What is the relationship between logic, rationality and morals?

[jay gw]

Morals
concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles
ethical: adhering to ethical and moral principles

Logic
The study of sound reasoning.
the study of the laws of thought and forms of argument

Rational
Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem.

The question comes from some things Immanuel Kant said about morals and rationality. He said that a person could not be held to moral laws and was not a moral agent if they were not rational and used logic. Morals and logical thinking are in direct proportion said Kant, and the more a person used sound reasoning and logic in their thinking the more moral they could become. A person would not be thought of as a moral agent if they were somehow incapable of reason.

This explains for example:

* why if a dog bites someone the dog isn't considered "immoral"
* why if a child does something wrong they're forgiven but if an adult does the same thing they're not forgiven
* why a mentally ill or senile person is still held responsible but has legal protection for certain acts sane people don't
* why insanity is a legal defense to crimes

The Western world apparently believed Kant and it operates on the premises he set down. Mental state, morals and the law are considered to be interconnected.

If people are not automatically moral from birth, and there's no evidence that they are, then it would mean it's learned and conscious. That explains why there are morals like having multiple wives is ok in one place but it's not ok in another place.

Anything affecting the learning process or consciousness would be an interference to acquiring morality. Anything affecting reasoning might also be an interference.

Research on the brain shows a particular location associated with moral behavior and controls over impulse. If the area is damaged (it's right behind the forehead) then a person will start acting wildly and think nothing of committing crimes.

So what's the relationship between morals, logic and reason?

[teacher]

Your cranial biology would justify headbanging rockers in criminal proceedings. "I was exercising my right to bang my head against a wall all my life and now I have no scrupples." That's supposed to be a joke.

There is a link in that babies don't tend to act as immoral because they are being restrained and can't physically do things that put them in such positions. Consider most crimes (theft, rape, breaking and entering etc.) and they smply can't do it because they don't get the opportunity. Put your eye near their finger and they will happily poke it out. So we need to both learn things (know right from wrong) and be able to carry them out (have the opportunity) before we can be judged on doing certain things.

From a Biblical perspective, it talks a lot of the importance of education and especially upbringing with catastrophic consequences for leading children astray. Big responsibility. Maybe that threat is because of the danger in interferring with the conscience/moral barometer?

Animals cannot do anything wrong. They do not possess a conscience or the intelligence or logic to do things wrong, they are purely instinctive creatures. It may well be the distinguishing feature between animals and man. Training a dog 'not to poo on the bed' and trying to wack them if they attempt it befoire then run, is not conscience but experience. Humans with loss of memory can do this - remember pain and associate it with doing/not dong something. Extreme memory loss though results in humans not being responsive to past threats.

But I think you are right, the link I make is just tertiary and partly coincidental. On a graph, the link would soon be lost and become independent of logic or intelligence - if these 3 particular aspects are used, but I don't see the/a link.

Starving Asians will not steal for food, yet Westerners would steal for a laugh or for a number of reasons. This is directly associated with learning, upbringing, society, religion and culture (or laws and deterrents - or lack of them).

Logic seems subjective, irrational and irrelevant here. Logic to a Brit would say - steal, you need food. Yet to an Indian, a higher law says no, because it's wrong.

Reason seems to have been dealt a blow too or is itself very subjective. Is it reasonable to steal? Yes says the Brit and No says the Indian. Why? One argues from need, the other from ethics, and even if ethics were the starting point for both, to one, there's no problem, to the other it is serious.

I think the link is between a.) morality, b.) upbringing and c.) free will. We all have these, so the only significant or wildly variable factor is b.). There would seem to be exceptions with defective people (mental illness etc.) but otherwise, b.) is the key ingredient. a.) can be singed or hardened against by reasion, twisted logic or upbringing. c.) can be restricted through fear. Logic or reason can be twisted in upbringing.

So I think reason and logic are generally, but not always stable and not very significant in the issue of morality and free will, which are more dependent on upbringing (what we learn, follow, are taught and then choose to believe or are indoctinated into etc.).

[Iacchus]

Hey, what do we need morality for anyway? If, according to the evolutionists, it was something that was necessary, wouldn't it pretty much be in our genes?

[Melendwyr]

"Ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge. If we agree on some fundamental ethical propositions, other ethical propositions can be derived from them, provided that the original premises are stated with sufficient precision.Such ethical premises play a similar role in ethics, to that played by axioms in mathematics."
"Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience." - Albert Einstein

[l0rca]

I have another good read for you. It should basically sum up how I feel about the argument. I'd go into it more philosophically, and include my own thoughts, but right now I've sort of exhausted my need to talk about this any further. Enjoy.

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Morality.html

(Yes, this is the third time on this website I've used this link. I promise I won't anymore...)

[Robin]

Starving Asians will not steal for food, yet Westerners would steal for a laugh or for a number of reasons. This is directly associated with learning, upbringing, society, religion and culture (or laws and deterrents - or lack of them).
Seems something of a generalisation, I am not sure that you could justify this statement. One's wallet is no safer in an Asian city than it is in a British city.
Reason seems to have been dealt a blow too or is itself very subjective. Is it reasonable to steal? Yes says the Brit and No says the Indian. Why? One argues from need, the other from ethics, and even if ethics were the starting point for both, to one, there's no problem, to the other it is serious.
Again I doubt this, I am unaware of any research that shows British people's attitude to stealing significantly different to anyone else's.
I think the link is between a.) morality, b.) upbringing and c.) free will. We all have these, so the only significant or wildly variable factor is b.). There would seem to be exceptions with defective people (mental illness etc.) but otherwise, b.) is the key ingredient. a.) can be singed or hardened against by reasion, twisted logic or upbringing. c.) can be restricted through fear. Logic or reason can be twisted in upbringing.
In fact this is quite topical here in Australia. Some young men accused of particularly horrifying crimes are using as their defense the fact that they were brought up in city like say, Lahore or Islamabad, with all it's taboos and could not have been expected to have the same self control as someone brought up in a city like Sydney where taboos are often absent.

Needless to say this argument was given short shrift by all concerned, not the least by people who were brought up in Lahore or Islamabad who considered that they had at least as much self control as a Western brought up person.

What was interesting is that the basic values of the person with the strict Islamic upbringing and that of the person with the secular Australian upbringing were pretty much the same. There was no broad disagreement about the severity of their crimes and the level of responsibility they bore. Apart, that is, from the defendants themselves and their lawyers.

I think that it would be interesting to have research that that showed the relative impact on moral attitudes of upbringing compared to some reason affecting factors such as mental illness,drug addiction and early abuse.

[teacher]

Hi Robin.
I feel I could accurately be quite general, but I was referring only to my experience and my wife's knowlege. Exceptions exist everywhere of course.

Crime statistics (an element of moral behaviour) are readily available as ethnic breakdowns and in Britain alone, (without even comparing to another country) there are significant differences. Black Afro/Caribbeans are by far the worst in terms of academia and crime. You can compare countries too. I bet stealing is lower in Rihad in Saudi than in Brooklyn, NYC.

My wife, who lives in Britain is Indian and I am very well travelled (about 100 countries) and there are definite differences in moral standards between nations. As a teacher, I see clear differences in schools in different areas and if I compare a typical British school with an Indian one, there is no comparison. I spend most of my time on behaviour and discipline in England and none in India. Different ethics and attitudes and aspirations are taught there. They appreciate life more because of the povert which is reflected in upbringing.

Of the different geographical/cultural moral differences there is no doubt, and I think the root is clear (if multifaceted) too, a combination of upbringing (certainly) and culture/society - but that instructs upbringing anyway. Wealth is not generally an issue on morality in India compared to Britain where education (with instructs wealth) is a factor, but it comes down to upbringing again.

