Source of ethics, and morality

[sealybobo]

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

Interesting. Mind explaining how that works?

Or were you just kidding.

Things must die. Otherwise we would be overpopulated. And things must be born. How happy is a momma to see her new baby?

 

[Brynmr]

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

Interesting. Mind explaining how that works?

Or were you just kidding.

Things must die. Otherwise we would be overpopulated. And things must be born. How happy is a momma to see her new baby?

Yes but that doesn't explain death being evil. Birth and death are neither good nor evil.

 

[sealybobo]

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

Interesting. Mind explaining how that works?

Or were you just kidding.

Things must die. Otherwise we would be overpopulated. And things must be born. How happy is a momma to see her new baby?

Yes but that doesn't explain death being evil. Birth and death are neither good nor evil.

Is there anything good about death? Then I'd catagorize it as evil.

 

[Czernobog]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

 

[Correll]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

 

[Czernobog]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

 

[Correll]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

 

[Brynmr]

Yes but that doesn't explain death being evil. Birth and death are neither good nor evil.

Is there anything good about death? Then I'd catagorize it as evil.

So anything that's not 'good' is evil? That's ridiculous. I would say you have no idea what evil is... or good.

 

[Czernobog]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

 

[Correll]

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

I don't presume that. You are the one claiming he cannot give moral laws. Which you have not supported.

 

[Czernobog]

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

I don't presume that. You are the one claiming he cannot give moral laws. Which you have not supported.

So, again, are you suggesting that lawgivers are incapable of enacting immoral laws?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

I don't presume that. You are the one claiming he cannot give moral laws. Which you have not supported.

So, again, are you suggesting that lawgivers are incapable of enacting immoral laws?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Nope. I said what I meant to say.

YOu made the claim. Your logic and your OP is built on it.

Yet you have not supported it.

 

[Czernobog]

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

I don't presume that. You are the one claiming he cannot give moral laws. Which you have not supported.

So, again, are you suggesting that lawgivers are incapable of enacting immoral laws?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Nope. I said what I meant to say.

YOu made the claim. Your logic and your OP is built on it.

Yet you have not supported it.

What have I not supported? That immoral laws have been enacted?

 

[Correll]

I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

I don't presume that. You are the one claiming he cannot give moral laws. Which you have not supported.

So, again, are you suggesting that lawgivers are incapable of enacting immoral laws?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

NOpe. NOt what I said. If you are going to be so easily confused about what I said, stop pruning the quote trees.


You have not supported your claim that the lawmaker cannot give moral laws.

Asking me, a strawman, if I am claiming that exact opposite of that, is not supporting your claim.

At best you are confused about the difference between questioning an absolute and claiming the OPPOSITE absolute.

You are the one claiming an absolute. Without supporting it.

 

[Czernobog]

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

I don't presume that. You are the one claiming he cannot give moral laws. Which you have not supported.

So, again, are you suggesting that lawgivers are incapable of enacting immoral laws?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

NOpe. NOt what I said. If you are going to be so easily confused about what I said, stop pruning the quote trees.


You have not supported your claim that the lawmaker cannot give moral laws.

Asking me, a strawman, if I am claiming that exact opposite of that, is not supporting your claim.

At best you are confused about the difference between questioning an absolute and claiming the OPPOSITE absolute.

You are the one claiming an absolute. Without supporting it.

I never made that claim. You might want to go back and reread what I have written. What I have written is that morality is separate from law. You quoted my own words:

"The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined."

Where, in that statement, does it say that a lawgiver is incapable of enacting a moral law?

 

[there4eyeM]

As women are born with all their eggs, and all women were eggs in their mothers, and as that stream runs endlessly into the past, we must say that human life started at least hundreds of thousands of years ago. As DNA makes up life and has not stopped in billions of years, that could be taken for when human life began.
Any other starting points are totally arbitrary decisions. If one does not like the choice of passing on life or not, one's argument is rather with the nature of choice.

 

[Czernobog]

As women are born with all their eggs, and all women were eggs in their mothers, and as that stream runs endlessly into the past, we must say that human life started at least hundreds of thousands of years ago. As DNA makes up life and has not stopped in billions of years, that could be taken for when human life began.
Any other starting points are totally arbitrary decisions. If one does not like the choice of passing on life or not, one's argument is rather with the nature of choice.

Not entirely certain what that has to do with the question of ethics, but...

...okay?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
since an atheist is as alive as a theist there must be a morality in simply being alive and with a Triumph of Good vs Evil either would be as likely to set their Spirit free as the other ... the correct purity is the key to the Everlasting.

.

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

.

"Good and evil" is necessary for rejuvenation and continuity of the Universe.

may the Almighty have mercy for defcoon4.


how about evil in the gene pool, that's the point only purity is what counts ... and being a part of the Everlasting is the necessary ingredient. than simply perishing.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

Why would an omnipotent entity need to have expectations?

