Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe

[BeHereNow]

Myles 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.

Such confusion.
I insist on discussing science (on a science forum), but I should go somewhere else.
I am in the Philosophy: morals section, but I should go somewhere else to discuss philosophical morals relating to science.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you have lead me to believe that for yourself, a strong belief requires scientific evidence.
A belief in particular moral actions, is the business of philosophy, not science.
The business discovering laws of the universe, what we might call absolutes, is the business of science as will as philosophy.

If I say there exists absolute moral laws, and you have a strong belief this is not true, it is reasonable for me to ask where your scientific evidence is for this strong belief.
When I say strong belief, I am understating. You write as though this belief of yours is a truth.
You write with a conviction of certainty.
One would think you would be willing to say your belief is almost certainly true.

Where does this conviction come from, if not science.
I would say, your mind has been convinced, so you have philosophical proof (or at least convincing evidence), with virtually no scientific proof to base it on.

 

[Myles]

Such confusion.
I insist on discussing science (on a science forum), but I should go somewhere else.
I am in the Philosophy: morals section, but I should go somewhere else to discuss philosophical morals relating to science.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you have lead me to believe that for yourself, a strong belief requires scientific evidence.
A belief in particular moral actions, is the business of philosophy, not science.
The business discovering laws of the universe, what we might call absolutes, is the business of science as will as philosophy.

If I say there exists absolute moral laws, and you have a strong belief this is not true, it is reasonable for me to ask where your scientific evidence is for this strong belief.
When I say strong belief, I am understating. You write as though this belief of yours is a truth.
You write with a conviction of certainty.
One would think you would be willing to say your belief is almost certainly true.

Where does this conviction come from, if not science.
I would say, your mind has been convinced, so you have philosophical proof (or at least convincing evidence), with virtually no scientific proof to base it on.

The confusion is all yours. Your questions are not relevant to science. They are questions of a philosophical nature. You appear to know very little about the scientific method. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[S.A.M.]

The confusion is all yours. Your questions are not relevant to science. They are questions of a philosophical nature. You appear to know very little about the scientific method. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

^^^This in short, says everything one needs to know about morality in a godless universe.

 

[Myles]

^^^This in short, says everything one needs to know about morality in a godless universe.

Morality is a human construct. I have discussed the ramifications of this elsewhere.
Science may be pursued in a way which some people interpret as immoral but, if this is so, the fault lies with those who have acted immorally,. Science is nothing more than a methodology whicxh is value free.

 

[Pandaemoni]

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!!.

I agree that game theory is useful in probing moral choice, however game theory has certain inputs that it cannoit determine itself, specifically, the payoffs. The constraints I would say ariose as a result of evolution feature prominently in calculating the payoffs of a specific game in many contexts.

For example, take the game of Chicken. Two players and each has two options, either charge straight ahead, or swerve. If you and I play this game, the general understanding is that if I swerve (before you do), then you "win" and I "lose." The win and loss are (assuming we're not betting on it) entirely in the form of emotional benefits and penalties, with you feeling presumably brave and dominant and me feeling embarrased and dominated.

Game Theory doesn't tell us why the braver of the two of us should get such a benefit and the loser should feel "bad", it takes that as a given. That we are social animals and have a certain pressure to strive for dominance explains it better, and those traits (much like the trait of why we are interested in playing such risky games in the first place) need to be answered in terms of human psychology, and to some extent that psychology was shaped by evolutionary pressures.

That's not to say that evolution necessarily tells us why we play chicken. It's certain the the details of the chicken game are specific to our culture and not biologically determined, but evolution has shaped out minds and social instincts. Our culture has to have developed within the constraints of behavior of cognition that evolution has provided us, and I suspect the enjoyment we get from such games arises there. All mammals "play" to some extent and many engage in dominance play, especially amongst primates. It seems likely to me that the emotional payoff from a game like chicken has its roots very far back into our distant evolutionary past.

I think our moral sensibilities arise from out social natures, and it seems to me we evolved to be social creatures. As such I assume that there are certain traits about us that shape our socialization, and in turn our sense of morality. I think the limits are very loose constraints though and that a vast array of different moral systems are likely all consistent with them.

 

[S.A.M.]

Science may be pursued in a way which some people interpret as immoral but, if this is so, the fault lies with those who have acted immorally.

The way I see it, when the Chinese discovered gunpowder, they invented firecrackers, when the barbarians got it, they invented guns. Thats the different between a society built to last and one that isn't. Seems to me anyone who goes about designing a weapon of mass destruction cannot be expected not to want to use it.