There are other aspects like political systems, fear, justice systems and general views on certain ethics, but I'd plump for upbringing as the primary source of moral values. It's certainly clear with kids in schools anyway as I teach hundreds of kids (and meet their parents with great predictability).

A bit like observing a supermarket. If I describe the contents of the basket, I can usually guess the relative size of the buyer if shopping for her/himself. You are what you eat and you are what you learn.

But is there a higher, universal ethic within us too?

[jay gw]

there are definite differences in moral standards between nations.

Patterns?

I'd plump for upbringing as the primary source of moral values.

That would mean the parents style with the children is the main factor and that's random.

[teacher]

Yes, I think all my suggestions have a non-theistic origin. That doesn't mean I believe morality has its source outside of God, a point alluded to in my very last question.

I think there is both a universal moral law (giver) and a universal recognision of right and wrong within us (conscience).

There isn't (any longer) perfection in the world, which distorts and hinders our view of the observed world/universe and also our inner, natural moral reasoning.

I'm sure there are exceptions and extremes here that can be found to demonstrate that morality is stubborn or seared in some - e.g. ill or mental health.

This is why it is so important to teach (our children) a learned morality based on the (sometimes lost or impaired) universal law and/or misguided (or erroeously distracted) concience based on cultures or times or places with different value systems or beliefs.

This should explain why, even 'normal' people can seem to have different moral standpoints (compared to everyone having the same if God implanted a universal moral code) - because it gets tampered with and requires educating too, to counter this.

Is anyone willing to admit that a part of the belief of atheism, however YOU may choose to live or what principle or reasoning you choose to follow, in theory, 'anything can go'?

[Robin]

Is anyone willing to admit that a part of the belief of atheism, however YOU may choose to live or what principle or reasoning you choose to follow, in theory, 'anything can go'?
But really 'anything can go' is just as true of theists. Where is the consistent moral framework for theism? Not the Bible certainly. Not a book where the Deity orders the mass murder of children whose crime was to be living in the place he wanted his own people to live.

Not a good role model is it? So there is some good stuff in the New Testament, but Christians can and do pick and chose what they want to believe about this book.

I have not come across any nasties in the Upanishads but I have not really come across a consistent moral framework in it either. But I have not read them exhaustively. Can you point to a source for a moral framework for theists?

[Complexity]

Is anyone willing to admit that a part of the belief of atheism, however YOU may choose to live or what principle or reasoning you choose to follow, in theory, 'anything can go'?

No, "Teacher", 'anything can go' is not part of atheism.

What a contemptible assertion.

I have found that, because atheists must squarely face their beliefs, consider where they have come from, and choose whether to retain them, atheists usually have more coherent and thought-through systems of morals and ethics than believers do.

[teacher]

Complexity. Hi.
Call the assertion whatever you want, but justify yourself by explaining WHY or by what authority 'anything goes' is actually wrong or not an equally justifiable assertion of the implication of atheism. Your rejection suggests a code which I have missed which you abide by that says my understanding is wrong - so what is it?

Surely you need an authority or standard from which to deny this? As I make very clear, I understand that many atheists lead moral lives and would condemn immorality. Am I not allowed, as a seeker on this forum, to talk and ask about these things? I feel, however nasty the point sounds (which is my point), can you show the error of it?

You say many atheists have 'thought through morals'. There are many that have not thought through them and many (e.g. gangs) that have selfishness as their moral code. Why and from what basis do you say that any one system is worse than another? Who is to say that the earth's destruction is not as acceptable as love one another? It is the lack of an authoratitive or objective framework that is a major reason for not accepting atheism as an option as it seems too cold and pointless - which in theory (if not practise), it has to be conceded that it is, isn't it?

Robin. Thanks for reply.
Hinduism is more horrific that any other religion based on Holy scripture, though much horror is between gods. The widow burning concept (Sutti) comes from such a story in Hinduism too.

First, you assume that God takes His orders from a universal norm (i.e. goodness) rather than God BEING goodness and/or the creator of such rules, (cf. the Euthyphro dilemma) in which case anything God does is O.K. even being (whatbyoununderstand) as bad. Your/my puny opinion carries NO weight at all. If we accept God, we accept His authority like when we join an organisation, we adhere to its rules.

You also don't consider the numerous explanations for God's actions. You don't consider the error, exaggeration, allegory or bias of potential writers. You also don't consider the omnipresence of God who may know the future and base His decisions on that - the apparent mystery of God.

There are very good explanations as to why God committed genocide for example, to include men, women, children and animals on numerous occasions.

It is also reasonable to follow the MAIN gist of a doctrine or philosophy or principle or law of something. The ten commandments, the sermon on the mount, the teachings of Jesus, the ethic of love etc. There is nothing in the Bible that tempts YOU to torture people. You are not God anyway, so just do what He says and accept that He knows what HE'S doing. You can't select a god that suits your views, because you aren’t the final authority. We, the respectful tend to follow the ethic of our parents, except the rebellious kids. Maybe God is like this regarding us?

I don’t know why you use the Bible and pick on its nastier bits to refute it. To give examples of philosophies that are also unethical, despite their superficial logic, I could include any teleological or deontological theory and pick major flaws. Take utilitarianism. It is easy to justify abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, genocide and killing any minority group based on its principles and implications.

There is no system that anyone has devised that can’t be found to be inconsistent or majorly wrong. Like the unified theory of everything, that’s the task of philosophers.

I think there is both a universal law and an inner law within us (rather like Kant says) that is the framework. The problem then comes with what religion if any and what Holy book if any. I'm with the Bible as being basically true regarding the main thrust. Anything else, I use common sense or deduction based on my understanding of God and who I understand Him to be.

A bit subjective I'm afraid, but my philosophy extends to allowing other people's philosophies and understandings too. Atheism may be one option, but I think that all people have a God sense.

[l0rca]

Teacher: would you do me a favor, and read the content in the hyperlink I gave above, and comment, or refute it?

I'm asking you to do this because what's in that hyperlink is the current best scientific information on morals, and it's a complete slap in the face to what you're talking about.

I figure if we're going to have a meaningful dicussion on this, why not compare our discussions against the pinacle of human knowledge, and not just speculation and personal philosophy?

[Iacchus]

Complexity. Hi.
Call the assertion whatever you want, but justify yourself by explaining WHY or by what authority 'anything goes' is actually wrong or not an equally justifiable assertion of the implication of atheism. Your rejection suggests a code which I have missed which you abide by that says my understanding is wrong - so what is it?Well, I find the entire idea revolting and disgusting! :eek:

[Belz...]

Hey, what do we need morality for anyway? If, according to the evolutionists, it was something that was necessary, wouldn't it pretty much be in our genes?

You mean like electricity and gasoline engines ? Just because its not in our genes doesn't mean it's not useful or, dare I say, necessary in a society.

[Iacchus]

You mean like electricity and gasoline engines ? Just because its not in our genes doesn't mean it's not useful or, dare I say, necessary in a society.Would you suggest that morality is something which is born out of objective reality then?

[drkitten]

Would you suggest that morality is something which is born out of objective reality then?


How does that follow?

[Iacchus]

How does that follow?If it isn't inherent within our genes, then where does it come from? Something which is entirely arbitrary? If so, then why make any distinction about it being "moral" whatsoever?

[drkitten]

If it isn't inherent within our genes, then where does it come from?

Elsewhere.

[Complexity]

Complexity. Hi.
Call the assertion whatever you want, but justify yourself by explaining WHY or by what authority 'anything goes' is actually wrong or not an equally justifiable assertion of the implication of atheism. Your rejection suggests a code which I have missed which you abide by that says my understanding is wrong - so what is it?

Surely you need an authority or standard from which to deny this? As I make very clear, I understand that many atheists lead moral lives and would condemn immorality. Am I not allowed, as a seeker on this forum, to talk and ask about these things? I feel, however nasty the point sounds (which is my point), can you show the error of it?

