Ask an anthroploigist or observe how different societies behave
Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe
- Thread starter BeHereNow
- Start date
Ask an anthroploigist or observe how different societies behave
A neighbour of mine died last week and the universe ceased to exist. I wonder where the hell I am.
Think subjective/objective
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I agree that selective pressures (and our ecological niche) encouraged certain sets of behaviors that have an influence on what we could term "morality," but I think the reason for the great variation in moral principles that have arisen across time and throughout the world are likely the result of our (evolved) social instincts setting forth certain broad parameters for a happy life, without there being definitive rules. The social instinct sets up constraints on what our set of moral rules might look like, so long as we remain within those constraints, our social networks prove orderly.
One of the constraints seems to be that those in our immediate peer group share very similar, though not always identical, moral rules, though that is likely because communicating disparate sets of moral principles, and remembering a separate system for each individual with whom you interact, would be too costly. Instead, we tend to prefer the company of people who have similar systems, and we are born with an ability to soak up the moral principles of those around us and, in large measure, conform to them. There will be occasional people who rebel against those standards, but that's no different than most matters of taste.
Any theory of morality has to explain a few profound reversals, like slavery's transition from existing nearly unchallenged since time immemorial to strongly reviled in about two centuries, and the rise and (some would say) fall of "sexual morality" over time.
We have such a strong social sense that certain words came to be banned for religious reasons ("curse" words and invoking the name of God) and then we somehow expanded that list to include things found to be impolite, and many people do or did feel very strongly about those rules. Even today, most people get annoyed if you use 4-letter words about their kids. I think that taboo is the same phenomenon at work.
Even if you take what must be one of the most basic rules needed for a stabe social group "thou shalt not kill", there are many disagreements about how to implement it. Some say it is wrong to kill even in self-defense, at one extreme. Others make fine distinctions between "murder" and killing or killing in "war." Some say it's okay to kill to defend honor, or property. Some extend it to animals, some don't. Still others (luckily a small minority) really only care about their own lives, having little sense of the immorality of ending the existence of others.
Last edited:
I think the fact that morals are not absolute is a strength. P points out that slavery used to be acceptable, especially in the Bible, but now it's not. Morals evolve, and the reasons could be pragmatic, perhaps people just realized the danger of potential slave revolts.
No. You seem o think the "rules" are written in the sky. What is regarded as moral in one society, or group within society, may be regarded as immoral in another.That is why I say they are man made, It has already been mentioned that moral behaviour can offere evolutionary advamtages.
Betterherenow,
Just for good measure consider also gladiatorial combats in Ancient Rome. Watching people die was a sport.
And another intersting one is homosexuality. It was practised freely in ancient Greece without any notion of guilt being attached to it. Later, it was crimnalized. Today, most of us allow homosexuals to follow their inclinations as long as they are consenting adults. Islamists believe in putting homosexuals to death and some religious groups regard them as sinners.
That's why I originally said that morality is a matter of time and place a opposed to a set of absolute rules.
Just for good measure consider also gladiatorial combats in Ancient Rome. Watching people die was a sport.
And another intersting one is homosexuality. It was practised freely in ancient Greece without any notion of guilt being attached to it. Later, it was crimnalized. Today, most of us allow homosexuals to follow their inclinations as long as they are consenting adults. Islamists believe in putting homosexuals to death and some religious groups regard them as sinners.
That's why I originally said that morality is a matter of time and place a opposed to a set of absolute rules.
Last edited:
...and I call that usefulness, not morals...
the concept " beneficial to that species." is not accepted by almost all recent evolutionists..
the game theory is rather more explanatory for behavior; although there must be also an element of chance, in selecting certain norms and behavior from a plethora of possibilities.
the search for a common morality is a search for human unity.. and this may be, or can be, found in the common dangers that faces humanity at large and lay ahead..some of which are off course the byproduct of human extension and intensity..
danger and fear has been molding populations and societies together for a long time.
in a sense we are creating our universal moral codex.
look or refer to your own screen!!.
the game theory is rather more explanatory for behavior; although there must be also an element of chance, in selecting certain norms and behavior from a plethora of possibilities.
the search for a common morality is a search for human unity.. and this may be, or can be, found in the common dangers that faces humanity at large and lay ahead..some of which are off course the byproduct of human extension and intensity..
danger and fear has been molding populations and societies together for a long time.
in a sense we are creating our universal moral codex.
look or refer to your own screen!!.
No one doubts that some cultures have or had some unusual moral values.
No one doubts that some of these moral laws must be relative or incorrect, but cannot possibly all be correct because they conflict with each other.