 

[Myles]

The way I see it, when the Chinese discovered gunpowder, they invented firecrackers, when the barbarians got it, they invented guns. Thats the different between a society built to last and one that isn't. Seems to me anyone who goes about designing a weapon of mass destruction cannot be expected not to want to use it.

So some scientists are immoral. What's new? Why not look at sciences contribution to health, for example.

You do know that, apart from playing with firecrackeres, the Chines gave the peasants a hard time, chopping of heads, binding women's feet and so on.

Try and look at the broader picture. Looking at things the way you do, millions are Catholics are paedophiles because there are priests who abuse children.

 

[Gustav]

i am mystified
there is a biological basis for concepts of this morality thing

pain=bad
pleasure=good

from that, we postulate a plethora of shit ranging from the fundamental to the superficial

ps: i hate myles

 

[draqon]

ps: i hate gustav

 

[Myles]

PS: Ich kann nicht weiter leben weil Gustav mich hasst.

 

[The Marquis]

The way I see it, when the Chinese discovered gunpowder, they invented firecrackers, when the barbarians got it, they invented guns. Thats the different between a society built to last and one that isn't. Seems to me anyone who goes about designing a weapon of mass destruction cannot be expected not to want to use it.

Actually, the notion that the Chinese never seized upon the notion of gunpowder being used as a weapon is a myth. Chinese soldiers pioneered the use of grenades during the Sung Dynasty sometime during the twelfth century, and the invention quickly spread to Europe. That the Europeans utilised and improved the invention of gunpowder weapons was more a result of technical ability and perceived necessity than simple desire.

Another S.A.M. supposition blown to hell.

 

[greenberg]

I would say that in any situation in which a moral decision must be made, the individual is capable of realizing the correct moral action, and accepting to do it, or to violate it.

Who is to say that a moral decision must be made?

 

[greenberg]

Why is it relevant to say "Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe"? What roles does saying "godless" play?
Would the topic be the same if the title would be "Absolute Moral Laws"?

Saying "Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe" suggests that the conceptual frame for the topic is somehow set by or derived in opposition to "Absolute Moral Laws in a Universe ruled by God".

What is the justification that something like "Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe" would even make sense?
Perhaps it is possible to speak of "absolute moral laws" only in a universe ruled by God?


I find that many atheist approaches are in structure and function the same as theist, except that the atheist puts something else there where the theist puts God. In this manner, atheism follows the same model as theism.
The question is, of course, whether such an atheistic substitution is viable and justified. After all, the theist puts God at the top of the hierarchy of authority - God, the highest there is. An atheist might put reason at the top of the hierarchy of authority - but is reason really the highest authority there is?
What could possibly take the highest position in the hierarchy of authority, if not God?
And in a godless universe, can there be anything at all to take the highest position in the hierarchy of authority?
If there is no highest authority, what point does it make to speak of "absolute moral laws"?

 

[ak.R]

I agree that game theory is useful in probing moral choice, however game theory has certain inputs that it cannoit determine itself, specifically, the payoffs. The constraints I would say ariose as a result of evolution feature prominently in calculating the payoffs of a specific game in many contexts.

For example, take the game of Chicken. Two players and each has two options, either charge straight ahead, or swerve. If you and I play this game, the general understanding is that if I swerve (before you do), then you "win" and I "lose." The win and loss are (assuming we're not betting on it) entirely in the form of emotional benefits and penalties, with you feeling presumably brave and dominant and me feeling embarrased and dominated.

Game Theory doesn't tell us why the braver of the two of us should get such a benefit and the loser should feel "bad", it takes that as a given. That we are social animals and have a certain pressure to strive for dominance explains it better, and those traits (much like the trait of why we are interested in playing such risky games in the first place) need to be answered in terms of human psychology, and to some extent that psychology was shaped by evolutionary pressures.

That's not to say that evolution necessarily tells us why we play chicken. It's certain the the details of the chicken game are specific to our culture and not biologically determined, but evolution has shaped out minds and social instincts. Our culture has to have developed within the constraints of behavior of cognition that evolution has provided us, and I suspect the enjoyment we get from such games arises there. All mammals "play" to some extent and many engage in dominance play, especially amongst primates. It seems likely to me that the emotional payoff from a game like chicken has its roots very far back into our distant evolutionary past.