You say many atheists have 'thought through morals'. There are many that have not thought through them and many (e.g. gangs) that have selfishness as their moral code. Why and from what basis do you say that any one system is worse than another? Who is to say that the earth's destruction is not as acceptable as love one another? It is the lack of an authoratitive or objective framework that is a major reason for not accepting atheism as an option as it seems too cold and pointless - which in theory (if not practise), it has to be conceded that it is, isn't it?

I do not recognize or need an authority or standard when it comes to morals and ethics. I have my own code and that is what I base all of my decisions on.

My rejection of your assertion that atheism leads to "anything goes" is based upon my knowledge of myself and what I know of several other atheists.

Talk about and ask whatever you like. I am under no obligation to play games that bore me.

I am not interested in your understanding atheism or becoming an atheist, nor am I interested in engaging you in another useless discussion on the subject. If you were to spend some time in a comfortable room and think for a while, you might come to understand more about this.

Atheists can be just as silly and wrong as theists, although I believe we are right on the question of whether there is a god. I make no claims for atheists in general.

I was reacting to your unworthy assertion, which I believe to be incorrect.

[Iacchus]

Elsewhere.Somewhere outside of the objective reality we call the Universe perhaps?

[teacher]

Hi mercurryturrent.
I did read the whole article. I liked the ethical dilemmas and I think it's a good idea to look at alternatives and challenges to what theists claim to be the conscience or knowledge of a universal moral law stemming from within. There were some clever ideas about offering the brain different ethical dilemmas and noting the different reactions to what can be argued are actually equally ethical challenges, with some merely more gory options than others. A conscience should not differentiate, hence the implication that it is an evolved, learned, ingrained or intuitive response.

As I understand it, the research is quite new and ongoing, too early to make any conclusive assumptions. I don't really see how this, when complete, would debunk theistic views, but we'll see. I have long thought of similar and more effective sociological tests that would make the same challenges, but they are considered unethical by modern (complying with religious) standards. Raising babies as gay, teaching certain bad thinks as good and vice versa, separated from society etc.

I may have misunderstood it too (again, I have ASD and struggle with words, perspective, length and ideas sometimes). An esteemed poster, Dr complexity seems a lot brighter and more thoughtful than I. The problem is, I have never been nasty or looked down on anyone or disrespected anyone's lesser ability. Can't any ability come here? Isn't it better to deal with ignorance or a lack of understanding by education, bringing the understanding of the person up? There is no level of intelligence or understanding to attain before entering discussions here. If someone is 'beneath you' or speaking too superficially, address the question or ignore it or explain the problem or why you can’t or won’t. I am being made to feel unwelcome here by a select few. If I am lowering the level, let any two speak and I'll leave.

You appear to imply that the last bastion of theism – the moral argument, has been demolished as though it were proven and all agree. Even if it were featured in multiple science journals (as has erroneous missing links and other dodgy stuff in a fight for publicity and sales).

I may have misunderstood it, but if theists argue that God put conscience as either a physical part of the brain or in the spiritual realm, either could explain it. The fall of man has further degenerated our grasp of right and wrong – hence the need for moral upbringing based on God given truths. We cannot be held accountable for illness or disability hindering it either. Conscience can be seared. I mentioned these in the last post.

So, I don’t refute anything, I merely say that it is a helpful hypothesis, and one of many. I look forward to critical assessment and peer reviews.

Complexity said:
“I do not recognize or need an authority or standard when it comes to morals and ethics. [O.K. If you say so, but wait, you do…] I have my own code and that is what I base all of my decisions on.”

I’m sure your values are great, but wouldn’t the world have been destroyed by now if each one of us were given such a choice, given that if each of us had such a choice to put into place, there would be as many different views as people, and many would be radical, extreme and contradictory? Yes, in PRACTISE, we haven’t quite come to anarchy and maybe won’t, but I’m discussing the theoretical implications of atheism, not the practical outpourings, of which it is a very mixed bag.

You have an easy way out, or, of explaining this. Just accept that in theory, anything goes (which equates to each man for himself or to his own – the very thing you seem to say above – “my code…what I base things on”). Then go on to imply that you personally (again, just you - subjective comment) follow your own values and leave others to do the same and respect that they may differ, widely (again equating to ‘anything goes’ amongst man).

Many a psychic has claimed it is beneath them to respond to sceptics for a range of reasons. This is frustrating to sceptics. You seem to be doing the same with my question. If it’s so blatantly obvious, superficial or wrong, just answer it or agree with me, but stop sidetracking or explain what I’m missing here please as your own statements seem to contradict themselves and even if resolved, you can’t justify them.

Exaggerated, oversimplified. Lot’s of atheists role-playing if it helps.

Mr Nasty: Hey you, Mr Nice, you are always so nice and helpful you s**thead, why is that?
Mrs Nice: Hello Mr. Nasty, lovely day. It’s because I feel it’s right and I am conforming to what I believe and I feel the majority can benefit if they follow the same rules – why don’t you try it and see?
Mr Nasty: But I’m rich and have power and so do my gang. We’re growing and feel that weakness is wrong and should be challenged and eradicated. I feel that the week should be oppressed, why carry the minority?
Miss. Poor: I couldn’t help overhearing both of you. I believe in preserving the world for future generations and so I work hard, eat twice a day and donate 80% of my salary and free time to helping the poor and needy.
Dr oddity: I believe in flying psychics and lots of bizarre unproveable things because an ancient voice told to pursue it and reveal it to the world. Oh, and to kill all frogs, left handed people and…
Dr logic 1: It seems clear that there is no God, but sensible, in the interests of world peace and unity to invent one given that studies show that believing in a god reduces stress, anger and gives hope and happiness.
Dr logic 2: As evolution is clearly true, let us follow its course rather than detract, despite our having left its track, and add to it. Let us genetically engineer things, let us torture criminals, bring back infanticide and strive for perfection and remove imperfection. We could follow our instincts and allow people to be aggressive.
Dr logic 3: I disagree with Dr logic. I think we should just be nice and follow our own instincts unless it hurts someone because then I might be at the other end sometime.
Mr extreme: Insert anything you like from existing philosophies or groups.
Mr Average: I believe….? I don’t know what I believe. I’m confused!
Me: I claim to be a Christian and in theory should be putting my beliefs (love) in action – the proof of it, by ‘doing’. But I don’t give a damn about anyone worse off than me, because I spend less than 1% of my life and money on them. I probably have the most hypocritical philosophy of all.

And I haven’t touched on some very concerning ethics in Asia or Africa.

If an alien were watching (or God forbid, God), then wouldn’t he conclude that clearly anything goes? If not, what doesn’t go? IN THEORY. Who’s opinion is wrong?

It just seems that if everyone has your philosophy (what’s right for me), and you can’t argue that anyone’s philosophy is any better or worse (because there is no authority to do so), then aren’t you saying that anything goes, or doesn’t this statement equate to what you believe?

Perhaps Iacchus or someone can explain it nicely to me, because I’m clearly either not getting it across or not getting it myself.

[Robin]

Teacher,

I don't know what makes you think I want to refute the Bible (whatever that might mean).

The Bible is of literary and cultural interest to me only, I don't regard it as a source of divine knowledge.

My question was where does a theist get a consistent moral framework

As I pointed out the Bible does not contain such a thing. Even if you concentrate on the NT there is not much there to work with.

If there is a God then he is invisible and silent - so not much help there.

That leaves you with men who claim to represent God and say "do God's will" when what they really mean is "do my will".

Oh, and by your way are you sure 'gangs' are atheists? Seems to me there is a little organisation called the Mafia who are traditionally Christians.

[Iacchus]

It just seems that if everyone has your philosophy (what’s right for me), and you can’t argue that anyone’s philosophy is any better or worse (because there is no authority to do so), then aren’t you saying that anything goes, or doesn’t this statement equate to what you believe?

