Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hmm, but morality is not really a field of study, it is an abstract concept to describe how we think we 'should' (in the vaguest sense) behave. You are denying that morality is in the field of religion, but if there is a divine, all-powerful, benevolant, personal being then behaving as they would want us to seems like a pretty sensible moral code to me. You can deny that religion has no say in your morals, but you can't say so without denying the existance of this devine being. Likewise, a Christian cannot deny the moral authority of his religion without denying the existance of the Christian God. So again the fundemental question is about the existance of God. Since we are not going to prove the non-existance of God any more than we are going to prove his existance you cannot say (with any universal authority) that religion has no place in discussions of morality. It clearly does, since the question of the existance of God almost dictates the fundemental axioms behind morality.

Ok. But if the world doesn't exist independent of my mind [insert logically consistent argument for that here], then I am the only living thing, and therefore it's only sensible for a moral code to be centered around me. There are many things that could dictate the fundamental axioms behind morality. So, religion has a place in discussions of morality only because it happens to be something that a lot of people believe in.

Of course I'm of the opinion that whatever the axioms we choose to base our decisions of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' most people will reach codified forms of morality which are all rather similar.
If one person says that we must do as a benevolant God would want us to do, and another says we must do what is 'best' for 'society', the argument is pretty academic.

If they both agree the difference is academic. But in practice they disagree, yes? And that's where the problem of dogmatism fits in. If I'm passionate about what's best for society I might reject new ideas that don't fit my image of it, and if I'm devoutly religious I might do the same if they don't fit my image of God.

It's certainly true that some people defer totally to the authority of their religion without giving it much thought. That's not an ideal situation I agree, but at the end of the day, if the person they defer to has honestly dedicated their life to exploring the truth of their religion then is that a major problem? If the person they defer to is maliciously trying to mislead them, that's another matter altogether, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their faith.

This is true, but isn't quite the trend I was thinking off. Often even the people who don't defer to the authority of society or a religion have the idea that morality is a closed book.

[Myrddraal]

Morality is actually a pretty big field of study; being one of the four `all time greats' of Philosophy. It's more commonly known as `ethics'.

Good point but I was trying to reply to Sasaki's point "You wouldn't go to an Engineer when you needed a physics authority, would you". Just because you are a clergyman doesn't prevent you being a 'Moralist' (or something ). I should have answered by agreeing with his point about "It is possible for a clergyman to be a moral expert of course". If the clergyman believes that God exists, it is practically in his job description to study morals.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't mean to hate on the clergy, certainly. A lot of moral philosophy has been done by religious people, heck 2000+ years worth. But it has to stand on its own merits.

[Myrddraal]

So, religion has a place in discussions of morality only because it happens to be something that a lot of people believe in.

Agreed, but why the 'only'? Is that not a reason as valid as your own opinion? (if not more so for the fact that many people believe it)

If I'm passionate about what's best for society I might reject new ideas that don't fit my image of it, and if I'm devoutly religious I might do the same if they don't fit my image of God.

I don't think your argument was about whether or not God existed, but rather whether or not (regardless of the existance of a God) religion should have any say in morals. If those who are religious are thorough in their approach to religion, question their faith, do not decieve themselves and truely believe, what's the problem? You may disagree with their view, but if we are all being honest with ourselves and each other I don't see how you can 'invalidate' the religious person's point of view without debating the existance of God.


Essentially my problem with this whole thread is this: You article argues very convincingly that decieving yourself invalidates your moral authority. It (and you) go on to say that therefore religions have no moral authority. The leap between those two statements is that religion is ridiculous, and you have to decieve yourself to be religious.

In other words, "I don't believe in God and my reasoning is obvious and infallible. These people who believe in God have been brainwashed, decieved and are decieving themselves *. Therefore they have no moral authority. Therefore the scientific** approach to morality is my idea of morality: to do what is 'best' for 'society'."

