Morality.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Morality.

Going back to the original question, I don't think anyone really 'made up' a moral code. Organized it, yes, but the only people who could really be attributed to making our moral code are, at the moment, Mr.Evolution or God, depending on your view (or in mine, possibly both). As far as people who organized it, one well known person was Hammurabi, who made the Code of Hammurabi (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/31800.html). If I'm not mistaken, it was the first recorded set of laws (that we know of) stating that a person must be punished equally according to the crime he committed (I might be wrong about the 'first' thing). In other words, if you cut off someone's hand, so must yours be cut off.

But even the people who made lists of laws weren't just making things up. They were going by what they saw as 'wrong' or 'right'. So where do our views of wrong and right come from?

One explanation is evolution. Our species has learned over time that there are benefits for saving each other. If two team up, they are stronger than one, and both members of this team gain something from the 'friendship' if you can call it that. Over time, the animals that made relationships were the ones that came out on top. So over time, it was ingrained into the brains of our species not to do certain things, like kill each other.

Another view is the "God" view. That there is some being who created us with these moral codes that we are supposed to follow.

There are also some who believe both, that God controlled evolution to work out so that we could become like we are today.

Being a Christian, I kind of lean towards the third one, however I view evolution as less of a 'definite' and more of a "the best explanation that we currently have". My views on morals and why we have them are quite a bit different from many others, and I'll probably end up going into that later, but at the moment, I want to post what I've got written here :P.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

I don't think anyone really 'made up' a moral code.

That really only covers the most basic moral imperatives like "Don't kill" maybe "Don't steal" but our culture has developed a much more robust code of behavior and social mores that seem much more fabricated than something that is some reflection of objective values from God.

In the evolutionary animal world, spending resources that could be used for the betterment of the strong and the young/developing to keep the sick and elderly alive is a counterproductive action, and yet as a culture we pride ourselves as morally superior for our efforts to care for the elderly, and that's just one example.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

Going back to the original question, I don't think anyone really 'made up' a moral code. Organized it, yes, but the only people who could really be attributed to making our moral code are, at the moment, Mr.Evolution or God, depending on your view (or in mine, possibly both). As far as people who organized it, one well known person was Hammurabi, who made the Code of Hammurabi (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/31800.html). If I'm not mistaken, it was the first recorded set of laws (that we know of) stating that a person must be punished equally according to the crime he committed (I might be wrong about the 'first' thing). In other words, if you cut off someone's hand, so must yours be cut off.

But even the people who made lists of laws weren't just making things up. They were going by what they saw as 'wrong' or 'right'. So where do our views of wrong and right come from?

One explanation is evolution. Our species has learned over time that there are benefits for saving each other. If two team up, they are stronger than one, and both members of this team gain something from the 'friendship' if you can call it that. Over time, the animals that made relationships were the ones that came out on top. So over time, it was ingrained into the brains of our species not to do certain things, like kill each other.

Another view is the "God" view. That there is some being who created us with these moral codes that we are supposed to follow.

There are also some who believe both, that God controlled evolution to work out so that we could become like we are today.

Being a Christian, I kind of lean towards the third one, however I view evolution as less of a 'definite' and more of a "the best explanation that we currently have". My views on morals and why we have them are quite a bit different from many others, and I'll probably end up going into that later, but at the moment, I want to post what I've got written here :P.

Wait, wait, wait just a second. Explain how evolution has any effect on morals. Your explanation doesn't work for me, k. It simply doesn't fit: The fact that we're having this debate in a way proves you incorrect, or everyone would obviously agree that killing, in any sense, is wrong. Which doesn't work out, cause if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Morality.

That really only covers the most basic moral imperatives like "Don't kill" maybe "Don't steal" but our culture has developed a much more robust code of behavior and social mores that seem much more fabricated than something that is some reflection of objective values from God.

In the evolutionary animal world, spending resources that could be used for the betterment of the strong and the young/developing to keep the sick and elderly alive is a counterproductive action, and yet as a culture we pride ourselves as morally superior for our efforts to care for the elderly, and that's just one example.

I was just giving the most common examples, like killing and stealing. Much of the moral code may be derived from "Me and this guy can agree not to do this to each other, and we both come out the better."

The part where my argument fails a bit is in all the extensive laws made by governments. These, I think, are less evolutionary and more governments thinking through things.