Perhaps Iacchus or someone can explain it nicely to me, because I’m clearly either not getting it across or not getting it myself.In many ways what you're saying here is correct. But, since nobody likes to be cheated, it's easy to see how people can accept something so simple as the Golden Rule, regardless of whether they're "religious" or not.

[Roboramma]

From a Biblical perspective, it talks a lot of the importance of education and especially upbringing with catastrophic consequences for leading children astray. Big responsibility. Maybe that threat is because of the danger in interferring with the conscience/moral barometer?

Aside from biblical evidence, is there good solid reason to believe that people's morality is significantly influenced by their upbringing?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but it is (as Steven Pinker says (see below for the source) "a testable hypthesis and not a self-evident truth".

Here's what Steven Pinker had to say in "How the Mind Works":

"Much of the variation in personality - about fifty percent -has genetic causes. Identical twins separated at birth are alike; biological siblings raised together are more alike than adopted siblings. That means that the other fifty percent must come from the parents and the home, right? Wrong! Being brought up on one home versus another accounts, at most, for five percent of the differences amoung people in personality. Identical twins separated at birth are not only similar, they are virtually as similar as identical twins raised together."

I don't know how well supported the above is, though Pinker is at the very least intellectually honest. But his interpretation of the data could be in error.
Also, he's not talking specifically about morality here. Perhaps that 5% clusters around moral issues? I don't know.

But it's a meaningful question. Do you know the answer?

Animals cannot do anything wrong. They do not possess a conscience or the intelligence or logic to do things wrong, they are purely instinctive creatures. It may well be the distinguishing feature between animals and man.
In case you've forgotten, we are animals. Now the distinction you talk about. Well, in most cases I would agree, but it is because of the properties of those animals that frees them from moral issues. If a human were to have those same properties, he would also be in the same situation. If another species of animal were to share certian properties with us, it would fall under moral concerns as well.
And, honestly, I'm not sure that none do in any way. Anyway, each case should be investigated independantly.
I know it sounds crazy to say that we might judge a dolphin on the morality of it's actions. I don't mean this in any simplistic way. Just that if we can be judged on the morality of our actions, the same must be true of other species, so long as they share whatever atribute it is that makes us fit to be judged.
First I'd need to know what that attribute is, before denying that any other species shares it with us. And by the way, since you can't show that I have a soul, or that a dog does not, that isn't going to cut it. (By the way, I think there are different attibutes for different moral considerations, and most of those that corespond to responsibility are exclusive to humans, but the question is meaningful).

Starving Asians will not steal for food, yet Westerners would steal for a laugh or for a number of reasons. This is directly associated with learning, upbringing, society, religion and culture (or laws and deterrents - or lack of them).
Well, I live in China, and I recently had two bicycles stolen in the space of a month. The cleaning woman who worked in the house that I was staying at in India when I was there (for about 6 months on one trip), stole loose change and food from everyone's room. One girl even set up a sting (which I thought was silly, the lady didn't take much) to prove it. It was pretty obvious, though.
I'm not suggesting that social factors don't come into play in morality. On the other hand, it's pretty similar across cultures, in a broad sense, and the circumstances in which one is willing to go against one's morality are also pretty similar.

Logic seems subjective, irrational and irrelevant here. Logic to a Brit would say - steal, you need food. Yet to an Indian, a higher law says no, because it's wrong.
How is logic irrational? Logic doesn't say either of those things because it can't determine goals. One man's highest goal could be "to live a good life", and stealing would be the most illogical thing to do. Another's might be "to stay alive", and often stealing would be logical. But in neither case is it irrational.
And once we have set our priorities, the axioms of our moral system, logic can help us to at the least make sure we are consistent, and follow through with those axioms. And it can also help us to get rid of axioms that lead to absurdity.

Reason seems to have been dealt a blow too or is itself very subjective. Is it reasonable to steal? Yes says the Brit and No says the Indian. Why? One argues from need, the other from ethics, and even if ethics were the starting point for both, to one, there's no problem, to the other it is serious.
As I said above, the problem is not with the reasoning, but with the assumption that we must all have the same goals. We don't.
(I don't know where you got the idea to suggest that brits like to steal and indians do not, but do you have any evidence of it?)

I think the link is between a.) morality, Something that is very hard to define. Explain to me what it is and why it is binding. This is a question I've been having a very hard time answering of late, though I have some answers.
My veiw is that human moral ideas have evolutionary and cultural origins. But that doesn't suggest any reason that we should be bound to them.
On the other hand my own morality is built upon the fact that there are some things like I like and some that I do not. I think my own suffering is bad. Since I have to reason to believe that anyone else's suffering is different from my own, I'm forced to consider their's bad too.
It's more complicated than simply that, but this post is long enough already.

b.) upbringing and
See above. Show that upbringing is meaningful in determining morality.
c.) free will.
Ah. What is free will, anyway?

We all have these, so the only significant or wildly variable factor is b.). There would seem to be exceptions with defective people (mental illness etc.) but otherwise, b.) is the key ingredient. a.) can be singed or hardened against by reasion, twisted logic or upbringing. c.) can be restricted through fear. Logic or reason can be twisted in upbringing.

So I think reason and logic are generally, but not always stable and not very significant in the issue of morality and free will, which are more dependent on upbringing (what we learn, follow, are taught and then choose to believe or are indoctinated into etc.).
Funny because my own morality is built mainly from reason and logic combined with gut feelings. Some of those gut feelings may come from upbringing, but most of them seem innate. They are certainly cross cultural.

To be honest, I think that much of my "reasoned" morality is an attempt to justify those gut feelings. The rest is an attempt to maintain consistency within the system of beliefs. But at least I'm willing to throw out gut feelings if I can show them to be obviously false.

[Roboramma]

It just seems that if everyone has your philosophy (what’s right for me), and you can’t argue that anyone’s philosophy is any better or worse (because there is no authority to do so), then aren’t you saying that anything goes, or doesn’t this statement equate to what you believe?

Perhaps Iacchus or someone can explain it nicely to me, because I’m clearly either not getting it across or not getting it myself.

Actually, I agree with you about the problem. Morality, for it to be meaningful, must come from somewhere. That is, I can't just make it up, or say that it was programmed into me by evolution, and then suggest that is reason enough to say that I should follow it.

On the other hand, I don't see how God offers us a 'get out of jail free card'. Just because God decrees something, how does that make it right, any more than if I were to decree it?
Is it a matter of power? If there were no God, but there was a King of the World, would his decrees be necessarily moraly correct?

Now, many suggest that God is omnibenevolent, which makes everything he does, and everything he wants, good. But on the other hand, his omnibenevolence is a property of him, not of the universe. Everything he wants is good because he wants good things to happen, not because good is defined as "that which God wants".
Which means that morality would still have to come from somewhere else. But where?
The only thing I can see is logic. And if so, we are forced to find some axioms whose use in our system of morality, though we may all agree to them, cannot be justified as a logical necessity.
I'm okay with that. I just think that we should try to keep the number of non-necessary axioms as low as possible.

[hammegk]

What a contemptible assertion.

I have found that, because atheists must squarely face their beliefs, consider where they have come from, and choose whether to retain them, atheists usually have more coherent and thought-through systems of morals and ethics than believers do.
So you contend 'thought-through morals & ethics are the key'. How do you explain the results of the link provided earlier by mercuryturrent?

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2..._Morality.html

Three obvious choices come to mind: control by implanted electrodes, control via chemicals, or control by learning enforcement/punishment techniques. Soma for me I guess.


And for you materialists, note the neuro-response studies may show what happens, but the question of why remains.

[l0rca]

And for you materialists, note the neuro-response studies may show what happens, but the question of why remains.

I'm not sure if I disagree with what you mean, but I do disagree with how you say it.