Everyone believes that moral laws vary from culture to culture.
What does this show us?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase one:
On our planet today there are many explanations for the cause and meaning of eclipses.
These have to do with dragons, bears, good and evil spirits, good and evil omens, deceased ancestors, and one that is about celestial shadows.
There is convincing scientific evidence that one of these is true, and the others are what we might loosely call folklores. There are many, but there is an objective truth, and science is able to understand this to a very great degree of accuracy.
With the use of scientific laws, that are easily demonstrated, there is so much evidence, only an unreasonable (as in insane), or an uneducated (which is not the same as unintelligent) person would deny the truth of the celestial shadow explanation. And the uneducated person can be educated to understand the same truth. There is an objective existence or truth, and science can show much of it to us, by way of convincing scientific evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Two:
There are also many moral codes, that vary from culture to culture. There is a great variety of human actions which might be considered immoral, even as to what a person eats or speaks.
There may be similarities, certain themes or rules which seem to cross cultures. There may even be some taboos which are present in every major culture, with only a very few exceptions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Three:
You now tell me that in the case of moral codes, there is no absolute set of moral laws for the actions of humans. By looking at various cultures, there are many to choose from. As we look at each set of values in the various cultures, we might say all of them are wrong, or all of them are right, or all of them are right for that time and place, things such as this, and other things as well.
However,we will not say there is an objective set of moral laws, so some of them are partly right, and some partly incorrect, or one has it just right.
We will not say one particular set is in line with an objective of values, because there is no one set of objective values.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Four:
I ask you for the convincing scientific evidence that brings you to this set of beliefs, and you will tell me because there is no scientific evidence it is false.
There is no scientific evidence that supports the belief that there are absolute moral laws.
Therefore, a belief that there are no absolute moral laws is required of every rational person, who values scientific evidence, and sees it as the best path to objective truth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Five
I say this argument reduces to “If science can’t show some evidence, it does not exist.”.
We all know that science is completely ignorant (without knowledge) of some cosmological phenomena, that have yet to be observed or detected in any form. Imagine a description of such an event, phenomena, law, whatever, were “dreamed up”, as it were, did not seem to have any scientific link to other known data.
Perhaps it was intuited by some sort of savant.
The problem is, no way to construct a model, no simulations to run, no way to provide any scientific evidence. Lots of conjectures and theories, but nothing of real substance. The truth be told, nothing more than folklore.
Science would say, interesting story, but no objective truth that we can see.
And when you have no objective truth, it does not exist (with any significant degree of probobility).
Now I won’t say phase five can’t be defended.
There are those who could argue that it really does not exist, until it is discovered by a mind.
That would be for another thread, as I don’t think that is the argument before us.
I say such a position lacks convincing evidence to be considered of stronger value than my suggestion.
It is based on the nonexistence of (scientific) evidence.
The idea that there are so many variations, so it must be relative, and not absolute, does not work with eclipses.
Why does it work with morals?
What is the convincing scientific evidence against absolute moral values?
No one doubts that some of these moral laws must be relative or incorrect, but cannot possibly all be correct because they conflict with each other.
Everyone believes that moral laws vary from culture to culture.
What does this show us?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase one:
On our planet today there are many explanations for the cause and meaning of eclipses.
These have to do with dragons, bears, good and evil spirits, good and evil omens, deceased ancestors, and one that is about celestial shadows.
There is convincing scientific evidence that one of these is true, and the others are what we might loosely call folklores. There are many, but there is an objective truth, and science is able to understand this to a very great degree of accuracy.
With the use of scientific laws, that are easily demonstrated, there is so much evidence, only an unreasonable (as in insane), or an uneducated (which is not the same as unintelligent) person would deny the truth of the celestial shadow explanation. And the uneducated person can be educated to understand the same truth. There is an objective existence or truth, and science can show much of it to us, by way of convincing scientific evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Two:
There are also many moral codes, that vary from culture to culture. There is a great variety of human actions which might be considered immoral, even as to what a person eats or speaks.
There may be similarities, certain themes or rules which seem to cross cultures. There may even be some taboos which are present in every major culture, with only a very few exceptions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Three:
You now tell me that in the case of moral codes, there is no absolute set of moral laws for the actions of humans. By looking at various cultures, there are many to choose from. As we look at each set of values in the various cultures, we might say all of them are wrong, or all of them are right, or all of them are right for that time and place, things such as this, and other things as well.
However,we will not say there is an objective set of moral laws, so some of them are partly right, and some partly incorrect, or one has it just right.
We will not say one particular set is in line with an objective of values, because there is no one set of objective values.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Four:
I ask you for the convincing scientific evidence that brings you to this set of beliefs, and you will tell me because there is no scientific evidence it is false.