But at the base of it all seems to be our sense of Morality, and Guilt. If we didn't feel like it was wrong to kill or that anything could be gained from not killing, chances are we wouldn't care so much for obeying other laws. Again, with the sick and elderly thing, our brains might say something like "This person is going to die. Dying is not good. This person may still be of some help to society." In my view, it's God that gave us, possibly through evolution, our sense of morality.

Wait, wait, wait just a second. Explain how evolution has any effect on morals. Your explanation doesn't work for me, k. It simply doesn't fit: The fact that we're having this debate in a way proves you incorrect, or everyone would obviously agree that killing, in any sense, is wrong. Which doesn't work out, cause if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

I don't mean that everyone thinks that killing is wrong. In your point of view, it is just socially accepted that you don't kill someone (or, at least, that's what I'm understanding. If you're viewpoint is different, please correct me).

But think about if you did. Would you feel too good after killing someone? Personally, even if the person was attacking me, I would probably feel sick for months.

So I guess I meant more that "don't kill" is written into our brains somewhere, not that it is wrong in everyone's point of view.

Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.

Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things. I don't see the problem with God and science working together. I might be wrong on this, but I think the view that the God and science cannot go hand in hand comes from the Middle Age church, and them not accepting the works of people like Gallileo. I'm not sure why, but I don't like having a large opinion on evolution. My view is that whatever God did, it'll work. I should probably learn how to back up my view on evolution, but... um... I haven't.

That being said, here's the Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And it's not just an uncommon, third party thing. I mean, it certainly is less common than the other two views, but it has a featured article on Wikipedia.

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

That does not prove the presented idea false. If someone is acting against you with lethal force, they've broken the social contract, and in doing so, have justified you using lethal force against them. Simply speaking, there are times when things which should be immoral are completely justified; times when the social contract declaring such things immoral has already been broken.

Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.

If one were to make the leap of faith in the existence of an all-powerful supernatural creator-god, then one must also notice that him being ALL-powerful means that he is capable of ANYTHING. This means that he should be able to act directly (as religious scripture indicates), but it also means that he could choose to act indirectly as anyone who trusts in science must believe in if they are religious.

it's God that gave us, possibly through evolution, our sense of morality.

Morality is a social construct. Evolution is not an issue here, socialization is.

Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things.

Actually, by definition, "god" would be an accurate term for a being who created all life on Earth and possibly even the Earth/universe itself.

For you folks who want to touch on religion/science, we already have a thread for science and religion's potential incompatibilities and the implications of such a compatibility or lack thereof.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

I don't mean that everyone thinks that killing is wrong. In your point of view, it is just socially accepted that you don't kill someone (or, at least, that's what I'm understanding. If you're viewpoint is different, please correct me).

But think about if you did. Would you feel too good after killing someone? Personally, even if the person was attacking me, I would probably feel sick for months.

So I guess I meant more that "don't kill" is written into our brains somewhere, not that it is wrong in everyone's point of view.



Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things. I don't see the problem with God and science working together. I might be wrong on this, but I think the view that the God and science cannot go hand in hand comes from the Middle Age church, and them not accepting the works of people like Gallileo. I'm not sure why, but I don't like having a large opinion on evolution. My view is that whatever God did, it'll work. I should probably learn how to back up my view on evolution, but... um... I haven't.

That being said, here's the Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And it's not just an uncommon, third party thing. I mean, it certainly is less common than the other two views, but it has a featured article on Wikipedia.

As for my point of view, you're right, in certain cases, it isn't wrong, just not socially accepted. By the same token, if you just go out and randomly slit someone's throat because the thought struck you, that's wrong.

As for what I'd feel if I did, I don't know. I've never killed anyone. I could feel trumphant, because I removed the threat, I could feel happy (same reason), or I may even feel a since of guilt, because I took a life. But I don't know. I think it would be a good idea to survey people who have killed in self-defense.

Also, I don't think "don't kill" was written into our brains without parents and lawbooks. You see, in the military (everyone's, not just ours), people's capacity for killing be increased to the point where they don't even have to think about it. If "don't kill" were written into our brains by evolution, as "sex", "food", or "air", we'd never be able to get rid of the hesitation. Soldiers would still hesitate and think about it before they killed someone.

Disclaimer: Not ragging on the military in any way, I love em, don't take my examples the wrong way.

Sure, intelligent design isn't just like The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (that is to say, a fringe theory which makes no sense at all), but at the same time, on its face, it does not make sense.