Asking "why" about morals is just projecting our primal psychological assumptions about reality onto something that doesn't have an original design. You can ask why someone is lying, why someone is brushing their teeth. But you don't ask why primates evolved into humans, or why humans have morals.

If you mean 'how,' then I agree. That article doesn't exactly answer how. But overall knowledge of the theory of evolution, and a bit of history of how we got from Australopithecus to Homo sapien sapien, will give us that (EDIT: I sort of take that back. I think we've aquired the foundation for morals well before Australopithecus. Almost any pack-species demonstrates the foundations for what we have.)

They're a helpful product of our evolution, one we randomly aquired, that took dominance because of their helpfulness in creating society.

I sort of get anal when the word 'why' is used, when 'how' is more accurate. Yeah, why can be used, but its definition is too wide; theists could also use the word to slip in and recover ground (I.E. "Since you guys are using the word 'why', you obviously acknowledge that there was a reason behind all this...")

[hammegk]

Asking "why" about morals is just projecting our primal psychological assumptions about reality onto something that doesn't have an original design. ...
Er, yes ... that's what I said ... obviously true for materialists. I'm an amaterialist and do ask 'why'?

[l0rca]

Would you define Amaterialist? I can't find it in the dictionary... are you just claiming you're the opposite of a materialist?

[Iacchus]

He's an (objective) idealist.

[hammegk]

Sorry. Yes, amaterialist is a word I'd recently seen (coined here sfaik) and assume it has the same relationship to 'matter' as atheism has to theism.

I also identify myself as an objective idealist. :)


Whoops, Iacchus beat me to it....

[teacher]

Some good points generally, thanks. Sorry I'm not being specific to anyone here.

No stats for Anglo vs Indian morals, just my limited experience, mainly kids at school behaving and my (Indian) wife seeing and noting the marked difference. My wife's mum in Calcutta had some minor things go missing too. Interesting that the degree/amount seems to coincide with us here - a smaller amount than say in the West.

I have no problem with your points other than I think upbringing is highly significant. I think if almost any child from anywhere in the world were adopted by a highly ethical family (I don't mind if religious or not, but must have agreed or justified sources of authority), then the child will almost always have similar morals. The rebellious exceptions I know of tend to be linked to a major flaw in the 'raising them' stakes. Illogically strict religious folk who can't relate to their kids getting bulllied for coming from a nutty religious home etc. I think there is great predictability amongst certain groups in society, e.g. relating to wealth/education.

I support the final (axioms) Ockam point of brevity (I'm bad at this!).

You raise the Euthyphro dillema about the source of morality/goodness. God must be the source, not the universe, or why not bypass Him? God IS good(ness). One and the same. No need to look elsewhere, you found Him.

Many people would put God as the source of morality. God as revealled through heir Holy book, coinscience, spiritual guidance and other revelations etc. I know many don't agree with this, but this is the view of many, who further do not find it a problem or contradictory and find very clear taching in it.

Catholic Mafia Gangs. Many a cultist has led groups to suicide, mollested their children etc. Bring me a Catholic mafia boss and let him justify himself before God, the Pope or a court of law. They coiuld not, they kjnow it's wrong. It is the malpractise of, 'as long as you go to confession, it wipes out the past' issue. A sad deception that matters of the heart and real repentence.

Happy to discuss morality from the theists perspective, but I'm asking abou it from the atheist perspective. Please note that I have equal respect for atheists and theists alike and have no bone to pick with anyone. Just tying to establish positions.

Some writers have acknowledged the fesibility of the 'anything goes' theory of atheism in the absence of anything else, as anything else relies on something which is always subjective. It's interesting how my question was taken as offensive as it suggests that this is a bad term rather than a neutral one, let alone a true one.

As a different line of questioning, does anyone have any stats on giving or helping the needy and poor etc. I mean, do atheist or humanists have loads of humanitarian oganisations collecting money or sending people to needy areas in comparison to religious groups? Or does everyone just give to the established groups like the red cross and not bother starting new groups.

I am wondering (having not been an atheist for a long while now) what the position is. Is it 'whatever you think goes' to each person, and if so, what do most choose to do/give? Specific groups would seem to indicate this, but most groups I know of are religious, based on their belief system/teaching. Do humanists tend to get as involved as religious groups? Sorry if this sounds lesding or superficial. Ignore it if need be or give me a basic answer.

[Roboramma]

I have no problem with your points other than I think upbringing is highly significant. I think if almost any child from anywhere in the world were adopted by a highly ethical family (I don't mind if religious or not, but must have agreed or justified sources of authority), then the child will almost always have similar morals.What leads you to believe this? The point that I was trying to make was not that I am certain one way or the other, but that you shouldn't just assume that upbringing is important without evidence. Especially considering that there seems to be some evidence that it might not be.

Better to say, "I don't know what impact upbringing has on morality", than to say, "I think upbringing is very important to morality" if you don't have any evidence for that statement. There's nothing wrong with the words "I don't know."

Of course, you may have that evidence. If so, I'd like to see it. I'm concerned with this issue as well.

You raise the Euthyphro dillema about the source of morality/goodness. God must be the source, not the universe, or why not bypass Him? God IS good(ness). One and the same. No need to look elsewhere, you found Him.
Why do you believe that?

It seems that you are saying, "I have a definition of Good. It is this, "that which God desires."
Well, okay, but why should we care what God wants? Why should we do as God desires? I can see that from a practical standpoint, it would make sense. If God exists, you're pretty stupid to disobey him... But that's an issue of practicality, not morality.

As good is defined by God, rather than the other way around, he is free to do anything he likes, and it will still be good. Under this framework, because goodness is not above God, but defined by him, if God were to order you to set off a nuclear device in Bombay, it would be good for you to do that.
You could say, "but God would never ask me to." Okay, why not? Because it's wrong? That suggests that right and wrong is separate from God's desires.

Many people would put God as the source of morality. God as revealled through heir Holy book, coinscience, spiritual guidance and other revelations etc. I know many don't agree with this, but this is the view of many, who further do not find it a problem or contradictory and find very clear taching in it.
Well, just because many people believe something doesn't make it true.

I also wonder, even if God is the source of morality, how has he communicated that moral system to you, or the rest of us? The bible doesn't seem to offer much guidance. If it did we'd be stoning children left and right. If the problem is that I'm making a misinterpretation of the bible, how do you know that you are making the correct interpretation?
It again comes down to, "whatever interpretation seems right to me", no different from the dilemma that you suggest atheists face.
This seems to be the point that Robin was getting at.

Happy to discuss morality from the theists perspective, but I'm asking abou it from the atheist perspective. Please note that I have equal respect for atheists and theists alike and have no bone to pick with anyone. Just tying to establish positions.
I'm interested in both. The reason is that that I think both face similar problems, theists just don't realise it. The reason I bring up the problems that face theistic ideas of morality is that when you suggest that there is a problem with atheistic ideas of morality, you fail to see that this is a problem with morality in general.
It's not specific to atheists. We just seem to come face to face with it more often.

[Robin]

Bring me a Catholic mafia boss and let him justify himself before God, the Pope or a court of law. They could not, they know it's wrong.
Not in front of a court of law certainly, but before God and the Pope, certainly.

"Lenny the Squealer was just like my own son O Lord, so when he disobeyed me I followed your command and whacked him by the village gates. Whenever I don't know what to do I ask "What would Jehova do?". So if some bums are in the East Side and I want to be in the East Side I read the Bible and see what you told Joshua to do to the bums in Jericho. Whack them all. Actually I couldn't bring myself to whack the women and children like you told Joshua to do, but I am not so perfectly good as you. I always followed your exhortation to love my enemies. But the Bible shows that killing your enemies is also good. So I loved them even when I kill them. Love the debtor, hate the debt, that was always my motto"

OK, it is a little over the top, but if you are allowed to do talk bubbles for atheists I am allowed to do the same in return. Do you deny that the OT God behaves somewhat like a gangster?

