Where do moral laws come from?

[rightwinger]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Yes you do!
Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Remember that time God got pissed off and killed millions of innocent children, puppies and kittens in a flood?
How about that time he killed the first born children of Egypt?

Yes. I do. But he didn't kill their first born. The pharaoh did. As to the flood, most ancient societies have an account of the flood. The Bible's account is allegorical. If you want to make an argument that God was not moral, why don't you use the account where he told the Jews to kill every man, woman and child when they entered Canaan? My answer to that would be, who said God was being moral when He told them that? In fact, we could point to disease, war and death, right? So we are left with two choices; we can believe He was not being moral or that we don't understand it. I choose the latter.

No that was god throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way.

Taking it out on innocent children

 

[tycho1572]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

 

[hjmick]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don't need religion.

 

[ding]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don't need religion.

How about following the natural law because it naturally leads to success in this lifetime?

 

[ding]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

 

[ding]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Yes you do!
Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Remember that time God got pissed off and killed millions of innocent children, puppies and kittens in a flood?
How about that time he killed the first born children of Egypt?

Yes. I do. But he didn't kill their first born. The pharaoh did. As to the flood, most ancient societies have an account of the flood. The Bible's account is allegorical. If you want to make an argument that God was not moral, why don't you use the account where he told the Jews to kill every man, woman and child when they entered Canaan? My answer to that would be, who said God was being moral when He told them that? In fact, we could point to disease, war and death, right? So we are left with two choices; we can believe He was not being moral or that we don't understand it. I choose the latter.

No that was god throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way.

Taking it out on innocent children

How do you know?

 

[tycho1572]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision. How people choose to behave is on them.

 

[ding]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

Not so. They existed before space and time.

So did unicorns and leprechauns

I don't believe they did. Everything which is possible to exist existed as potential before space and time were created. It was waiting in eternity and then time for it to be discovered. If it were not possible to existed then there would be no potential for it to exist.

 

[ding]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision.

That wasn't what I was asking. Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that two honest people will have a better relationship than two dishonest people?

 

[ding]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

Not all morals

Your moral objection to homosexuality is not a justification for a law against it

Right. It is a justification for not normalizing it.

I see your individual morals trying to influence government

I see. So your values don't inform your actions?

 

[tycho1572]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision.

That wasn't what I was asking. Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that two honest people will have a better relationship than two dishonest people?

I believe honesty is always the best policy in any relationship.

 

[dblack]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision.

That wasn't what I was asking. Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that two honest people will have a better relationship than two dishonest people?

I believe honesty is always the best policy in any relationship.

I don't believe you.

 

[tycho1572]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision.

That wasn't what I was asking. Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that two honest people will have a better relationship than two dishonest people?

I believe honesty is always the best policy in any relationship.

I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe. How's that for honesty?

 

[Iceweasel]

Where did you come up with all that? Did you form your own religion or cobble pieces together from others?

Laws come from man, they differ from state to state, country from country.

I see. So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

When isn't morality relative?

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

 

[Iceweasel]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

You're babbling. That's like saying a machine can decide morality.

 

[ding]

I see. So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

When isn't morality relative?

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

 

[ding]

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes? If you don't, then what I wrote should not be that hard for you to comprehend, right?

 

[ding]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

You're babbling. That's like saying a machine can decide morality.

Do you know what the difference between subjective and objective is? If you look up their definitions, then what I wrote should make sense to you. If you can't figure it out, get back to me and I will explain it.

 

[ding]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision.

That wasn't what I was asking. Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that two honest people will have a better relationship than two dishonest people?

I believe honesty is always the best policy in any relationship.

That didn't answer the question.