There is no scientific evidence that supports the belief that there are absolute moral laws.
Therefore, a belief that there are no absolute moral laws is required of every rational person, who values scientific evidence, and sees it as the best path to objective truth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Phase Five
I say this argument reduces to “If science can’t show some evidence, it does not exist.”.
We all know that science is completely ignorant (without knowledge) of some cosmological phenomena, that have yet to be observed or detected in any form. Imagine a description of such an event, phenomena, law, whatever, were “dreamed up”, as it were, did not seem to have any scientific link to other known data.
Perhaps it was intuited by some sort of savant.
The problem is, no way to construct a model, no simulations to run, no way to provide any scientific evidence. Lots of conjectures and theories, but nothing of real substance. The truth be told, nothing more than folklore.
Science would say, interesting story, but no objective truth that we can see.
And when you have no objective truth, it does not exist (with any significant degree of probobility).
Now I won’t say phase five can’t be defended.
There are those who could argue that it really does not exist, until it is discovered by a mind.
That would be for another thread, as I don’t think that is the argument before us.
I say such a position lacks convincing evidence to be considered of stronger value than my suggestion.
It is based on the nonexistence of (scientific) evidence.
The idea that there are so many variations, so it must be relative, and not absolute, does not work with eclipses.
Why does it work with morals?
What is the convincing scientific evidence against absolute moral values?
No, no, no. The point you arefailing to grasp is that there is no absolute moral code. Practices vary from one socierty to another. That, is , each society has a moral code.
You are attempting to make a case for absolut right and wrong. That is an impossible task. People are right or wrong in the context of their culture and that is all there is to it.
When yoy talk of right and wrong I believe you do so in terms of how you see right and wrong and , in so doing , would have others adopt your values. Would you accept the values of a tribe of cannibals or Kalahari bushmen ? If you would, you are agreeing with my view that values vary, If not, why expect others to agree to your notion of right and wrong.
None of this is in the province of science.
You are attempting to make a case for absolut right and wrong. That is an impossible task. People are right or wrong in the context of their culture and that is all there is to it.
When yoy talk of right and wrong I believe you do so in terms of how you see right and wrong and , in so doing , would have others adopt your values. Would you accept the values of a tribe of cannibals or Kalahari bushmen ? If you would, you are agreeing with my view that values vary, If not, why expect others to agree to your notion of right and wrong.
None of this is in the province of science.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Although I agree with you, that is tough to prove. Your argument is that, on a given issue, Western Society may believe Statement A, whereas another Society make believe Statement B and so therefore there is no way to say that A is true and B is false (or else why would that other society hold that belief?).
That doesn't work for all statements, though. It's entirely possible someone believe Statement A (say, "Evolution is a fact") and someone else believes Statement B ("God/the gods created all life in its present form") and still another person Statement C ("Extraterrestrials terraformed the Earth then created life almost in its present form, genetically engineering it into existence").
If you conducted a poll in 1000 AD, mostly everyone would have believe Statement B. Their belief didn't make it true. Today we have all three of those statements being believed by different groups. I happen to think that only Statement A is true.
That different people believe different things can be evidence that most of them are wrong (and sometimes that all of them are wrong).
An interesting question is how one tells the difference between subjective matters and objective ones, in the face of intense disagreement.
Present your scientific justification for making this statement.
Present your scientific evidence.
I said nothing about wanting others to agree with my notion of right or wrong.
I say there is an absolute moral law, and as individuals we should make good moral decisions that conform to the natural moral laws.
My point exactly.
this one time
a time long long ago
a time of our forefathers
a time of whatnot..
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
a time long long ago
a time of our forefathers
a time of whatnot..
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
It is purely a matter of subjective judgements within a given society. No one can say what is universally right and wrong unless we had signed up, so to speak, toa global code. As we have not done so, I see no escape from relativsm.
You and I may agree that it is wrong to kill another humn being. In so doing we are applying th values of our society. In a cannibalistic society, killing others for food is seen as normal behaviour with no guilt attached to the act. We can say they are wrong but they don't feel wrong about it because they have acted within the mores of their society.
So, unless we have a higher authority to appeal to, I see no way of resolving the different mores within different societies. For me there is no such authority.
You keep dragging sciece into this so I assume you have a quarrel with it, If so say what it is. People are moral or immoral, science is a methodology and, as such, it is not concerned with morality. That is a question for scientists. Some people are immoral, some scientists are immoral, but that is merely stating the obvious. You are in the wrong place to discuss morality. Try philosophy. !