* I disagree with this point, some people genuinely believe in their relgion, and constantly and rigourously question their own beliefs.
** I strongly disagree with this point. There is nothing scientific about deciding that morality should be based on what is 'best' for 'society'. This is entirely subjective. We can only be scientific in our approach to morality once we have got past this stage of defining the basis or axiom on which we are going to build our moral code.

EDIT: Both atheist and theist can be equally scientific in their approach once this is done, indeed one could argue that this is what the clergy do.

[Myrddraal]

It's six o'clock in the morning. What have you done to me? I know I shouldn't put the blame on you for this, but if we hadn't been discussing the rights and wrongs of morality, I would be in bed by now. I propose a new basis for the determination of morals: the right thing to do is to go to bed. Now.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Agreed, but why the 'only'? Is that not a reason as valid as your own opinion? (if not more so for the fact that many people believe it)

But, my belief in what I say does not make what I say valid.

I don't think your argument was about whether or not God existed, but rather whether or not (regardless of the existance of a God) religion should have any say in morals. If those who are religious are thorough in their approach to religion, question their faith, do not decieve themselves and truely believe, what's the problem? You may disagree with their view, but if we are all being honest with ourselves and each other I don't see how you can 'invalidate' the religious person's point of view without debating the existance of God.
Essentially my problem with this whole thread is this: You article argues very convincingly that decieving yourself invalidates your moral authority. It (and you) go on to say that therefore religions have no moral authority. The leap between those two statements is that religion is ridiculous, and you have to decieve yourself to be religious.

I don't think I am quite making that leap. The thread title is in reference to the fact that people believe in unquestioned morality--either from religion or their own opinion. I then argue that moral statements are to be argued and reasoned etc, not merely accepted. One can be religious and believe in god, and have a rigorous standard for questioning their beliefs. I am denying that the questions of morals belong to religion.

I admit to using it is a scapegoat frequently, but I think I tried to stress a couple times that people naturally tend to believe without reason to (self included) and that my criticism of religion was focused on what I would argue is a systematic dogma, since the beliefs are traced back to a book or set of teachings which remains constant. Secular society has a degree of dogma, and religious beliefs aren't static (mainly through influence of secular society), so it isn't like a clear cut divide.

I at least didn't intend the thread as an attack on religion in all forms.

** I strongly disagree with this point. There is nothing scientific about deciding that morality should be based on what is 'best' for 'society'. This is entirely subjective. We can only be scientific in our approach to morality once we have got past this stage of defining the basis or axiom on which we are going to build our moral code.

But I included both science and reason in my criteria. Science may have nothing to say about deciding the basis for morality, but can't reason? I suggested earlier that:

I think you can argue for objective morality if you assume that morality is goal focused. Let's compare it to medicine. If we start with the assumption that the purpose of medicine is to keep people healthy, then we can objectively compare medical practices. If we don't start with that assumption, then we can't, right? But why on earth would we think that medicine isn't about health?

So if we assume that morality is focused on keeping society "healthy" (<--vague, mind you) then we can objectively compare systems of morality. Although there can be more than one way to keep society "healthy".

**********

It's six o'clock in the morning. What have you done to me? I know I shouldn't put the blame on you for this, but if we hadn't been discussing the rights and wrongs of morality, I would be in bed by now. I propose a new basis for the determination of morals: the right thing to do is to go to bed. Now.

[Reenk Roink]

Well yeah. Logical consistency is good, but why would it be sufficient? You can argue that all of life is a dream and no mind independent objects exist, and be logically consistent. In fact, people who assume that just because they are logically consistent, they are being reasonable, cause a lot of problems. I heard a talk from someone who used to be in a cult once, and the mindset they had there was "so and so is always right"-->"he said do this"-->"therefore it is right to do this".

