Free Will and Morality

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Omega Vision
I apologize if something like this has been done before.

I had a discussion a while back with a friend about free will and morality, his argument was that unless we accept the existence of an objective standard of morality then moral action is entirely meaningless as no one action is better than any other.

As someone who gravitates toward radical freedom and subjectivism, I contended that if we were to accept an objective/unerring standard/source of morality then moral action wouldn't be moral at all as it would simply be adherence to an external code of conduct and would shirk off the responsibility of making one's own moral decisions.

An interesting notion I've come across in Existentialism is the idea that every action a person makes is creating an image of the world as he thinks it ought to be, and every time someone makes a choice and thus changes themselves they are creating an image of man as they think man ought to be. This adds some Universalizability and Prescriptivity without appealing to an objective, absolute value/fact/truth/code.

Thoughts?

Bentley
If there was an strict code for good, every other action given a certain time (going left, going right, doing something else, doing nothing) would be considered bad.

But they aren't clearly the same kind of bad. If good is going right, going left is more "opposite" than going foward. And again, doing left doesn't have the ability to "undo" the moving left if it ever happened. So whether or not there is an absolute code, you could still build the basis of morality given freedom, the ignorance of said code and simply the possibility of it's application.

TacDavey
I don't think having a moral code would mean you couldn't have moral actions just because you have a set definition of morality.

Even if you accept that morality is built by humans, don't we already have a moral guide that tells us killing is wrong and rape is wrong? Aren't we still following a sort of "guide" on what is right or wrong, even if we, as humans, had a hand in creating it?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Omega Vision
As someone who gravitates toward radical freedom and subjectivism, I contended that if we were to accept an objective/unerring standard/source of morality then moral action wouldn't be moral at all as it would simply be adherence to an external code of conduct and would shirk off the responsibility of making one's own moral decisions.

People have constructed personal moral systems they consider to be objective. Objectivism, for example.

Actually its pretty much all moral systems I think. People looked at the world and decided what was right and wrong. Other people followed them, sure, but they started as personal objective systems.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
An interesting notion I've come across in Existentialism is the idea that every action a person makes is creating an image of the world as he thinks it ought to be, and every time someone makes a choice and thus changes themselves they are creating an image of man as they think man ought to be. This adds some Universalizability and Prescriptivity without appealing to an objective, absolute value/fact/truth/code.

I don't see Prescriptivity there which is my bare minimum for relevance as a moral system.

It has no real power to advise that I can see. If I ask the question "what should I do?" the only answer I can get from this is "what you want to" which is useless, because I'm only asking the question because I want to be moral and don't know how.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People have constructed personal moral systems they consider to be objective. Objectivism, for example.

Actually its pretty much all moral systems I think. People looked at the world and decided what was right and wrong. Other people followed them, sure, but they started as personal objective systems.



I don't see Prescriptivity there which is my bare minimum for relevance as a moral system.

It has no real power to advise that I can see. If I ask the question "what should I do?" the only answer I can get from this is "what you want to" which is useless, because I'm only asking the question because I want to be moral and don't know how.
My impression of what Sartre was saying there was he was advocating a kind of soft version of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Essentially "act as you think man ought to act", don't do any act that you don't think ought to be something all men should do. You're right, in the sense that it would depend on the individual in question having some conscientiousness.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I apologize if something like this has been done before.

I had a discussion a while back with a friend about free will and morality, his argument was that unless we accept the existence of an objective standard of morality then moral action is entirely meaningless as no one action is better than any other.

As someone who gravitates toward radical freedom and subjectivism, I contended that if we were to accept an objective/unerring standard/source of morality then moral action wouldn't be moral at all as it would simply be adherence to an external code of conduct and would shirk off the responsibility of making one's own moral decisions.

An interesting notion I've come across in Existentialism is the idea that every action a person makes is creating an image of the world as he thinks it ought to be, and every time someone makes a choice and thus changes themselves they are creating an image of man as they think man ought to be. This adds some Universalizability and Prescriptivity without appealing to an objective, absolute value/fact/truth/code.

Thoughts?

I completely agree. A while back I made a thread discussing this same subject:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t556045.html

Or, more precisely, if you accept an unerring code on the authority of its source, I don't think you are being moral at all; you would have just as easily done the opposite, if the authority had said that. There is no shame in taking advice on morality from learned figures, but ultimately the choice has to be yours alone, based on what ideas you think make sense.

