Determining what is “moral”

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Determining what is “moral”

As "moral" is not absolute, but alwasy relative in it's very nature, noone can tell what "moral" is, not taking this isnot consideration.

We have "moral". This is often mistaken to be "good moral", or "bad moral". Not so. "Moral" is always neutral.

What is "good moral" for someone can be very well be "bad moral" for another person. It can also change over time for the same person, depending of how the situation evolves for that person in particular.

What is "good moral" for someone of one religion, can be very well be "bad moral" for person with another religion.

So "good moral" or "bad moral" is dependant of a numerous parameters, such as culture, epoch, class, age, religion, political views. this is the reason that I call it relative and not absolute.

I would say that "absolute moral" does not exist. "Moral" is always relative.

The last time I said this I was burden with heavy critics. I've thought of it much since. But I've not found any reason to change my opinion. It stands.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are looking at this from our current point in time, I'm suggesting you start
thinking about what it was like before if evolution is true and somewhere in time
there was a point that nothing had feelings. An apple falling from a tree does so
due to the forces that are placed upon the tree and apple, so somewhere along
the way during the development o ...[text shortened]... d on and feelings were
generated, so there was a time there were no feelings, then there were.

And I am saying that 'feelings' simply isn't as well defined a term for that to be possible.
Feelings are complex and not accurately described. They would have developed bit by bit not like the flipping of a switch.
I am trying to point out that the life forms we have today represent a continuous spectrum from those that don't seem to have feelings (most plants) to those that do have feelings - mammals.
If you can define 'feelings' well enough for us to determine which animals today have them and which don't then I can answer your question as to how they might have arisen. But I think you will find that an ant has some aspects of 'feelings' and not others.

Like eye sight life didn't know what it was missing and some how that didn't matter
it got both sight and feelings. Both of these required several things to happen that
all connected and all worked together so that systems were formed that were able
to give life both feelings and sight.
Kelly
That is simply not true. I bet you cannot list those things that must have 'all worked together' because no such requirements exist.
We know that even some of the very early life forms have sight. Plants have sight. They grow towards the sun.
Many animals have light sensitive cells that perform other functions. 'Sight', like 'feelings', is so loosely defined that you cannot separate those plants and animals that posses it from those that don't. There is no magic switch.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

Is there a universal morality or does morality mirror a universal code of some kind? I would say that instead of trying to decide which came first, the chicken or the egg, just look at the fact that the chicken exists.

The bottom line is that we follow the "Golden Rule" which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is simply what IS.

Having said that, for some reason we don't follow this inner voice. In fact, we all have violated this inner voice causing guilt. Of course, there are those who do not have this inner voice and they are referred to as sociopaths who have no guilt, but the over riding view of them is that they are "damaged goods" and have a deficit, much like someone born without an arm.

So what makes us go against the inner voice? I suppose selfishness is a prime suspect. In fact, if you continue to go against that inner voice the voice strangely goes dim until you no longer care about morality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I am saying that 'feelings' simply isn't as well defined a term for that to be possible.
Feelings are complex and not accurately described. They would have developed bit by bit not like the flipping of a switch.
I am trying to point out that the life forms we have today represent a continuous spectrum from those that don't seem to have feelings (mos ...[text shortened]... ts and animals that posses it from those that don't. There is no magic switch.

You can hypothesize why some have and some don't have feeling!
Think about programming for a moment, we can put into code a variety of different
types reactionary choices some of the basic ones, "and", "or" "if then else" "while"
and so on. We now are talking about taking a physical being, and having its DNA
code changed by going through the flow of all the internal and external forces that
play upon it generate something within its DNA that would produce morals, not a
reaction to different stimulus but judgment calls on right and wrong, feelings of
emotion as well. All of which again not on purpose that is with cause, purely with
just the mutations over time without a plan, purpose, or design in place.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I am saying that 'feelings' simply isn't as well defined a term for that to be possible.
Feelings are complex and not accurately described. They would have developed bit by bit not like the flipping of a switch.
I am trying to point out that the life forms we have today represent a continuous spectrum from those that don't seem to have feelings (mos ts and animals that posses it from those that don't. There is no magic switch.

It is very simple to look at all the parts of the eye, all things that support those
parts and rewind where none of those things are a part of the life form and try to
come up with ways that they would all show up without killing off the life form by
taking to much energy needlessly, or that the timing of all the parts is off so that
they do not work together. I'm quite sure that if you thought about this, I don't
think you believe it to be as simple a process as your making it out to be.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
Is there a universal morality or does morality mirror a universal code of some kind? I would say that instead of trying to decide which came first, the chicken or the egg, just look at the fact that the chicken exists.

The bottom line is that we follow the "Golden Rule" which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is simply what IS ...[text shortened]... inst that inner voice the voice strangely goes dim until you no longer care about morality.

“…The bottom line is that we follow the "Golden Rule" which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you….”

Yes, and I follow this “Golden rule” as you call it for purely emotional reasons and not “moral” reasons because I don’t believe there is such thing as “moral”. So, to me, “morality” is a totally redundant concept and I am living proof that you don’t have to believe in the existence of “moral” to generally not do unto others as you would have them do unto you and to not be a sociopath.