I think our moral sensibilities arise from out social natures, and it seems to me we evolved to be social creatures. As such I assume that there are certain traits about us that shape our socialization, and in turn our sense of morality. I think the limits are very loose constraints though and that a vast array of different moral systems are likely all consistent with them.

dear Pandaemoni i thank for your effort in explaining the point about human behavior, i was short commenting on our friend spider.., the points you mentioned may be also complemented by the content of the book: Psycho- darwinism by C. Badcock harper collins pub. you might be interested in looking at it. it deserves a thread in fact..
I think we still have to consider the issue: whether a universal moral code is something practical, feasible or desirable?.. currently or for the future?.
wouldn't you agree?..

 

[BeHereNow]

Greenberg Who is to say that a moral decision must be made?

I will say that from time to time actions of individuals have a moral quality, and the individual gets to make the decision of the resulting actions.

As to the specific occasions of when this happens, you get to decide.

Why is it relevant to say "Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe"? What roles does saying "godless" play?
Would the topic be the same if the title would be "Absolute Moral Laws"?

Saying "Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe" suggests that the conceptual frame for the topic is somehow set by or derived in opposition to "Absolute Moral Laws in a Universe ruled by God".

What is the justification that something like "Absolute Moral Laws in a godless Universe" would even make sense?
Perhaps it is possible to speak of "absolute moral laws" only in a universe ruled by God?


I find that many atheist approaches are in structure and function the same as theist, except that the atheist puts something else there where the theist puts God. In this manner, atheism follows the same model as theism.
The question is, of course, whether such an atheistic substitution is viable and justified. After all, the theist puts God at the top of the hierarchy of authority - God, the highest there is. An atheist might put reason at the top of the hierarchy of authority - but is reason really the highest authority there is?
What could possibly take the highest position in the hierarchy of authority, if not God?
And in a godless universe, can there be anything at all to take the highest position in the hierarchy of authority?
If there is no highest authority, what point does it make to speak of "absolute moral laws"?

I’m not sure if you are talking to me here or not.
I am a Deist.

I believe that just as our physical laws came from god, our moral laws came from god.

On a board full of atheists, I choose to share as much of their position as possible. It makes the argument easier. As I stated in the OP, god is not necessary to arrive at the decision of absolute moral laws. Atheists do it too.
Sorry if this offends you.

 

[Myles]

The point I have made on more han one occasion and which you cannot seem to grasp is that if an individual gets to make a decision, the question of its morality or otherwise depends his society and its mores. You keep referring to Absolute values whereas I say there are none. I have given you examples to support this view.

Can you say what the source of your absolute standards is ?

 

[BeHereNow]

Myles The point I have made on more han one occasion and which you cannot seem to grasp is that if an individual gets to make a decision, the question of its morality or otherwise depends his society and its mores. You keep referring to Absolute values whereas I say there are none. I have given you examples to support this view.

You have given examples where societies have violated absolute moral laws. This is not the same as showing there are no absolute moral laws.

Can you say what the source of your absolute standards is ?

I thought I made that perfectly clear in the OP. It is the same source as the physical laws. There is only one source. You tell me the source of the physical laws, and you will have the source of the moral laws.

 

[Myles]

You have given examples where societies have violated absolute moral laws. This is not the same as showing there are no absolute moral laws.

I thought I made that perfectly clear in the OP. It is the same source as the physical laws. There is only one source. You tell me the source of the physical laws, and you will have the source of the moral laws.

I don't agree. I believe moral laws are man made. What do you regard as the source of physical laws ?

 

[BeHereNow]

Myles

BHN You have given examples where societies have violated absolute moral laws. This is not the same as showing there are no absolute moral laws.

You do not agree with this? What is there to disagree with?
Violation of laws is not evidence there are no laws.
How inverted is your logic?

 

[greenberg]

Who is to say that a moral decision must be made?

I will say that from time to time actions of individuals have a moral quality, and the individual gets to make the decision of the resulting actions.

As to the specific occasions of when this happens, you get to decide.

Who measures people's actions - whether those actions are moral or not?
Who can tell whether an action is moral or not?

On a board full of atheists, I choose to share as much of their position as possible. It makes the argument easier.

Actually, it doesn't make the argument easier, such has been my experience at least.

As I stated in the OP, god is not necessary to arrive at the decision of absolute moral laws. Atheists do it too.

I think God is necessary for the notion of absolute moral laws to be meaningful.
For only God (because only God is omnimax) has the power to see things in their absoluteness; only God has the power to recognize whether an action is in accord with absolute moral laws or not.
Humans can have only partial insight and as such, are unable to recognize whether an action is in accord with absolute moral laws or not.

In a godless universe, there is nobody to have the power to see things in their absoluteness; so in a godless universe, it is meaningless to speak of "absolute moral laws".