So then take up my original offer and actually define what the heck you mean by 'reason' (told you it would meander into semantics otherwise). As you seem to use it with me in certain cases like "Pragmatic reason? " it just seems broad based. But then you have some strict criteria when actually pressed. Because in light of one interpretation, all your 'complaints' are groundless as most would then have some reason and evidence. In light of another, you have the problem that other people don't accept your definition at all.

I think I am using the words quite normally ...perhaps you are the problem

You're using them normally I suppose, but inconsistently and then equivocating between the two. See above. The problem cannot be me of course.

So what if I say my mystical intuition says that you are wrong? Is that the same as the 1 and 2 logic guys?

Well no it's not the same as the guy 1 / guy 2 thing. How did you get that? Though if you really do get mystical intuition awesome.

Essentially my problem with this whole thread is this: You article argues very convincingly that decieving yourself invalidates your moral authority. It (and you) go on to say that therefore religions have no moral authority. The leap between those two statements is that religion is ridiculous, and you have to decieve yourself to be religious.

In other words, "I don't believe in God and my reasoning is obvious and infallible. These people who believe in God have been brainwashed, decieved and are decieving themselves *. Therefore they have no moral authority. Therefore the scientific** approach to morality is my idea of morality: to do what is 'best' for 'society'."

* I disagree with this point, some people genuinely believe in their relgion, and constantly and rigourously question their own beliefs.
** I strongly disagree with this point. There is nothing scientific about deciding that morality should be based on what is 'best' for 'society'. This is entirely subjective. We can only be scientific in our approach to morality once we have got past this stage of defining the basis or axiom on which we are going to build our moral code.

Emphasis mine.

Well you should sleep but this is mostly how I feel too. I especially don't see how morality should be goal orientated (which I have shown an alternative which is both realizable and widely realized).

[Reenk Roink]

The thread title is in reference to the fact that people believe in unquestioned morality--either from religion or their own opinion. I then argue that moral statements are to be argued and reasoned etc, not merely accepted.

I don't think that most people are unwilling to argue their moral beliefs.

I am denying that the questions of morals belong to religion.

Well who is asserting what you deny? I deny that morals belong to reason or science btw.

people naturally tend to believe without reason to

First, this depends on your meaning of reason, but assuming a more narrow one, why is this a problem? Why is believing without reason bad? What virtue does reason and evidence have, when the truth value of assertions are independent of them?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So then take up my original offer and actually define what the heck you mean by 'reason' (told you it would meander into semantics otherwise).
You're using them normally I suppose, but inconsistently and then equivocating between the two. See above. The problem cannot be me of course.

I will try...I guess I'm generally talking about reasoning as a thing you, as the mental faculty where you weight facts and premises and come to a conclusion. And then I'm probably talking about how one can reason in a good way. So I probably said "reasoning" at some point when I meant "good reasoning".

Well no it's not the same as the guy 1 / guy 2 thing. How did you get that? Though if you really do get mystical intuition awesome.

Still not sure what you mean by that. I suppose I have an intuition that reasoning leads to truth, it certainly feels that way...?

I don't think that most people are unwilling to argue their moral beliefs.

Do you consider abortion threads to be examples of people arguing their moral beliefs?

First, this depends on your meaning of reason, but assuming a more narrow one, why is this a problem? Why is believing without reason bad? What virtue does reason and evidence have, when the truth value of assertions are independent of them?

I would part with clifford on this (I think he argues something about developing a habit of credulity), and say that it is having false beliefs that is bad. For example, believing that you can drive ok when you're drunk. And that reason and evidence are the best way we have of believing things that are true.

You'll have to explain the mystical intuition thing to me sometime

[Reenk Roink]

I will try...I guess I'm generally talking about reasoning as a thing you, as the mental faculty where you weight facts and premises and come to a conclusion. And then I'm probably talking about how one can reason in a good way. So I probably said "reasoning" at some point when I meant "good reasoning".

Fair enough. I say this because PVC brought up an example of a logically consistent system, and reason is used synonymously with (classical) logic many times.