I myself, would have the greatest skepticism towards any moral system that claims to be absolute. I know how rare absolutes are even in the fields of science; how much more fuzzy something like ethical theory is. I know in science, all theories are strictly provisional; it seems only sensible that you would take that same attitude towards morals (that it is a provisional theory, that we should be open to improving with new observations).

Omega Vision
Originally posted by King Kandy
I completely agree. A while back I made a thread discussing this same subject:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t556045.html

Or, more precisely, if you accept an unerring code on the authority of its source, I don't think you are being moral at all; you would have just as easily done the opposite, if the authority had said that. There is no shame in taking advice on morality from learned figures, but ultimately the choice has to be yours alone, based on what ideas you think make sense.

In Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre describes how the act of taking advice doesn't actually change your choice since you seek out advice from a particular person more or less knowing what they'll tell you and you still have final call on whether or not you'll follow that advice.

For instance in the dilemma of a student who came to ask him whether he should go to England to join the Free French Forces to fight the Nazis or stay with his sick mother Sartre told him "choose, invent"

Very unhelpful perhaps, but then Sartre was never about helping people so much as trying to tell it like it was.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by King Kandy
Or, more precisely, if you accept an unerring code on the authority of its source, I don't think you are being moral at all; you would have just as easily done the opposite, if the authority had said that. There is no shame in taking advice on morality from learned figures, but ultimately the choice has to be yours alone, based on what ideas you think make sense.

That almost seems like a distinction without a difference. How often do you find people who follow a moral system that they disagree with because of the authority of the source?

Bentley
People going to skull for many years, working their _sses off until they are old, hoping to one day live to sow the fruits of their work, fully knowing that might not happen.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bentley
People going to skull for many years, working their _sses off until they are old, hoping to one day live to sow the fruits of their work, fully knowing that might not happen.

Many of these people will defend the system rather than view it as immoral. The rest have no choice or believe they have no choice so it isn't a moral issue for them at all.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That almost seems like a distinction without a difference. How often do you find people who follow a moral system that they disagree with because of the authority of the source?
I have constantly had Christians tell me that even if the morals of the religion make no sense to me, I should follow them based on the authority. You will hardly see a case like you said; they will rationalize, "even if this doesn't seem right, the problem is on your end". I have seen this same sort of line being used constantly, i'm surprised you haven't.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That almost seems like a distinction without a difference. How often do you find people who follow a moral system that they disagree with because of the authority of the source?

That's pretty much any person, ever, that followed a religion.

I find it impossible to even find inventors of their own religion to follow everything they invent in that religion (if we presume God does not exist and was the source for that religion). If you can find a single person that says they agree with 100% of what is in their religion/moral code, I will find you a person that is unaware that they disagree with some of it.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by King Kandy
I have constantly had Christians tell me that even if the morals of the religion make no sense to me, I should follow them based on the authority. You will hardly see a case like you said; they will rationalize, "even if this doesn't seem right, the problem is on your end". I have seen this same sort of line being used constantly, i'm surprised you haven't.

Fair enough. It's almost always been my experience that either there are reasons or I am lacking the needed higher understanding that they have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's pretty much any person, ever, that followed a religion.

I find it impossible to even find inventors of their own religion to follow everything they invent in that religion (if we presume God does not exist and was the source for that religion). If you can find a single person that says they agree with 100% of what is in their religion/moral code, I will find you a person that is unaware that they disagree with some of it.

In my experience people's reaction tends not to be that "I disagree with this part of my moral system" and more "I think this means something else than you do", though I'll admit I don't have a very broad base of experience for this. A surprising number of religious people seem to violate religious dictates due to not knowing them in the first place but I'd say that doesn't count.

Bentley
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Many of these people will defend the system rather than view it as immoral. The rest have no choice or believe they have no choice so it isn't a moral issue for them at all.

There are people who constantly mix morality with legality though, a heavy argument can be made about personal morality and acceptance of a social system as go-to examples of higher authority.

TacDavey
I'm still confused as to why following a moral guide is not really being moral. If you learn from your parents and society in general that, say, saving someone from a burning building is moral, aren't you still following a moral rule that you did not invent or figure out for yourself?

Even if the person doesn't understand or even disagrees with the idea of saving someone from a burning building. Would we say that person didn't do anything moral if he saves someone from a burning building?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm still confused as to why following a moral guide is not really being moral. If you learn from your parents and society in general that, say, saving someone from a burning building is moral, aren't you still following a moral rule that you did not invent or figure out for yourself?