[jay gw]

So I think reason and logic are generally, but not always stable and not very significant in the issue of morality and free will, which are more dependent on upbringing (what we learn, follow, are taught and then choose to believe or are indoctinated into etc.).
By what means does a person come to decide on one moral code versus another?

How does anyone learn what's moral and what's not except through being taught using some kind of logic? It doesn't seem possible that anyone could thoughtfully make moral decisions except through some kind of logical process.

What studies are there on how people really make moral choices?

[Iacchus]

I am wondering (having not been an atheist for a long while now) what the position is. Is it 'whatever you think goes' to each person, and if so, what do most choose to do/give? Specific groups would seem to indicate this, but most groups I know of are religious, based on their belief system/teaching. Do humanists tend to get as involved as religious groups? Sorry if this sounds lesding or superficial. Ignore it if need be or give me a basic answer.Hey, look at Green Peace. They've always struck me as being the liberal (anything goes? ...) non-religious type but, it would seem they have no problem getting involved.

[Roboramma]

By what means does a person come to decide on one moral code versus another?

How does anyone learn what's moral and what's not except through being taught using some kind of logic? It doesn't seem possible that anyone could thoughtfully make moral decisions except through some kind of logical process.

What studies are there on how people really make moral choices?

Hey, Jay, have you checked out mercuryturrent's link up thread? It's pretty interesting. Plus, I enjoy the philosophical thought experiment, and it's implications.

[Iacchus]

OK, it is a little over the top, but if you are allowed to do talk bubbles for atheists I am allowed to do the same in return. Do you deny that the OT God behaves somewhat like a gangster?And of course the wilderness could be a pretty inhospitable place. There are lots of scorpions out there you know. ;)

[BJQ87]

It seems that you are saying, "I have a definition of Good. It is this, "that which God desires."
Well, okay, but why should we care what God wants? Why should we do as God desires? I can see that from a practical standpoint, it would make sense. If God exists, you're pretty stupid to disobey him... But that's an issue of practicality, not morality.


Depends who you are. For those who do believe in God, it may be that they feel they more or less "know" God, as opposed to the more passive phrase "believe in". So from their standpoint the matter of practicality is no longer an issue, it is more of a matter of strife and faith. When faith is either in question or in defense it may become a matter of cause and effect, and morality comes into play...along with what I put my trust in and the results of that trust. Then I have the task of weighing results, and weighing morality...for some this may be do or die for their faith...I suppose it all depends on the weight of hope.

[jay gw]

From the Carl Zimmer article:

"All human societies share certain moral universals, such as fairness and sympathy."

Hmmm....I don't know of research providing evidence of moral universals.

And:

"Greene hopes that research on the brain’s moral circuitry may ultimately help resolve some of these seemingly irresolvable disputes."

Greene says there is a relationship between teaching/cultural instruction, genetics, and "moral circuitry" which he doesn't define very well if at all.

[teacher]

Hi Roboramma.
Morality & upbringing.
My evidence for saying that upbringing is a strong pull in morality, I thought was indisputable. Whilst exceptions happen and are usually explained quite easily, there are people who adopt kids from (and in) all societies and despite the temptations of the world around them, they can be fairly well predicted to follow the lead of the parent. This would then seem to be the decisive factor. Or have I missed something?

Euthyphro.
You understand the argument well. Yes, OVERALL good is defined by what God does. Clearly when a parent smacks a kid or shouts etc. it is all within the overall concept of good. God has bigger and longer term issues to sort out with greater implications. Kid does wrong and doesn’t get punished = problems later in life. Man does wrong and leads the world astray without God getting heavy = all go to hell (from the evangelical perspective you understand). Hence God needs to do things differently sometimes and should not be questioned if you don’t know the future.

Stoning rebellious kids.
You present this as though it were universally accepted that this is an immoral act. I have mentioned that there are acts that are not as bad as rebellious kids, which the death penalty IS in force today (in some countries) and is not even against the law elsewhere - adultery. If we knew the (spiritual) implications of later rebellion and being too soft with kids, then such a threat might be effective. If your kids were out every night beating old folks up and causing trouble (as many do in Britain), and the law suddenly made parents responsible, I bet the kids would soon stop (they’d be kept in) and they’d soon go on boot camps and start being better people.

And yes, if God does something we don’t like or understand, we can’t suddenly deem HIM (who is the authority) wrong and us (who have no authority) right. It is easy for non believers to decide what God can and can’t do, you don’t believe. You must accept God unconditionally, not with a list of options. Yes, if God says that barbequeing live babies on a Sunday morning is now the fun thing to do, then it is right. That is the implication of accepting God as the moral law giver and originator. I wish atheists would be as ready to accept the ‘anything goes’ ethic.

Interpreting the Bible.
If a kid grows up, despite all the bad, wrong, hypocrisy and dodgy things the parents did, the child, unless the parent was really bad, who know where it stood. It will have had an upbringing that it could morally relate to which is based on the parents. It doesn’t need a perfect parent or clear instructions all the time to do this. You leave a legacy as a parent. Will your kids say “I saw you hit dad 4 years ago, so I justify my beating people up on that basis”.

I think critics too often look for errors and make them into obstacles of insurmountable importance. To the most basic theist, the Bible is very clear. It is also clear that the NT supercedes the OT on many issues. We will have to differ as to the overall clarity of moral teaching in the Bible for us. I shalln’t say more, at least for now on this.

Hi Robin, Jan GW and BJQ87.
Logic and morality.
It’s getting hazy now. I think I meant to say that logic and morality are two different animals. In my opinion, the law in Britain is too impersonal and does not consider emotions or the principle of the point of the law. A documentary last night focussed on a lawyer (attourney) who had a 100% record of getting (rich) drunk and speeding drivers off. Morality has features that are illogical.

I’ll mention a spiritual non logic. Grace. The evangelical believes we logically all deserve to die and go to hell for our sins and original sin as a consequence of rejecting God. God sends Jesus who dies for man. Man is saved. Man deserves to die (fair) but God dies in his place (unfair). Someone shouts at you and you can shout back or you can consider his problem and let it go. Fairness and justice shouldn’t always be met. Sometimes a moral thing to do is illogical and vice versa.

Morality, if from God ultimately, has many safeguards – Bible, conscience, prayer, upbringing based on religious teachings, a church going lifestyle and practise of these standards etc. Put together, they suggest a clear way forward and experienced people can help you to decide on more specific areas. Of course believers would argue that the more one moves away or teaches differently, the worse it will be.

And yes, God is personal to many Xians and that is another confirmation of what we are doing.

[jay gw]

If you think parents are the most important influence on children then you should probably read this:

Judith Harris's big idea--that peers matter much more than parents--runs counter to nearly everything that a century of psychology and psychotherapy has told us about human development.

This is Harris's argument in a nutshell: that whatever our parents do to us is overshadowed, in the long run, by what our peers do to us. In "The Nurture Assumption," Harris pulls together an extraordinary range of studies and observations to support this idea.

http://www.gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm

There are now many studies that show children are more influenced by peers than by parents. It is peers that will influence the child's morals more than parents will in some cases.

It's not an absolute or generalization, there are children that pay more attention to what adults say but no one I know under 18 does - adults aren't cool.

[Robin]

Logic and morality.
I’ll mention a spiritual non logic. Grace. The evangelical believes we logically all deserve to die and go to hell for our sins and original sin as a consequence of rejecting God.
Hell for rejecting God? Well that is illogical for a start. Are you a parent? If your child rejected you would you want the child to suffer? Could there be any sense at all in which a child who rejected his parent deserved to suffer? No, of course not. That idea is illogic itself.