And here you may insert all or more of the common arguments against higher powers... why doesn't everyone believe, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. but I won't, because I think you already know what the arguments are. At this point, I really don't want to debate Intelligent Design's viability as a theory, but rather its relevance twoards morality, which is thus:

For this argument (or piece of it), we will assume that Intelligent Design is valid.

So, why didn't God have "don't kill" written in all of us? What about murderers? Why would he put something so major in an ink that is relatively easy to remove?

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

So, why didn't God have "don't kill" written in all of us? What about murderers? Why would he put something so major in an ink that is relatively easy to remove?

The "easy" answer to this is that humanity was given all the tools necessary to determine the good and to act upon it, but was also given free will to discard those tools if they wanted to. From the "Life = Test" view of the world, the whole point of your mortal life is to prove what kind of person you are and either earn your way into heaven or fail to do so. Only the ability to discard the intrinsic moral rules God set down allows you to potentiality to screw up and not get into heaven.

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

Is being morally only to get into Heaven truly moral though?

I mean, if a person is a terrible person, but behaves morally because they believe it to be their only way into Heaven... would that person be morally right?

It seems to me that a person like that is lying to themselves... and this god who is all powerful, what's the point of the supposed test? He is not bound by time or space, he knows what sort of person we are, what kind of moral ideals we'll hold. Why does the test need to play out?

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

I mean, if a person is a terrible person, but behaves morally because they believe it to be their only way into Heaven... would that person be morally right?

Pascal says yes, but I find it hard to believe that someone would propose trying to fool a being considered to be omniscient.

He is not bound by time or space, he knows what sort of person we are, what kind of moral ideals we'll hold. Why does the test need to play out?

Well, this is where I point out that despite the fact that God is assumed to be omniscient, there are some logical issues with omniscience and free will interacting.

I can explain the logical process to anyone who doesn't see it but basically, either we have no free will, or God is not in fact omniscient. And since whether we have free will or not, we have an incredibly persistant impression of free will, I'm more inclined to conclude that God is not omniscient, and that the test is actually a test and needs to play out because God does not know what the outcome will be.

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

Pascal says yes, but I find it hard to believe that someone would propose trying to fool a being considered to be omniscient.

Right, but that's exactly what someone suggests when they say that morality is driven by religion. "I behave morally because religion says to." Is a person who does this truly a moral person then? Or are they just lying to themselves because they fear what lies for them when they die? What's the point of a religion telling you to behave morally if one may go against their nature and try to fool an all-knowing god? Feigning morality is not truly moral.

Well, this is where I point out that despite the fact that God is assumed to be omniscient, there are some logical issues with omniscience and free will interacting.

See, that's the problem. You can't think logically about this stuff.

I can explain the logical process to anyone who doesn't see it but basically, either we have no free will, or God is not in fact omniscient. And since whether we have free will or not, we have an incredibly persistant impression of free will, I'm more inclined to conclude that God is not omniscient, and that the test is actually a test and needs to play out because God does not know what the outcome will be.

I'd rather like to think that God would be truly all-powerful, but is simply choosing to not interfere. If left to our own devices, we'd be truly free willed, but if this god is truly all-powerful, he could do things if he wanted to.

And since he is not bound by time or space, he can just observe us in the future. Think 4th dimensionally. While we're just being born, he could skip ahead to the future and look at what we've done with our lives, then go back in time and pass judgment on us for things we hadn't yet done. He's ****ing God. He can time travel, bro.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

Yes...this is why I'm saying that free will and omniscience don't go together...

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

Yes...this is why I'm saying that free will and omniscience don't go together...

yeah but if he's got all powers

then one of his powers is inaction

He can choose to do nothing. In choosing to do nothing, he allows free will to emerge.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

All powers is omnipotence, not omniscience.

Omnipotence is all on its own a contradiction in terms, and it absolutely can't go together with omniscience, let alone omniscience and human free will.

[dore]

Re: Morality.

If we truly have free will, then we could do something completely random and unpredictable. If God did not know this beforehand (without looking ahead in time) then he is not truly omniscient. He could look ahead to the future and make inferences of the effect based on the cause but that's not omniscience, that's critical analysis.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

then we could do something completely random and unpredictable

Not necessarily. Free choice doesn't have to mean free choice among a full infinte variety of choices. I can't choose to fly, or to grow a third arm, we're still restricted by the laws of causality and science.

Free will and predictability aren't incompatible, knowing someone well enough I can make pretty ready predictions with a high degree of success, as to what action they will take given a certain set of circumstances. But yes, they -could- make a conscious choice to defy expectations and do something unpredictable.