Even if the person doesn't understand or even disagrees with the idea of saving someone from a burning building. Would we say that person didn't do anything moral if he saves someone from a burning building?
My contention is that following the moral code for its own sake rather than the sake of trying to do what you understand to be right isn't moral.

For instance, if someone only refrained from murder because the Bible prohibits it and really saw nothing wrong with murder in of itself and/or didn't care for the negative consequences of murder then I wouldn't say he was being particularly moral in not committing murder, just being observant to a rule.

As for your example, I would personally call the act commendable, but whether it's moral is another matter that depends on the person's motives. Doing it out of a sense of duty or in the name of greater utility or because the Bible says so doesn't strike me as particularly moral, more like leaning on a preset guideline to make decisions.

Now (and yes I'll mention Sartre again for the zillionth time ha_ham ) Sartre did admit that most people will necessarily choose to follow some pre-established code, at least to some extent. The thing is that in his view none of these codes were self-justifying and none of them were absolutely action-guiding in the sense that the person applying these codes was at freedom to interpret them and apply them in their own way.

I certainly do believe that some acts are better than others, but I can't really account for that by making any objective value claims more than "I feel this way". In that sense I suppose I'm sort of in David Hume's camp.

A moral action in my view is one in which a person makes a decision to act a certain way that creates a more idealized normative perception of humankind than an alternative action, and in the process of making this decision does not attempt to appeal to authority (like King Kandy said) to justify it.

Pretty much every time I do something immoral its immoral because I know I'm doing something that projects an image of humankind that's inferior to what I believe humankind should be like. The same goes for when I see other people do things I consider immoral. In this same sense, if I could read the mind of the man saving the people from the burning building and I heard that he was only doing it for fame or to follow a code, something that didn't require him to consider what humankind ought to be and only appeal to nebulous codes then I would think less of him as if he did it because he believed that --independent of any appeal to "moral" authority or social contract or anything like that-- it was what he should do in the current situation.

I'm not saying that a Christian can't be moral, Tac. Or that following what your parents teach you can't be moral. I'm saying that blindly following those codes without any independent consideration/invention isn't really all that moral.

For an example, if you have two scenarios involving grenades thrown into foxholes and in both scenarios one soldier throws himself onto the grenade to save his comrades both acts would be considered heroic sacrifices. But if in one case the soldier only does it because he is given the order to do it and were the order not given wouldn't have done it and in the other case the soldier does it because he wants humankind to be ready to sacrifice themselves to save others then i would say that while both soldiers are deserving of praise for courage/loyalty, one is doing something moral and the other is not.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm still confused as to why following a moral guide is not really being moral. If you learn from your parents and society in general that, say, saving someone from a burning building is moral, aren't you still following a moral rule that you did not invent or figure out for yourself?

Even if the person doesn't understand or even disagrees with the idea of saving someone from a burning building. Would we say that person didn't do anything moral if he saves someone from a burning building?
If the only reason they did so was because their parents told them to, then indeed I would have no respect for their moral values. I could respect their deeds, and their talent as firemen; but their ability to do what others tell them, gets no respect in my book. If they only are saving people from burning buildings because of their parents, I would be very scared of their lack of judgment; if their parents had taught them the opposite, they would be arsonists today instead of firemen.

If someone disagrees with saving people, but does it because they will get some reward, then I think they are nothing to be admired; they are just a sheep doing whatever their boss tells them, and we should be glad that it was their boss who had good moral sense, for the man himself had none.

Bentley
Under the situations described about, what is the stimulation of morality?

Even in Christian theology there is a point in which Pablo bashes the sense of morality, he basically argues that we don't do the right thing because it feels right. By the same token, many of the people who are taught into a moral code get a physical discomfort from breaking their code, while somebody whose code is designed over the years can be quite apathic about it, gut wise.

Also I'm a little puzzled about the wording referring what "humanity should do" from a moral standpoint. It just seems a very burgeois way to put it, since only someone who is born into money can easily abstract the humanity as some ideological entity. In a certain way, killing a person while being poor is more moral than killing a person when you're deeply depressed. But mostly, I don't understand the point of basing a personal morality around a social abstraction -if I'm understanding this correctly-.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bentley
Under the situations described about, what is the stimulation of morality?