Hell for our Greatn Grand Pop and Nan scrumping on the tree of knowledge? Funny idea of justice!

Hell for our own sins? Sure all of us do wrong but how many people do something that merits eternal torture? The entire idea is so irredeemably stupid that it is hard to credit that anybody can believe in this Hell concept.

And of course the concept of Hell demonstrates that religion does not promote morality, it merely follows it. In the middle ages when the idea of torturing your enemies was acceptable Hell was unambiguously a place of torture. Today when torture is considered absolutely immoral by most people the Christian churches are scrambling to redefine it as some PC concept like "a place to honour man's choices". Religions don't promote morality, they follow the prevailing morality.
God sends Jesus who dies for man. Man is saved. Man deserves to die (fair) but God dies in his place (unfair).
But as I understand it he got better.
Someone shouts at you and you can shout back or you can consider his problem and let it go. Fairness and justice shouldn’t always be met. Sometimes a moral thing to do is illogical and vice versa.
How can shouting back at someone who shouts at you ever be termed logical?
Morality, if from God ultimately, has many safeguards – Bible, conscience, prayer, upbringing based on religious teachings, a church going lifestyle and practise of these standards etc. Put together, they suggest a clear way forward and experienced people can help you to decide on more specific areas. Of course believers would argue that the more one moves away or teaches differently, the worse it will be.
During the time of the Civil Rights Movement the Christian church inspired many of the leaders of that movement. But it also inspired the Ku Klux Klan. People get from a religion precisely what they want to get.

And you have still never told me how a God who orders the mass murder of innocent children because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time could ever, by any standard whatsoever, be called moral. Any religion that takes the old testament seriously as a divinely inspired scripture is by definition morally bankrupt in the first place.

But if you talk about these things being the result of copying errors etc then that itself precludes the scriptures from being a basis for morality.

Religion is all things to all people. People as disparate as Spong and Falwell get what they want from religion. Organisations as disparate as the MCC and the Southern Baptist Convention get what they want from religion.

You can pray and whatever you decide to do afterwards you can believe must have been inspired by God. People interpret the Bible to suit their own convenience (how many 'interpretations' are there of the 'eye of the needle' passage?)

So as I have said morality based on religion is really 'anything goes'.

[Iacchus]

Hell for rejecting God? Well that is illogical for a start. Are you a parent? If your child rejected you would you want the child to suffer? Could there be any sense at all in which a child who rejected his parent deserved to suffer? No, of course not. That idea is illogic itself.Hell for rejecting a God which doesn't make sense? No. Unless of course your idea of what makes sense was "immoral." Aha! :D

[teacher]

Hi Robin.
I have addressed this elsewhere, but are you a parent? If so or if you accept the principle of being a natural one, then is that responsible? Do you know for sure your child won't suffer, get tortured or die horribly? Do you have any control over it? Can you offer any salvific counter if the child did suffer? No? Well God can, so He can justify creating us and so can believers who trust him, but can the atheist? Isn't it a chance you are taking. Are the possible consequences justified by the choice to (pro) create life? If you argue for the suffering of the world as an argument against God, then how can an atheist justify the risks in having children other than saying simply that you will risk it? Isn't adoption better, at least that's one less new life to worry about?

I don't see a lot of humanist organisations promoting responsible sex or recognising the family bond or ideal, (rather experimentation, giving freedom to the youth and denouncing outdated attitudes), but there are lot's of religious groups that encourage safe sex, waiting until marriage and chaperones. Apart from a little discipline, what is so wrong with waiting other than sex is fun? So are drugs, beating people and swearing all the time to some, but we insist on restraint here. I think the benefits of no sex before marriage is a god one that justifies the 'ethic or practise' being taught as it outweights the down side - a bit of fun. The unplanned pregnancies, free condoms and abortions to any age (certainly in Britain) seem to suggest that even if religion is wrong, we would be wise to follow its principles. Be interested to see statistics on % of religious to non religious unplanned pregnancies or abortons.

[No doubt replies will come about certain Biblical practises. O.K. bring it on]

As for hell (e.g. being too or overly cruel), maybe it is a limitation of God in the salvation story that He cannot do anything about if man chooses to reject His offer of salvation and doesn't repent and accept Him. Maybe hell is just separation from God, not a literal hell. Maybe universalism is true and we're all saved. Maybe Hindus are right. Maybe atheists are...

[jay gw]

Sometimes a moral thing to do is illogical and vice versa.
Do you have examples of this?

[10001]

what is logic?
we all know that logic, ethics, morality changed and will continue to change...

does religion help in the process of the progresion? yes and no.

does a baby have logic? yes

put your eye in front of a baby's finger. the bby will want to know what your eye is? or what the hec you are trying to do.. or maybe the baby just want t touch your head. but can not control his/her finger properly. who knows???? is robin hood logically 'good' or'just'?

but we do know that the bby want to react to the action of eye ball coming to his/her finger. maybe he/she thinks " this person wants me to poke his/her eye! ok!" "no~~~ my eye!"

thats baby's logic. like 1000s of years ago some people thought sun was a god.. maybe it is!... some people thought head contained gooyees, and the heart was the brain.

it just shws that we still have a lot of growing to do.

there is never a definite answer.
only the road and if you like, some questions along the way. and somthing that looks like an answer.

[RandFan]

"Ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge. If we agree on some fundamental ethical propositions, other ethical propositions can be derived from them, provided that the original premises are stated with sufficient precision. Such ethical premises play a similar role in ethics, to that played by axioms in mathematics."

"Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience." - Albert Einstein "If we agree on some fundamental ethical propositions". I think we can but that is a big if. Fundamental ethical propositions are not axiomatic as far as I understand. Of course I could be wrong. Could you list them if you know what they are?

[teacher]

I thought I gave one.

How about forgiving a murderer for torturing your sister and despite his still not regretting it and laughing, you maintain your forgiveness and love him anyway.

And the other way round. It is illogical, if given the choice, to kill 5 young, innocent, highly intelligent people who are destined to change the world for the better instead of one old criminal who wastes his life - just because he's your brother. Love gets in the the way sometimes and blinds us.

Similar contrasts will also exist when comparing ethical dillemas and looking how a utilitarian/teleologist (e.g. Bentham or Mill) might respond compared to how a deontologist, e.g. Kant might respond.

The German during WWII who knocks at your door and asks you if you are holding anyone. (You are holding someone who you know the Germans will kill if they find them).

One assumes only one response is ethical unless you can accept any response due to differing positions.

Mill would look at the consequences of his potential actions and quickly conclude that he will lie for the greater good. Kant would never lie (because lying in itself is fundamentally wrong) and the person would die.

Objectivity vs subjectivity, practicality vs principles. It's easy to lack or lower principles, but the result, given that there is no line to draw, is that we end up using things or people to our advantage. That's why principles are so important.

It is BECAUSE we know that a priest keeps things confidential and that this is not dependent on any practicality, that so many people trust a priest. So much so in fact, that many lives have been saved as a result of confessions and the priest persuading them to give up etc. Had the priest's words been dependent on the seriousness of the actions, those potential confessors wouyld not have entrusted the priest. Result - by the principle of confidentiality, lives are saved.

[Roboramma]

Hi teacher, I just wanted to give you a quick note to say that I haven't forgotten you. The last couple of days I haven't had time to give you the response your post deserves. (only time for a few hit and runs in various threads ;) ).
I'll try to reply tomorrow. :0)

[Melendwyr]

Fundamental ethical propositions are not axiomatic as far as I understand. That's not very far at all. Do you even know what an axiom is? No, clearly you do not.

[RandFan]

That's not very far at all. Do you even know what an axiom is? No, clearly you do not. This is rhetoric. It is vacuous and only attacks me personally. Ad hominem is a poor substitute for logically valid argument.

