"But the question still remains why there should be any moral sense at all, universally, with mankind. "
it should be noted that a moral sense is universal not only with mankind, but with all social animals, by necessity. without a moral sense, individuals among a social group would not be able to get along with each other. a moral sense is a necessary prerequisite for the development of social orders.
Originally posted by jaywillPerhaps you could give us an example of an absolute moral directive from the bible.I am just saying morality is not absolute and no matter how much you try to shoe horn absolutism into morality it won't fit in the broader context of world wide morality systems.
The example you gave, of the seat belts, did not demonstrate no absolute moral standard.
I don't think your example of the dilemma of the daughter's life ve ...[text shortened]... trated it.
Why don't you see if you can think of an example that would demonstrate it ?
Originally posted by jaywillhttp://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/jul/17/cat-elected-mayor-alaska-town-ar-2439297/Where does your requirement for a universal code of morality come from? There are 7 billion humans on the planet and many moral codes also.
Have you not yet understood that I am speaking of the thing within man that moves him to make a moral code at all ? Have you not yet understood that whether written or not written, within man there ...[text shortened]... unique class. No brag, just fact.
Now excuse me, my cat wants to use my PC for awhile.
Originally posted by jaywillWell I am watching this thread so will try to reply to any points you wish to make. I will also have a look at that youtube clip tonight (hope its not too long). But I probably won't be able to have a lengthy back-and-forth over the evening.
[quote] I think the answer to your question of where this innate morality comes from is that it has evolved.
We are social animals. We have evolved that way over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Social animals tend to behave in ways that help the social group since doing that makes it more likely that members of the social group will surv ...[text shortened]... by Alvin Plantinga in light of your reply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79SPvsZp1tY
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Penguinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
Well I am watching this thread so will try to reply to any points you wish to make. I will also have a look at that youtube clip tonight (hope its not too long). But I probably won't be able to have a lengthy back-and-forth over the evening.
--- Penguin.
takes less time.
Originally posted by PenguinAs I understand random mutations and natural selection in evolution only works for survival. It is hard to imagine what is going on in a man's being when he goes against his instinct of self survival in order to perform some moral act.
Well I am watching this thread so will try to reply to any points you wish to make. I will also have a look at that youtube clip tonight (hope its not too long). But I probably won't be able to have a lengthy back-and-forth over the evening.
--- Penguin.
My genes have in them the instinct to say, not jump into water with my close on. Folks who didn't drown passed on such traits to their offspring and Evolution channeled mankind into a behavior that seeks to avoid drowning.
Then a situation of a person needing rescue comes up. There is no time hardly to put on a bathing suit to rescue him. Something drives me to thrown my shoes off and throw myself into the water to try to save him.
That is a moral decision. But it goes against the inherited positive mutations which have programmed me to self survival.
Something higher than instinct, I think, is working there. Evolution doesn't care for truth. It cares that the organism survive. It seems something higher in man is working in his conscience. Something of a more important truth than self survival is compelling man at times.
I suppose could say that that is also a collective trait of self survival of the herd, of the collective species. Ie. random mutation and natural selection have somehow given the collective species of mankind a sense of individual self sacrifice for the survival of the aggregate species.
I question it. I think a Moral Creator has designed man according to something of His own image and likeness. I still do not understand why naturalist and evolitionists do not grasp that there is an apperent forethought and "look- ahead" intelligence in evolution that reveals a kind of "knowing where the process wants to go." That is a planning to arrive at a foreknown, foreexpected, forethought through outcome.
I don't believe random mutation and natural selection can account for a feeling its way around kind of groping along by trial and error, to arrive at survival of an entire species.
That's a long lecture. Congradulations if you sit through all the videos of that talk.
Originally posted by jaywill"all the videos of that talk"? I think the answer is probably that no I won't if the whole lot is any longer than 20 minutes, we'll see.
As I understand random mutations and natural selection in evolution only works for survival. It is hard to imagine what is going on in a man's being when he goes against his instinct of self survival in order to perform some moral act.
My genes have in them the instinct to say, not jump into water with my close on. Folks who didn't drown passed on such ...[text shortened]... That's a long lecture. Congradulations if you sit through all the videos of that talk.
I will try to reply to your points tonight.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by jaywillYou question it, but give no actual reasons for why you might think it is not the case other than your religious beliefs.
I suppose could say that that is also a collective trait of self survival of the herd, of the collective species. Ie. random mutation and natural selection have somehow given the collective species of mankind a sense of individual self sacrifice for the survival of the aggregate species.
I question it.
The advantages of collective survival is not unique to man, it is common to almost all life forms, even bacteria exhibit such traits. What is most telling, is that the structure of the collective survival predicted by evolution is exactly what we see when it comes to our instinctual morals, and is quite different from the morals one would expect if they were provided by some god or other entity.
For example, I believe that you would have a tendency to give preference to the benefit of your family or local group (team/race/town/state/country) in any moral decisions you make. This coincides with what we would expect from an evolutionary standpoint but is not what we would expect from a god provide moral code.
Originally posted by jaywillWell, I sat through the first one and then skimmed the lecture notes and the wikipedia entry. It doesn't strike me as a logically valid argument for God and certainly not for biblegod. However, it has nothing to do with altruism, which is what your own points were talking about so I would rather address them instead for now.
As I understand random mutations and natural selection in evolution only works for survival. It is hard to imagine what is going on in a man's being when he goes against his instinct of self survival in order to perform some moral act.
My genes have in them the instinct to say, not jump into water with my close on. Folks who didn't drown passed on such ...[text shortened]... That's a long lecture. Congradulations if you sit through all the videos of that talk.