Even in Christian theology there is a point in which Pablo bashes the sense of morality, he basically argues that we don't do the right thing because it feels right. By the same token, many of the people who are taught into a moral code get a physical discomfort from breaking their code, while somebody whose code is designed over the years can be quite apathic about it, gut wise.

Also I'm a little puzzled about the wording referring what "humanity should do" from a moral standpoint. It just seems a very burgeois way to put it, since only someone who is born into money can easily abstract the humanity as some ideological entity. In a certain way, killing a person while being poor is more moral than killing a person when you're deeply depressed. But mostly, I don't understand the point of basing a personal morality around a social abstraction -if I'm understanding this correctly-.

I'm not up to date on the jargon of modern ethics theory but as far as I can tell none of that makes any sense.

Who is Pablo, for starters?

JASON221
Very interestinghttp://www.kread.info/g.gif

Bentley
Sorry, I meant "Saint Paul" instead of Pablo, sometimes typing quickly makes me distracted at some details.

Which part is it that makes no sense to you? The physical expression of ethics?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bentley
Sorry, I meant "Saint Paul" instead of Pablo, sometimes typing quickly makes me distracted at some details.

Which part is it that makes no sense to you? The physical expression of ethics?

"Killing people while poor is more moral than killing people while depressed."
The whole bourgeoisie section, really.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Killing people while poor is more moral than killing people while depressed."
The whole bourgeoisie section, really.

I assume he was referring to a poor person having no choice but to kill a person to live. It is an appeal to "carnality" or whatever. We are living creatures that have objective needs: the need to feed, eat, and live. Killing another creature for sustenance would be objectively "moral".

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I assume he was referring to a poor person having no choice but to kill a person to live. It is an appeal to "carnality" or whatever. We are living creatures that have objective needs: the need to feed, eat, and live. Killing another creature for sustenance would be objectively "moral".
That's an extremely roundabout way to express that idea and given that he started the paragraph with talking about the bourgeoisie I find it hard to believe he wasn't talking simply about the state of poverty.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an extremely roundabout way to express that idea and given that he started the paragraph with talking about the bourgeoisie I find it hard to believe he wasn't talking simply about the state of poverty.

I dunno...that's what the eventual "result" is by an oppressed proletariat: they overthrow the bourgeoisie and do so violently to survive. They are not to be faulted for such actions, either...at least under that philosophy. "Nature" would agree with that notion, as well. This is how I came to my conclusion. I skipped this middle step (the one above) and skipped straight to the end: a poor person is more justified, morally, by killing to survive than a depressed person is by killing because they are depressed. At least partially, a depressed person has control over their depression and the ability to cope with it. Contrast that with a person born into a virtual caste system of poverty where they will remain unless they forcefully take their food/capital.

Bentley
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an extremely roundabout way to express that idea and given that he started the paragraph with talking about the bourgeoisie I find it hard to believe he wasn't talking simply about the state of poverty.


I just tried to express too many things at once, but what dadudemon explained is essentially what I meant to say. Sorry for the non-explicit statement, for some reason -I was probably distracted- it seemed evident to me when I posted it.

Rereading now I saw it was more convoluted than intended. Thanks for the save Dadu!

TacDavey
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not saying that a Christian can't be moral, Tac. Or that following what your parents teach you can't be moral. I'm saying that blindly following those codes without any independent consideration/invention isn't really all that moral.

I would agree with this. I don't think you should blindly follow rules.

But if the necessary requirement for an action to be moral is for you to consider it first, as opposed to blindly following rules, can't you still consider moral guides put in place by religions?

If there is a set moral code, isn't it still possible to consider an action and determine that you agree with the morality?

Originally posted by King Kandy
If the only reason they did so was because their parents told them to, then indeed I would have no respect for their moral values. I could respect their deeds, and their talent as firemen; but their ability to do what others tell them, gets no respect in my book. If they only are saving people from burning buildings because of their parents, I would be very scared of their lack of judgment; if their parents had taught them the opposite, they would be arsonists today instead of firemen.

But aren't all of our current morals dictated by our society and those around us? I assume you hold that morality is a human invention (correct me if I'm wrong). So when you view murder as wrong, aren't you only doing so because our society has been set up to view it that way? In that way, is it really that different from being told by your parents that murder is wrong? Aren't you still following a guide set in place by someone other than yourself? And if this is the case, how is following a religious moral code that different from following a societies moral code?

