objectivity" on your part. You are entirely committed to the truth of the Bible no matter how it appears to contradict known facts. You don't even address points that are contrary to you belief system. Everything you write is designed not to find truth, but to justify whatever is written in the Bible. Your behavior is the polar opposite of "objectivity." If you want to begin being objective, it would be good to start by admitting this fact.

Your assertion that I cannot prove that I am better than the God of the Bible is absurd. You merely assert, with no supporting evidence, that the God of the Bible is the true God and that he has some "plan" for humanity. That's all just empty assertion. You know no such thing. You are a man like me. You are setting yourself up as if you had true KNOWLEDGE of the "God's plan" when in fact all you have are unfounded beliefs based on an ancient religious text. That does not qualify as true "knowledge." You can't reject my words by merely claiming that your concept of God is correct, as if that settled it!

Unlike God, you have no plan to work to. God has a plan to restore the world and bring peace and harmony. Human nature left to its own devices has proved not to be in man's best interest. However, God's love is to all those who accept Him and believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Those people who do, come to understand and accept that God will restore the world and that God is the final arbiter and will select who He wants to be in His kingdom (to come on earth). Of course you do not believe in the kingdom of God to come, and will argue this point. I do not want to get into discussion about this here in this thread.

Granted - I am not God! Duh. Neither are you. Double duh. All your claims about God are no different than those of a Muslim or Hindu. So you can't trump my arguments by pointing out that I'm not "God" and I don't have a "plan" for planet earth. That's an absurd line of reasoning.

Human nature has always been "left to it's own devices" as far as anyone can tell. But when we relied on God we died. Then we stood up and began to rely on ourselves and we developed vaccines and so we live when God was perfectly happy to let us die no matter how much we prayed to him. The proof is simple: Take 100 atheists and 100 Christians. Give them all the plague. Let the Christians pray and let the Atheists take antibiotics. Who lives? Who dies? Case closed.

Don't worry, I won't argue your private version of eschatology here. We've got bigger fish to fry.

Obedience to God's rules, is what God knows to be best for Humans.

There is absolutely no evidence for that assertion. It doesn't even mean anything, because every Christian has a different set of "God's rules." For example, you are a Sabbath keeper, right? There are few Christians that agree with you. And what about shellfish? Do you eat it? And what does shellfish have to do with morality or what's best for people anyway? Absolutely nothing.

Alas, I cannot base my life on your rules/standards which gives me no hope for the future.

You can't base your life on love? What's wrong with you?

This discussion on morality is at the heart of the discussions we are having to do with human rights etc. It will be interesting to get a range of comments to this thread that Rose has started.

All the best,

David

Yes indeed!

All the best to you too,

Richard

[Unregistered]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

I do not agree.

A baby can bond but it cannot reason love.

It can follow it's instinct though and to us it might look like love but it is just the baby recognizing through instincts the rules of prisoners revenge. That it is more profitable to survival to cooperate and not compete. The only two things that you and I do constantly when interacting with others.

I think this is proof.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...rality-100511/

Regards
DL

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

I do not agree.

A baby can bond but it cannot reason love.

It can follow it's instinct though and to us it might look like love but it is just the baby recognizing through instincts the rules of prisoners revenge. That it is more profitable to survival to cooperate and not compete. The only two things that you and I do constantly when interacting with others.

I think this is proof.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...rality-100511/

Regards
DL

Hi DL,

Welcome to our forum!



I agree that the there is a biological basis to morality, but that doesn't explain everything about it. Empathy is seen in other species and primates are known to have a sense of "fairness." But the full concept of "morality" is a product of our big brains and ability to reason and abstract. I have no reason to think it is entirely based in biology and nothing else. The babies discussed in the link you posted shows only the rudimentary circuitry that lies at the foundation of our morality. As an adult, love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions. I still have no reason to think that morality is based on a set of rules.

All the best,

Richard

[Greatest I am]

Hi DL,

Welcome to our forum!



I agree that the there is a biological basis to morality, but that doesn't explain everything about it. Empathy is seen in other species and primates are known to have a sense of "fairness." But the full concept of "morality" is a product of our big brains and ability to reason and abstract. I have no reason to think it is entirely based in biology and nothing else. The babies discussed in the link you posted shows only the rudimentary circuitry that lies at the foundation of our morality. As an adult, love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions. I still have no reason to think that morality is based on a set of rules.

All the best,

Richard

I agree that initially it is not based on rules. It is based on our survival instincts and those go to cooperation as that baby shows. It is the same with other animals. Rules for man only come into play as a learned response. You are thinking backwards. You say that love and fairness are the key to our moral intuitions.

That baby clip proves that it is our survival instincts that push to cooperation and that intuition is what grows to our sense of fairness and then love.

Watch what happens when the first cooperation (love) is rejected by the other chimp in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mv8rfJmCPk

Thanks for the welcome BTW.

Regards
DL