I think that your main mistake here is to assume that evolution works for the survival of the individual. This is clearly not the case or a mother would never risk her life to save that of her child. However, in a vast number of species (not just humans), the parents make great sacrifices for their offspring. No, evolution works for the survival of the gene. This is why parents frequently make sacrifices for their offspring and individuals make sacrifices for the family group.
In most social animals, the social group is also the extended family group and so the genes shared by a social group who's members help each other are more likely to survive than those of a social group who's members constantly compete.
Of course, humanity is unusual in that until very recently, social groups tended to be small: less than 150 individuals in an extended family and so the members will share many genes and it is advantageous for those genes if the individuals work together extensively and the idea 'help your family' becomes synonymous with 'help your neighbour'. And they probably met other tribes infrequently enough that 'help your fellow human' was often the same thing and is a far simpler rule.
This is what kicks in with your 'drowning stranger' example. However, as TWhitehead said, I bet the urge to help is much stronger with family members than with complete strangers and this matches in with what I have said above about the origins of the principle.
This is essentially what you say you question. However, again as TWhitehead has pointed out, you don't say why you question it. What is your difficulty with it? It is logically plausible and there are many examples of it in the natural world. The only thing that makes humanity unique here is the sudden population explosion and the rise of large communities in the last few thousand years, to the extent that we are now 'almost' one global community.
Thankfully, the 'help your fellow human' instinct has mostly remained.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by kevcvs57
Perhaps you could give us an example of an absolute moral directive from the bible.
Perhaps you could give us an example of an absolute moral directive from the bible.
Why do you want me to do that ?
I don't mind. However, even if there were no moral directive in the Bible or no Bible, don't you think we humans would still have this sense of a moral obligation in which, at least in some times, certain things would just be universally condemned or universally esteemed ?
I think that would be true regardless of what is in the Bible.
But if you want an absolute moral directive from the Mosiac Law I would submit the commandment for the Hebrews to love the Lord thier God absolutely -
"Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one. And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deuteronomy 6:4,5)
This sounds absolute to me.
Originally posted by jaywillCould you explain how this directive (Deuteronomy 6:4,5) is a moral directive?Perhaps you could give us an example of an absolute moral directive from the bible.
Why do you want me to do that ?
I don't mind. However, even if there were no moral directive in the Bible or no Bible, don't you think we humans would still have this sense of a moral obligation in which, at least in some times, certain things would j ...[text shortened]... our soul and with all your might." (Deuteronomy 6:4,5)
This sounds absolute to me.[/b]
Originally posted by JS357
Could you explain how this directive (Deuteronomy 6:4,5) is a moral directive?
Could you explain how this directive (Deuteronomy 6:4,5) is a moral directive?
No Way !!! That's too hard. I'm outta here !!
Good question. I think it is clearly moral directive because of who Yahweh says that He is - namely the source of all justice and goodness PERIOD. If you grasp that I think you can see that the FIRST thing He directs is that love towards Him be absolute. All ELSE will flow from the keeping of that directive (in prinicple).
Do I have to provide proof text to show you Yahweh portrays Himself as THE God and THE source of all righteousness, holiness, justice and goodness ?
If not that is what makes this directive moral. And I should add that Jesus refers to it when He is pressed with the question of which is the greatest commandment -
And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, Teache, which is the great commandment in the law?
And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: " You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. (Matt. 22:25-40)
Once again, the outward moral directive of the Bible or any other sacred book is not the main issue with me here. It is the innate sense of moral law in all human beings.
If Yahweh is a figment of the human imagination, then man invented Him and drew from man's own innate moral sense to concoct such a being.
If Yahweh is really the God who is there, then the directive is His and calls upon a corresponding sense of responsibility in man.
Either way, the moral sense is in man. For those of you who think God of the Bible is imagination, I ask, where does the innate moral law in man come from ?
I am told so far that Evolution has done this - random mutation with natural selection. I'm thinking about it.
1 edit
Either way, the moral sense is in man. For those of you who think God of the Bible is imagination, I ask, where does the innate moral law in man come from ?
I am told so far that Evolution has done this - random mutation with natural selection. I'm thinking about it.
while thinking about it, also think about where the innate moral sense in all the other social creatures comes from. from our closest cousins, the chimpanzees all the way down to the tiny ant.
Originally posted by jaywillBut that would be a 'love directive' not a moral directive. Morality is an English word that essentially deals with how you treat others. It specifically deals with not causing unnecessary harm to others. Specific moral codes are not modifications of the above or variations of the above but rather deal with how one calculates 'unnecessary harm' and how one evaluates levels of harm.
I think it is clearly moral directive because of who Yahweh says that He is - namely the source of all justice and goodness PERIOD. If you grasp that I think you can see that the FIRST thing He directs is that love towards Him be absolute. All ELSE will flow from the keeping of that directive (in prinicple).
Most moral codes allow provisions for self preservation and even for bias towards family members and loved ones.
We all have a sense of morality, and have an inbuilt instinct to act morally. However we also have other motivations that may conflict with our moral tendencies. We also often tend to hold other people accountable to a certain amount of moral behavior.
We have other motivations (self preservation, self benefit, benefit to family and loved ones) that are not moral motivations and although we generally allow for them in our moral codes, they themselves are not part of the moral code.
So for example one might say it is good to do something for a loved one, but it is not 'morally right' or 'morally wrong'. If I do something for a loved one I do not do so because I see it as my moral duty to do so, I do it because I love that person.