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
But aren't all of our current morals dictated by our society and those around us? I assume you hold that morality is a human invention (correct me if I'm wrong). So when you view murder as wrong, aren't you only doing so because our society has been set up to view it that way? In that way, is it really that different from being told by your parents that murder is wrong? Aren't you still following a guide set in place by someone other than yourself? And if this is the case, how is following a religious moral code that different from following a societies moral code?
I think you should always challenge society's morals and try and find ways to improve them. If someone doesn't challenge their parents views with logic, then again, they are not making any sort of moral judgment. This is different from the bible, which you supposedly should follow, rather than try and challenge it.

If someone told me "murder is wrong", I would ask them "on what grounds?" The arguments I have seen have felt persuasive to me.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by TacDavey
I would agree with this. I don't think you should blindly follow rules.

But if the necessary requirement for an action to be moral is for you to consider it first, as opposed to blindly following rules, can't you still consider moral guides put in place by religions?

If there is a set moral code, isn't it still possible to consider an action and determine that you agree with the morality?


Yes, but my argument is that the code itself isn't objectively valid and even if it was the act wouldn't be moral because of adherence to it but rather by virtue of its own merits.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think you should always challenge society's morals and try and find ways to improve them. If someone doesn't challenge their parents views with logic, then again, they are not making any sort of moral judgment. This is different from the bible, which you supposedly should follow, rather than try and challenge it.

If someone told me "murder is wrong", I would ask them "on what grounds?" The arguments I have seen have felt persuasive to me.

Actually, the Bible does not say you are suppose to follow it blindly at all. In fact, it says you are suppose to be knowledgeable about subjects like this so that you can defend your stance if necessary. Though that's a little off topic.

Your stance seems to suggest that if there are preset moral codes, they cannot be questioned. Which isn't true. The only difference is that one can be right or wrong depending on what conclusion they come to. If your requirement for an action to truly be moral is to consider it first, then there is no reason this cannot be done even if there are preset moral codes present.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, but my argument is that the code itself isn't objectively valid and even if it was the act wouldn't be moral because of adherence to it but rather by virtue of its own merits.

I don't think anyone would claim that something is moral for no other reason than adherence to a rule. But the claim that objective moral codes being present somehow stops people from performing moral actions seems a whole different subject.

Even if preset moral codes where in place, this doesn't demand that you blindly follow them with no logical thought or consideration. Which seems to be your reasoning behind finding an action to be moral or not.

inimalist
be knowledgeable so you can defend the bible or be knowledgeable so you can challenge what it says?

because in the former, it really is just following it blindly

Omega Vision
Originally posted by TacDavey


I don't think anyone would claim that something is moral for no other reason than adherence to a rule. But the claim that objective moral codes being present somehow stops people from performing moral actions seems a whole different subject.

Even if preset moral codes where in place, this doesn't demand that you blindly follow them with no logical thought or consideration. Which seems to be your reasoning behind finding an action to be moral or not.
No, not being present, following them for their own sake and only their own sake. My assertion is that people who would follow a moral code out of a sense of duty to it aren't being moral, just dutiful.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, the Bible does not say you are suppose to follow it blindly at all. In fact, it says you are suppose to be knowledgeable about subjects like this so that you can defend your stance if necessary. Though that's a little off topic.

Your stance seems to suggest that if there are preset moral codes, they cannot be questioned. Which isn't true. The only difference is that one can be right or wrong depending on what conclusion they come to. If your requirement for an action to truly be moral is to consider it first, then there is no reason this cannot be done even if there are preset moral codes present. .
You are supposed to be knowledgeable so you can defend it? Well that's not what I was talking about at all, then. If the reason you acquire knowledge is to defend your predetermined conclusion, then you aren't challenging it at all. If I read a book, the first thing I think of is how best to prove it wrong; only if it can withstand rigorous logical assault, will I accept it. When you read the Bible, do you attempt to prove it wrong with all the brainpower you can?

You just refuted your own argument. If you are questioning the Bible, and you find a logical refutation of it, will you give up your belief? Or will you assume your conclusion was mistaken? If its the latter, then you aren't questioning at all, you are starting with the conclusion and then retroactively justifying it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
My assertion is that people who would follow a moral code out of a sense of duty to it aren't being moral, just dutiful.

Deontology vs. Virtue Ethics.

Of course, the optimal "good" way to go about life would be being a "virtue" ethics person when everyone agrees on the same virtues. hmm

TacDavey
Originally posted by Omega Vision
No, not being present, following them for their own sake and only their own sake. My assertion is that people who would follow a moral code out of a sense of duty to it aren't being moral, just dutiful.