Correct, I am not a Christian.

Look.... IF I am God, the Omnipotent Creator of All... whatever I create is going to satisfy my expectations because I created it. If there was some need it was intended to fill, I would have created it that way. But being God, I really don't have needs. See what I am saying? God is not humanistic. All these attributes religious people throw on God are because man cannot wrap his mind around God's omnipotence.

I personally think, only a relatively small number of humans have ever been able to fully understand God. I think people like Jesus and Gandhi would probably find much common understanding and would be BFFs to put it in modern vernacular. But what happens is, their followers can't comprehend God and so they build dogmatic religions around what they THINK they understand but don't. Or, maybe they DO understand to an extent, but they are still humans and fallible.

I guess you could say I believe in Spinoza's God. It is there, it definitely guides us on a spiritual course inclined toward light and away from dark. toward good and away from evil. It has no expectations or commands and doesn't hold us in judgment other than the consequences of not following our own spiritual paths.

Only a small number understand God? Does that include you? Of course

.

Only a small number understand God? Does that include you? Of course

oh, and do not let it out Spinoza's God has matter ....

.

 

[ding]

...

.. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. ....

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws

This is the crux of your point, and it is both unsupported AND projecting a human limitation.

Unsupported? So, are you suggesting that there have never been immoral laws? If there have been immoral laws, then what differentiates moral from immoral laws? It is certainly not the virtue of laws being delivered by a lawgiver, as the lawgivers have delivered both moral, and immoral laws.

If the law giver is man, sure,


I did not suggest that there have never been immoral laws.

What differentiates any moral act from an immoral act? Intent, method, results. An anti-littering campaign enforce by machine gun armed robots, would be immoral, regardless how positive the impact on the environment.


Nor was I using an Appeal to Authority.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how my premise is unsupported, and...how did you put it?...projecting human limitation?

What prevents the lawgiver from giving moral laws?

One would presume that the lawgiver lacks morality.

The general position of theists is that atheists are incapable of any sort of moral certitude. The argument goes that atheists have no basis for morality, no ethics, no nothing. Because Atheists believe in nothing, they have no check on their selfishness and lived hedonistic lifestyles. They did whatever they feel best, whatever pleases them most.

The reasoning for theists is that for absolute moral law, there must be a lawgiver. The analogy used is human law that requires a legislature to make the law, and a judiciary to enforce it. The problem with this reasoning is that theists are conflating two different concepts - morality, and legality. It is true that law requires both a legislature and judiciary, however, as demonstrated by Jim Crow, as well as other laws, having a lawgiver is not, itself, a guarantee of moral, or just laws. Thus the analogy, as well as the premise rather falls apart.

So, what guarantees that moral laws are, in fact, moral? Logically it must be that the law-enactors and enforcers are acting within the confines of morality. However, this requires that morality had to proceed legality. The only way to insure that a lawgiver is moral is that their laws conform to a morality that is independent of the lawgiver, and to which the lawgiver is confined. So, if the lawgiver is God, then they can only be moral if they conform to a morality that is independent of God. However, according to theists, there is no morality independent of God.

Socrates make this exact point when he asked "is good good be cause it is good, and good gods choose good, or is good good, because the gods choose it? If it is the former then good is simply good, and God has nothing to do with it; God is only "good", because He chooses to do that which is good. If it is the latter, then good is entirely arbitrary and is solely dependent on God's whim.

So, the question becomes, if God cannot, logically, be the source of morality, then what is, and how does one know what is "good"?

We all have a code of morality, even if we don't believe in a God.

We are wired to develop morality based upon authority figures we esteem. The source can be our parents, teachers, pastors, law makers, peers, etc.

Case in point is slavery. When slavery was legal the general consensus was that it was not ideal, but it was OK. Now after centuries of being illegal, the average consensus is that slavery is morally reprehensible.

Abortion is also comparable. Before Roe vs. Wade, the general consensus was that abortion was immoral. However, decades after abortion has been made legal, the average consensus is that abortion is not ideal, but it is OK.

Gay marriage is the same. 50 years ago the average consensus would have been that it is immoral. Today, however, now that it has been legalized the average consensus is that it may not be ideal, but it is OK.

It is somewhat humbling understanding what lemmings we are. Pass a law and watch morals change accordingly. I guess it then behooves us on which authority figures we esteem enough to let them guide our moral compass.

Having said all that, I would say that we are all guided by an internal universal morality that can be summed up by the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you. That meant that to rationalize slavery as OK, the first step was to dehumanize them as being subhuman, or a glorified ape. Only then can you then treat them like beasts of burden or even kill them if need be. And we see this time after time as Jews are compared to vermin or nonMuslims are infidels or the unborn are merely a fetus. Only when you dehumanize people can you then abuse them with a clear conscience.

Slavery is a perfect example of moral relativity. Natural law is discovered. Once discovered it will be known that it was and always will be true.