In fact, most/all intelligent animals are probably living proof of this! For example, dolphins are social creatures that can show kind behaviour towards each other but, although it is impossible to know for sure, I doubt they believe there exists something that we would call “moral” and I doubt they would even have the concept of “moral”.

“…Having said that, for some reason we don't follow this inner voice. In fact, we all have violated this inner voice causing guilt…..”

This “inner voice” and “guilt” are just feelings we have that, generally, drive us to be kind.
But having these feeling should not be confused with having a moral belief ( I am not imlying here you implied that or are confusing the two here ) I have those feelings but I have no moral belief.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can hypothesize why some have and some don't have feeling!
Think about programming for a moment, we can put into code a variety of different
types reactionary choices some of the basic ones, "and", "or" "if then else" "while"
and so on. We now are talking about taking a physical being, and having its DNA
code changed by going through the flow of all ...[text shortened]... with
just the mutations over time without a plan, purpose, or design in place.
Kelly

So?

Exactly what logical “problem” are you referring to here?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is very simple to look at all the parts of the eye, all things that support those
parts and rewind where none of those things are a part of the life form and try to
come up with ways that they would all show up without killing off the life form by
taking to much energy needlessly, or that the timing of all the parts is off so that
they do not work to ...[text shortened]... s, I don't
think you believe it to be as simple a process as your making it out to be.
Kelly

“…It is very simple to look at all the parts of the eye, all things that support those
parts and rewind where none of those things are a part of the life form and try to
come up with ways that they would all show up without killing off the life form by
taking to much energy needlessly, or that the timing of all the parts is off so that
they do not work together…”

Exactly!

“…I'm quite sure that if you thought about this, I don't
think you believe it to be as simple a process as your making it out to be….”

Who cares how “simple” the process is? if it was "complex" what difference would that make?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…It is very simple to look at all the parts of the eye, all things that support those
parts and rewind where none of those things are a part of the life form and try to
come up with ways that they would all show up without killing off the life form by
taking to much energy needlessly, or that the timing of all the parts is off so that
they do no ...[text shortened]...
Who cares how “simple” the process is? if it was "complex" what difference would that make?

Depending on how complex I don't think the process as it has been described could
or would do it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Depending on how complex I don't think the process as it has been described could
or would do it.
Kelly

why not? what would stop evolution from doing this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is very simple to look at all the parts of the eye, all things that support those
parts and rewind where none of those things are a part of the life form and try to
come up with ways that they would all show up without killing off the life form by
taking to much energy needlessly, or that the timing of all the parts is off so that
they do not work to ...[text shortened]... s, I don't
think you believe it to be as simple a process as your making it out to be.
Kelly

I have done that before (on this forum) and it was quite simple as I recall. If you'd like to go through it, then why don't we start a thread on the matter? Start by listing the things you consider components of the eye that must work together.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All of which again not on purpose that is with cause, purely with
just the mutations over time without a plan, purpose, or design in place.
Kelly

Don't confuse "without plan, purpose or design" with "completely unguided" or "random". Processes create certain results in a fairly predictable manner. I think that with intelligence, and evolution, emotions and things like morality almost certainly follow. All intelligent living things seem to have some components of those attributes.
The problem is you are trying to describe emotions and moral behavior as a clearly defined complete thing, when in reality it is not.
For example, can you point to the exact day in which a human baby goes from not having these attributes to having them? Do you believe such a day and hour exists?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…The bottom line is that we follow the "Golden Rule" which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you….”

Yes, and I follow this “Golden rule” as you call it for purely emotional reasons and not “moral” reasons because I don’t believe there is such thing as “moral”. So, to me, “morality” is a totally redundant concept and I am living mplied that or are confusing the two here ) I have those feelings but I have no moral belief.

Lets cut to the chase, this "feeling" you describe is called love. So in your world love does not exist in and of itself. After all, you can't measure it nor observe it so it must not exist yet it consumes our lives and we are miserable and our lives are meaningless without it. In fact, animals even seem to obey its nonexistent voice.

Just so we understand each other. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
The bottom line is that we follow the "Golden Rule" which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is simply what IS.

Having said that, for some reason we don't follow this inner voice. In fact, we all have violated this inner voice causing guilt. Of course, there are those who do not have this inner voice and they are referred to a ...[text shortened]... inst that inner voice the voice strangely goes dim until you no longer care about morality.

And the best explanation for these feelings and the delicate balance between selfishness, love for those related to us (in order of closeness, or likelihood to pass on our genes) and morals, are all explained by the Theory of Evolution. They are very difficult to explain without it. Religions don't explain them. They treat them as brute facts.
If anything Jesus' message of 'love everybody equally' seems to contradict our basic instinct to give preference to those closely related to us. That leaves us wondering why God would apparently endow us with one set of desires then tell us to follow a different rule.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…The bottom line is that we follow the "Golden Rule" which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you….”

Yes, and I follow this “Golden rule” as you call it for purely emotional reasons and not “moral” reasons because I don’t believe there is such thing as “moral”. So, to me, “morality” is a totally redundant concept and I am living ...[text shortened]... mplied that or are confusing the two here ) I have those feelings but I have no moral belief.

What do you think the difference is between an emotional reason and a moral reason?