But I thought you said that if there were such things as preset objective moral values then people can't really be moral.

Now it seems you are saying that people who follow guides for no other reason than to follow guides aren't really being moral. Which I don't think anyone would argue against.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You are supposed to be knowledgeable so you can defend it? Well that's not what I was talking about at all, then. If the reason you acquire knowledge is to defend your predetermined conclusion, then you aren't challenging it at all. If I read a book, the first thing I think of is how best to prove it wrong; only if it can withstand rigorous logical assault, will I accept it. When you read the Bible, do you attempt to prove it wrong with all the brainpower you can?

You aren't suppose to just look for ways to blindly defend the Bible. that isn't what I meant. You are suppose to be knowledgeable on subjects, with the benefit of this being that you can defend your stance if necessary. That doesn't mean that you are suppose to twist things or just look for ways to make yourself sound smart to make the Bible look good.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You just refuted your own argument. If you are questioning the Bible, and you find a logical refutation of it, will you give up your belief? Or will you assume your conclusion was mistaken? If its the latter, then you aren't questioning at all, you are starting with the conclusion and then retroactively justifying it.

I don't know what you mean here. Ignoring the question of the Bible's moral codes for a second. I was talking about objective moral values in general. Values that are present outside of human creation. These values can be questioned and pondered just the same as any man made moral value. Correct?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by TacDavey
But I thought you said that if there were such things as preset objective moral values then people can't really be moral.

Now it seems you are saying that people who follow guides for no other reason than to follow guides aren't really being moral. Which I don't think anyone would argue against.

I should explain my position better: I think objective moral values are nonexistent, but if they did exist I can't understand why if they're something that people would necessarily follow that adherence to them would be moral.

And if they did exist would it just be a matter of knowing them and then abiding by them once they were known?

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
You aren't suppose to just look for ways to blindly defend the Bible. that isn't what I meant. You are suppose to be knowledgeable on subjects, with the benefit of this being that you can defend your stance if necessary. That doesn't mean that you are suppose to twist things or just look for ways to make yourself sound smart to make the Bible look good.
This coming from the guy who said he had never even read the Old Testament. That's exactly what you do all the time!

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. Ignoring the question of the Bible's moral codes for a second. I was talking about objective moral values in general. Values that are present outside of human creation. These values can be questioned and pondered just the same as any man made moral value. Correct?
Wrong. I mean first of all, how could a value be present outside of human creation? Do we speak of it as moral when a rock rolls down a hill? Is snow falling immoral? Is a frog eating a fly immoral? These things obviously have to apply to the human sphere.

They cannot be questioned. If you believe they are objective, obviously they are beyond human ability to disprove; any questioning would be a purely futile, rhetorical effort.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I should explain my position better: I think objective moral values are nonexistent, but if they did exist I can't understand why if they're something that people would necessarily follow that adherence to them would be moral.

And if they did exist would it just be a matter of knowing them and then abiding by them once they were known?

Yes, but why do you think it wouldn't be moral to "adhere" to them? If it's because, like you said, people would just be following rules blindly, I can understand that. The thing is, even if there WERE set objective moral values, that doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't consider them first. Just as you would consider any of the moral values that are present in society today.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This coming from the guy who said he had never even read the Old Testament. That's exactly what you do all the time!

Sir! You wound me! cry

I resent the implication that I attempt to vainly present myself as intellectually superior.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Wrong. I mean first of all, how could a value be present outside of human creation? Do we speak of it as moral when a rock rolls down a hill? Is snow falling immoral? Is a frog eating a fly immoral? These things obviously have to apply to the human sphere.

I don't know what you mean here. I'm talking about moral values that are present apart from human creation. Not moral values that apply to rocks and snow.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They cannot be questioned. If you believe they are objective, obviously they are beyond human ability to disprove; any questioning would be a purely futile, rhetorical effort.

But people can still consider them. Even if they are in place, that doesn't mean people have to blindly follow them. Which means people can still perform moral actions.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, but why do you think it wouldn't be moral to "adhere" to them? If it's because, like you said, people would just be following rules blindly, I can understand that. The thing is, even if there WERE set objective moral values, that doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't consider them first. Just as you would consider any of the moral values that are present in society today.