So the natural followup question to you is, what other than logic do you need for good reasoning? Or does logic cover reason and you now want the "science" part along with it (reason being necessary but not sufficient)? Perhaps you need some empirical evidence that is interpreted through current scientific theory (for example, you need that jar of material but you also need the scientific theory which tells you it is oxygen and not dephlogisticated air like another theory).

Do you consider abortion threads to be examples of people arguing their moral beliefs?

Yes. Along with gun threads, and the like. How is it not an example?

You may reply people don't usually question their moral axioms in those threads, and this is true (though at least in abortion threads, you would probably find attacks on the religious moral edifice). But it makes sense why they don't. These people are going based off axioms they hold. They probably believe that morality is the domain of (their interpretation of their) religion even as you conversely may believe it belongs to science and reason.

"As the other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else."
-Aquinas

I know you've stated you want to differentiate between the axioms in this thread, but how are you going to do that? With science and reason presumably? But to the "faithful" this will not fly, because he does not presuppose those like you.

For an example, how do we choose between Euclid's axioms of geometry, or spherical geometry, or hyperbolic geometry?

[Beskar]

Er...in what way? I mean, you don't see many atheists bombing abortions clinics, do you?

No, they wear t-shirts that say "Atheism is a non-prophet organisation" or put posters (legally) on the side of a bus going "God may not even exist". Far worse crimes than bombing an abortion clinic.


Also, I like to re-point out Secular Humanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[Askthepizzaguy]

First of all, I want to say I find this thread and discussion fascinating. Thank you Sasaki.


My thoughts on the matter:

If morality is simply what our opinion of morality is, then it is merely subjective and there is no way to define anything as moral or immoral unless you take a vote or have a supreme ruler. Which is, of course, how many societies settle the issue. I think something is moral, others think it is immoral, and we have a difference of opinion. Sometimes we feel there needs to be a law against it, or a legal protection for it, and then we settle it by vote (hopefully) or have some person in an official-looking hat tell us it is right or wrong. I, on the other hand, think that it is obviously not the case that morality is a human construct, a figment of our imagination based purely on the popular opinions of the day. If that is the case, then what is our real argument when something is clearly wrong, but society accepts it? If slavery is considered okay by the masses, especially by the slave-owners, and morality is just an opinion with no meaning, then there is no reason they should listen to you when you say it is wrong. They can reply "it is right, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I believe it."

What can be said? How is it settled? Sure, we can vote on it, but if the premise is that morality is subjective, why are we bringing in popular opinion to settle the issue? If my morality is as good as their morality, shouldn't both be allowed to exist? Why must one belief system even trump the other by a vote, or be imposed on others by the sword? If all opinions are equal then why even have laws? If you're simply saying that majority rules define morality, or whoever has the most guns defines morality, then societal progress would never ever have been made. What changes things? Sometimes belief systems are imposed on others. Whenever there are laws, this is the case. Is it just the sword or the vote which gives them the right? To me, that is merely how our civilization settles the dispute. It is not the reason why things are right or wrong. Even if the votes are against you, and the guns are also against you, that does not make the status quo moral. It can be quite terrible, in fact. What makes something moral, if not our little opinions, our votes, or our guns?

If morality does not flow from the belief systems of the individual, or even the opinion of the masses, or the rule of those in power, from where does it flow? If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it. One might even consider this to be a religious stance I'm taking. But consider also that mankind did not invent mathematics. Mathematics is a natural extension of the laws of the universe. We have added words to it, and we have a limited understanding of it, but there are laws that we didn't invent, and truths we did not create. Truth is a thing we do not control by the vote, by our opinion, by the sword. Truth is objective, not subjective, or else it is not truth and there is no truth. If there is no truth, then mathematics would not exist.

