Evidence for God from Science

Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.

PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.

So many questions:
- What is the natural conclusion of subjective morality?
- Why?
- Why only psychopaths or sociopaths?
- How (and why) are others (like me) not honest?

Have you read my arguments about morality?

Nils

If you really can't get were subjective morality can end up, I am not sure where this conversation is going.
I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example).

Can animals be moral?
Can they have a conscious rational view of good and bad?
Good question, how can we find the answer? ask them?
Hey, Fido, when you protected that kitten from that Pitbull and put yourself in danger, were you aware that you were showing self-sacrifce? and why?
Hey Tommy the gorilla, when you grabbed that infant ape and smashed it into the rocks to establish your dominance and such, were you aware that was WRONG?

PaulSacramento wrote:Can animals be moral?
Can they have a conscious rational view of good and bad?
Good question, how can we find the answer? ask them?
Hey, Fido, when you protected that kitten from that Pitbull and put yourself in danger, were you aware that you were showing self-sacrifce? and why?
Hey Tommy the gorilla, when you grabbed that infant ape and smashed it into the rocks to establish your dominance and such, were you aware that was WRONG?

What if Tommy the gorilla believes it's SUBJECTIVELY good to smash little apes into rocks?

Check and mate.

PaulSacramento wrote:I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example).

If such a world did exist, how would it be any different than the world we live in today?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Can animals be moral?
Can they have a conscious rational view of good and bad?
Good question, how can we find the answer? ask them?
Hey, Fido, when you protected that kitten from that Pitbull and put yourself in danger, were you aware that you were showing self-sacrifce? and why?
Hey Tommy the gorilla, when you grabbed that infant ape and smashed it into the rocks to establish your dominance and such, were you aware that was WRONG?

People don't generally apply morality to animals.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.

What about the problem of taking Objective morality to it's natural conclusion?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.

What about the problem of taking Objective morality to it's natural conclusion?

Ken

Which conclusion is that Kenny?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.

What about the problem of taking Objective morality to it's natural conclusion?

Ken

Which conclusion is that Kenny?

Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
That would mean people aren’t moral; God is! The best of mankind is just obedient. IOW; The best we can hope for is to be an immoral person who is good at following instructions.

Now the question becomes; whose instructions are being followed? Yahweh? Allah’s? Ahura Mazda’s? Unfortunately ALL of them. Ya see, because we aren’t capable of determining right from wrong, we have no way of determining who is authentic or fraud so we will probably choose the one introduced to us via our culture. And (assuming one is actually right and the rest are fraud) since we employ faith that the Deity of our culture knows better than we, if this Deity tells us something that sounds wrong, we will just assume it only sounds wrong to us because we are immoral and our deity is right because he is moral. And since no matter which Deity is the right one, the vast majority of mankind will still be lead by frauds. And the small percentage who do choose the right Deity, most of them still don’t get it right.
I think someone you are familiar with spoke of what happens when the blind leads the blind? Well to answer your question of the natural conclusion of Objective morality; most of mankind will end up in the ditch.

Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?

You said:

Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.

Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?

RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?

You said:

Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.

Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?

If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?

You said:

Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.

Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?

If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own

Kenny,

Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?

Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?

In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.

This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.

PaulSacramento wrote:If you really can't get were subjective morality can end up, I am not sure where this conversation is going.
I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example).

How does it matter if there is objective or subjective morality ontologically speaking if no one cares? There are lot of examples from the Middle ages of princes that didn't care of right and wrong. See for instance the book The Prince of Machiavelli. So morality may end up anywhere both with subjective or objective morality.

And besides, whether it is true that only subjective morality exists, does not depend on it being desirable or not.

Paul:
"If you really can't get were subjective morality can end up, I am not sure where this conversation is going.
I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example)."

But then Rick writes
"Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?"

I agree with Rick. Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong. In most cases my feelings about right and wrong can be related to my intellectual understanding of what is best to me, to my family, and to the society. No further reference to a God is needed.

Concerning animals:

Ken writes that People don't generally apply morality to animals. This is as usual a matter of definition. To me morality is a set of rules of conduct and animals have those also. Most have for instance instincts that prevent them to eat their offspring but animals that live in groups have also advanced behaviour to the benefit of the group that in some cases can be compared to the human instincts. This has been studied on apes and dog animals for instance. To me it is natural to call this behaviour morality. Most persons that have had a dog can tell how they can see on the dog if it has done something that the dog knows it shouldn't do. It feels ashamed. If that is not an evidence on morality, what is it then.

Paul writes:
"Can animals be moral? Can they have a conscious rational view of good and bad? Good question, how can we find the answer? ask them?"
I am talking about moral instincts, it should be clear.How to find out is simple. Just study them. If there are animals that are conscious rational views is quite uncertain.
Nils

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?

You said:

Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.

Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?

If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his own

Kenny,

Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?

Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?

In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.

This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.

Are you able to determine right from wrong on all moral issues? (like me) or do you still need an outside source on some issues, but not others.