This gets tricky, I'm not sure if I could even explain it to myself satisfactorily, but I suppose it comes from my notion that an objective moral code would be like mathematics in that it would be analytically apparent as true and (this is where it gets really dicey) analytically prescriptive.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Omega Vision
This gets tricky, I'm not sure if I could even explain it to myself satisfactorily, but I suppose it comes from my notion that an objective moral code would be like mathematics in that it would be analytically apparent as true and (this is where it gets really dicey) analytically prescriptive.

Why? Even if someone knows something is right, that knowledge doesn't demand that they do it. It's still up to the individual to consider doing what is right or what is wrong.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? Even if someone knows something is right, that knowledge doesn't demand that they do it. It's still up to the individual to consider doing what is right or what is wrong.
No, but it would mean that of the acts available to them only one act would be 'right'.

TacDavey
Originally posted by Omega Vision
No, but it would mean that of the acts available to them only one act would be 'right'.

Then the only way for something to be moral is if there are multiple "right" ways to do something?

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
Sir! You wound me! cry

I resent the implication that I attempt to vainly present myself as intellectually superior.
You missed the point. You are going on about how it's good to "question the bible", but you haven't even read it. So what on Earth kind of questioning are you doing?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. I'm talking about moral values that are present apart from human creation. Not moral values that apply to rocks and snow.
But no moral laws are present in the absence of humans. I just gave you examples where they would apply to non-humans. You agree they are clearly absurd. How can a moral possibly exist without humans.

To put it another way. You would say that killing a relative would be bad, and this is "apart from human creation". But surely, you would not hold a Black Widow spider responsible for killing its mate; that is part of its life cycle. But if humans mated like Black Widows, again we would be blameless in the act. So clearly, even the most obvious of morals is only applicable to the particular set of characteristics that makes a human. How could this possibly in any way apply without humans? It is clearly a consequence of humanities existence and peculiar characteristics, that such laws can exist.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But people can still consider them. Even if they are in place, that doesn't mean people have to blindly follow them. Which means people can still perform moral actions.
I think you are missing the point of why I think you should question. You should question because this might lead to improving the rules; just like how in science, questioning theories leads to improving them (or dismissing them for better theories). In your case, you don't think the rules can be improved; they existed before the Earth, and will exist after it, as God-given perfection. Obviously, no mere human can improve on them. So why would I even care about questioning? Nothing good will really come of it.

It seems to me you are envisioning this as some kind of homework assignment. You think "okay, i've questioned it", check it off your to-do list, and then think you have taken the necessary steps to perform a moral action. You miss what the actual point of the assignment was-to scientifically think and gain a greater understanding. (BTW, if you handed this assignment to me, i'd give you an F for not having read the course material).

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
You missed the point. You are going on about how it's good to "question the bible", but you haven't even read it. So what on Earth kind of questioning are you doing?

What does that matter? I never said I was a perfect Christian. That doesn't mean I was twisting anything, nor blindly following anything.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But no moral laws are present in the absence of humans. I just gave you examples where they would apply to non-humans. You agree they are clearly absurd. How can a moral possibly exist without humans.

To put it another way. You would say that killing a relative would be bad, and this is "apart from human creation". But surely, you would not hold a Black Widow spider responsible for killing its mate; that is part of its life cycle. But if humans mated like Black Widows, again we would be blameless in the act. So clearly, even the most obvious of morals is only applicable to the particular set of characteristics that makes a human. How could this possibly in any way apply without humans? It is clearly a consequence of humanities existence and peculiar characteristics, that such laws can exist.

Alright. I'll admit morals don't necessarily apply apart from human's or at least sentient beings. I forgot why this was important.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think you are missing the point of why I think you should question. You should question because this might lead to improving the rules; just like how in science, questioning theories leads to improving them (or dismissing them for better theories). In your case, you don't think the rules can be improved; they existed before the Earth, and will exist after it, as God-given perfection. Obviously, no mere human can improve on them. So why would I even care about questioning? Nothing good will really come of it.

It seems to me you are envisioning this as some kind of homework assignment. You think "okay, i've questioned it", check it off your to-do list, and then think you have taken the necessary steps to perform a moral action. You miss what the actual point of the assignment was-to scientifically think and gain a greater understanding. (BTW, if you handed this assignment to me, i'd give you an F for not having read the course material).

If you think we should question to better understand something, then that can still be done to set moral guides. We can still question and better understand objective things. Unless you want to claim that the only things that we can better understand are things we invent, which is obviously untrue.

Or are you saying it isn't moral if we can't improve it? Because I see no logical defense for that either.