Whether I no what an axiom is or isn't is not relevant to the debate. You quote Einstein as if his words are proof of something. I point out that his statement contains the logical operator "if". "If we agree on some fundamental ethical propositions" Einstein doesn't claim that fundamental ethical propositions are axiomatic. We must FIRST agree on them.


ax·i·om Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifm)
n.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth

So, is it possible for you to name these axiomatic fundamental ethical propositions or is fallacy your only capability?

[Roboramma]

Randfan, do you think it's possible to produce at least one axiomatic ethical proposition?

I don't know that everyone will agree that certain things are self-evident, but it seems clear that there are some ethical propositions that are shared by most people.

For instance, the very broad, "Suffering is bad."
This does not suggest that all suffering is worse than everything else. For instance the argument "But some people beat there children, they must not think all suffering is bad!" Doesn't suffice to suggest that this isn't a universal belief, because it is still possible for the good that comes from suffering to outweigh the bad.

Mind you, I'm not certain that this is a universal belief. I do consider it possible though.

[Roboramma]

Hi Roboramma.
Morality & upbringing.
My evidence for saying that upbringing is a strong pull in morality, I thought was indisputable. Whilst exceptions happen and are usually explained quite easily, there are people who adopt kids from (and in) all societies and despite the temptations of the world around them, they can be fairly well predicted to follow the lead of the parent. This would then seem to be the decisive factor. Or have I missed something?
You realise the difference between assertion and evidence, do you? You are just restating the assertion that upbringing is important.
What did you think of the quote I offered from How the Mind Works? I don't have that many references available, but it seems to suggest something. Do you have any good reason to believe that the point Pinker is making (or that Jay's post makes), is false?

Euthyphro.
You understand the argument well. Yes, OVERALL good is defined by what God does. Clearly when a parent smacks a kid or shouts etc. it is all within the overall concept of good. God has bigger and longer term issues to sort out with greater implications. Kid does wrong and doesn’t get punished = problems later in life. Man does wrong and leads the world astray without God getting heavy = all go to hell (from the evangelical perspective you understand). Hence God needs to do things differently sometimes and should not be questioned if you don’t know the future.
I'm not talking about whether something is for the greater good in the long run or not. I've already had discussions on this topic and realised the point - yes we can't know whether or not in the long run it will be for the best if a bunch of innocent people are tortured to death. But that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that even if the only outcome is that innocent people are tortured to death (no greater good than that), then it's still good if God says so. Sorry, but that isn't my idea of a meaningful morality.

Stoning rebellious kids.
You present this as though it were universally accepted that this is an immoral act. I have mentioned that there are acts that are not as bad as rebellious kids, which the death penalty IS in force today (in some countries) and is not even against the law elsewhere - adultery. If we knew the (spiritual) implications of later rebellion and being too soft with kids, then such a threat might be effective. If your kids were out every night beating old folks up and causing trouble (as many do in Britain), and the law suddenly made parents responsible, I bet the kids would soon stop (they’d be kept in) and they’d soon go on boot camps and start being better people.
Okay, since some people kill adulterers, it's right to stone rebellious kids.
The contortions of the above logic - suggesting that by not having children killed for disobeying their parents, we're encouraging old people to be beat up, are a little too much for me.
What about the rebellious kid who objects to having her father's penis put in her mouth? Or any other child who disagrees with a wrong decision by a parent? Is it a stonable offense if they fail to submit?
The crime doesn't make any mention of who is right, the crime is being rebellious. That's the problem.
Those kids beating up old people are wrong - for beating up old people, not for being rebellious. If you can give me an example of a rebellious kid that should be stoned who hasn't done anything wrong other than rebel against his parents, then I'll concede that maybe you've got a point. Right now I don't see it.

And yes, if God does something we don’t like or understand, we can’t suddenly deem HIM (who is the authority) wrong and us (who have no authority) right. It is easy for non believers to decide what God can and can’t do, you don’t believe. You must accept God unconditionally, not with a list of options. Yes, if God says that barbequeing live babies on a Sunday morning is now the fun thing to do, then it is right. That is the implication of accepting God as the moral law giver and originator. I wish atheists would be as ready to accept the ‘anything goes’ ethic.
Thank you for the honesty of this paragraph. I don't think there are many (even on these forums where I find a surprising amount of honesty within debate) who would admit to that conclusion. I respect that.

On the other hand, I can't see any reason to accept the moral authority of God just because he's God. Considering the reductio ad absurdum above, can you give me a good reason to accept God's moral authority?

Interpreting the Bible.
If a kid grows up, despite all the bad, wrong, hypocrisy and dodgy things the parents did, the child, unless the parent was really bad, who know where it stood. It will have had an upbringing that it could morally relate to which is based on the parents. It doesn’t need a perfect parent or clear instructions all the time to do this. You leave a legacy as a parent. Will your kids say “I saw you hit dad 4 years ago, so I justify my beating people up on that basis”.
Maybe, but what's your point? That God can be a hypocrite and we shouldn't complain? Instead we should still follow his example?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the above.

I think critics too often look for errors and make them into obstacles of insurmountable importance. To the most basic theist, the Bible is very clear. It is also clear that the NT supersedes the OT on many issues. We will have to differ as to the overall clarity of moral teaching in the Bible for us. I shalln’t say more, at least for now on this.
I don't see how the bible is clear at all. But then, I haven't even read it front to back and will admit that willingly.
For instance, I don't see how God's deciding to torture Job because Satan made a bet with him can be considered something that a benevolent being would do. But maybe God's just too mysterious for me.

But as to critics looking for errors, well, the point is, if God is perfect, there shouldn't be any errors to find. Even one error is an obstacle of insurmountable importance.

[Roboramma]

I thought I gave one.
You have to explain how it's logical first.

[hammegk]

Randfan, do you think it's possible to produce at least one axiomatic ethical proposition?

I'd say, of course, any number of "axioms" may be 'produced' by any self-aware entity. The problem is convincing the rest of the self-aware herd that any specific axiom set are correct, and maintaining order among the stragglers.

[Roboramma]

Hi Robin.
I have addressed this elsewhere, but are you a parent? If so or if you accept the principle of being a natural one, then is that responsible? Do you know for sure your child won't suffer, get tortured or die horribly? Do you have any control over it? Can you offer any salvific counter if the child did suffer? No?
There is a big difference between not knowing with absolute certainty that your child will not undergo horrible but finite pain, but trying to protect your child from that happening to the best of your ability and purposefully torturing your child for eternity.
A very big difference.

Well God can, so He can justify creating us and so can believers who trust him, but can the atheist?
Maybe he can justify creating us, but he can't justify damning us to eternal torture for not knowing that he exists. Or for not worshiping him. Or just for thinking he's a bastard for some of the things he said he did.

Isn't it a chance you are taking. Are the possible consequences justified by the choice to (pro) create life? If you argue for the suffering of the world as an argument against God, then how can an atheist justify the risks in having children other than saying simply that you will risk it? Isn't adoption better, at least that's one less new life to worry about?
There is a difference between having a child in a screwed up world and damning that child to hell. Especially since most parents do everything they can to improve the lives of their children. Many people are right now slaving away long hours at jobs they don't enjoy so that eventually they'll be able to send their children to school. That's very different from damning them to hell.

So what are you saying? Atheists shouldn't have children because they might end up having a bad life? That is in no way analogous to saying that God shouldn't create us and then send us to firey torment for eternity for no reason other than no worshiping him. Especially when we have to reason to even beleive that he exists at all.

I might be misreading the above. If so, I'm not really sure where you arguement is coming from, so please forgive the misinterpretation.

I don't see a lot of humanist organisations promoting responsible sex or recognising the family bond or ideal, (rather experimentation, giving freedom to the youth and denouncing outdated attitudes), but there are lot's of religious groups that encourage safe sex, waiting until marriage and chaperones.
Do you think abstenance only programs work?