King Kandy
Originally posted by TacDavey
What does that matter? I never said I was a perfect Christian. That doesn't mean I was twisting anything, nor blindly following anything.
But you LITERALLY are blindly following it. You haven't read the Bible. Therefore, in believing it, you are going in blind. You believe something before you even know what the content is. How is this NOT "blindly following"?

This is not some issue of being a perfect Christian, this is a issue where you say you believe the Bible a book you haven't read. You ask me "what does that matter", and I am baffled. How could that possibly not matter? What's the most important thing about following a book? Well, I would say having ****ing read it would be a good start.

You also said that you question the Bible. How on Earth can you question the Bible when you don't even read it? What kind of informed questioning can you possibly do?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright. I'll admit morals don't necessarily apply apart from human's or at least sentient beings. I forgot why this was important.
facepalm. TacDavey to a "T" right here. Sure, its a three page long thread, and you could easily see what the conversation pertained to... but gosh darn it, not knowing anything about the subject will never stop Tac from chiming in!

Since hitting the "back a page" button was clearly to much effort, this is what you said to start:

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. Ignoring the question of the Bible's moral codes for a second. I was talking about objective moral values in general. Values that are present outside of human creation. These values can be questioned and pondered just the same as any man made moral value. Correct?

Well, now that you just admitted no such values exist, what is the point of even continuing the conversation? You just admitted there is no such law present apart from humans. So obviously, this is no "universal" law.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If you think we should question to better understand something, then that can still be done to set moral guides. We can still question and better understand objective things. Unless you want to claim that the only things that we can better understand are things we invent, which is obviously untrue.

Or are you saying it isn't moral if we can't improve it? Because I see no logical defense for that either.
God already has gifted us with the superb moral code that cannot be improved upon, so, why would I bother? If God came down and gave me a law that could predict every single form of chemical action flawlessly, obviously, trying to find a "better" law of chemistry is an exercise in futility. I would just follow the equation whenever I wanted to.

TacDavey
Originally posted by King Kandy
But you LITERALLY are blindly following it. You haven't read the Bible. Therefore, in believing it, you are going in blind. You believe something before you even know what the content is. How is this NOT "blindly following"?

This is not some issue of being a perfect Christian, this is a issue where you say you believe the Bible a book you haven't read. You ask me "what does that matter", and I am baffled. How could that possibly not matter? What's the most important thing about following a book? Well, I would say having ****ing read it would be a good start.

You also said that you question the Bible. How on Earth can you question the Bible when you don't even read it? What kind of informed questioning can you possibly do?

I haven't read it all the way through. That doesn't mean I know absolutely nothing about what it says. THAT is what it means to blindly follow something.

I guess I should have been clearer. I haven't read every verse in every book all the way through. You seem to think I haven't ever picked up a Bible.


Originally posted by King Kandy
facepalm. TacDavey to a "T" right here. Sure, its a three page long thread, and you could easily see what the conversation pertained to... but gosh darn it, not knowing anything about the subject will never stop Tac from chiming in!

Since hitting the "back a page" button was clearly to much effort, this is what you said to start:

Calm down, King Kandy, there's no need for hostility. If you couldn't refresh my memory on the relevance of a point a simple "Go back and see for yourself" would have worked.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, now that you just admitted no such values exist, what is the point of even continuing the conversation? You just admitted there is no such law present apart from humans. So obviously, this is no "universal" law.

That's not what I said. I said that the moral codes present don't apply to everything. Like rocks and trees. That doesn't mean they are man made. It simply means they have specific things that they apply to.

Originally posted by King Kandy
God already has gifted us with the superb moral code that cannot be improved upon, so, why would I bother? If God came down and gave me a law that could predict every single form of chemical action flawlessly, obviously, trying to find a "better" law of chemistry is an exercise in futility. I would just follow the equation whenever I wanted to.

But you could study and better understand those chemical reactions, couldn't you?

Again, if your trying to say that the only way something can be moral is if those morals can be improved upon, then you will have to explain the logic behind that. Because I see no logical defense for that stance.

Or if you are trying to say that simply following orders doesn't make you moral, then we agree. The difference is there is no reason that having set moral codes demands that this take place.

You seem to suggest that if there is an objective right or wrong answer to a question, the question cannot be studied or understood. Which is blatantly false.

smith2
Awesome I am really amazed ....

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by smith2
Awesome I am really amazed .... You high too, brah?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.