Math is a very disciplined, principled, structured understanding of the natural law of the universe. This reality we are in... if we have three points, and the distance between points a and b is 3, and b and c is 4, and the points have an angle of 90 degrees on one side, the the distance between points c and a is 5. (I hope I got that right). This isn't something that we created, it existed before we were aware of it. We have simply named it and begun to understand it. Mathematics is an objective, logical, structured part of the understanding of the laws of this universe. To gain knowledge of x, we can understand everything about x simply by observing the other pertinent facts. And the correct answer is always the same. Logic is another thing. Man did not invent logic, we simply discovered truths and how they relate with one another. Sometimes our understanding of these truths is flawed, but that does not change them. It changes us. We also cannot change what is logical; it either follows logic or it does not. Some concepts are filled with too many unknowns for us to apply our limited understanding of logic. We also do not understand logic itself enough to be infallible when discussing truths.

Morality seems to me to be a very logical thing, or at the very least it should be. Slavery is immoral, but the reason for it is not because it was popular (I guarantee you it is unpopular with the slaves) and not because it was legal (if so, then all laws are moral... but we have laws that contradict other laws) and not because people could use violence to enforce it. There was a non-subjective reason; an objective reason why it was wrong. For it to be so objective, that means the reasons are based on an underlying truth about the universe... a truth that exists whether we are aware of it or agree with it. It is based on those truths that people should be treated equally. But what are those truths? Can we make a logical, scientific argument which explains why slavery is immoral? Why it is immoral even if you don't think it is immoral? That's very difficult. It can be more difficult than explaining why something is logical. Morality is an extremely complicated thing to quantify and define. The only way I know how is to begin with mathematics. A crude, crude beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.

The first principle I can think of when speaking about morality in mathematical terms is the principle that 1=1. One person is worth the same as another person. Why is this so? Again difficult to define. But it would be far more difficult to define why a person is not equal to another person. Perhaps we value an innocent, law-abiding person more than we value say, a terrorist, but that is when you add additional circumstances to the definition of the person. It is no longer a person of equal moral standing compared with another, but people of different moral standings. Instead of comparing apples and apples, you're comparing an apple and a rotten apple, or a better example would be an apple, and an apple filled with poison. Perhaps they both started out the same, they both started out as apples. But they became morally different through their actions. So perhaps 1=1, but not if you add another one. One plus one does not equal one. Now they are different. But we agree, they started out the same. 1 minus 1 does not equal 1. Morality is similar, if you take certain actions they have certain consequences, and the impact of those consequences might determine what makes things moral. What actions have an impact of morality? That's a whole different discussion. Even to begin with I have difficulties quantifying and defining morality. But then again I have difficulty with Calculus as well, that doesn't mean there aren't real answers.

Even harder to explain is that the same actions do not always have the same consequences. If someone were to commit adultery, and no one found out about it, what are the consequences? Other than guilty feelings, maybe nothing. If someone were to commit adultery, and then people found out about it, there are very different consequences. Yet they are both the same action... and they are both equally immoral. So morality is not based on consequences alone, either. If I started shooting random people, and I assassinated the next Adolf Hitler accidentally, the end result might have been a better world than it may have otherwise been. But I have still committed a heinous, evil deed. What if that same next-Adolf-Hitler could have been educated, or persuaded to do something better with their life? What if they become a saint? Then I have assassinated a saint, in addition to other people who didn't "deserve it". Thus, I have committed the same action and it appears to somehow be much worse an action. But we cannot predict the future, we cannot predict all possible consequences. Our own ignorance prevents us from having perfect knowledge about what is or is not moral, because the potential consequences of your actions are part, if not the whole, or what determines if something is moral or not. That is why I feel that morality may be something which is beyond our understanding, at least in the most advanced sense. Like science, we may never know everything about the universe.

But does that mean science is a wasted effort? I think not. Even a limited understanding of the world around us is far superior than none. It is a worthy endeavor. I believe morality is much the same way... a logical field of study and theorizing. There is room for more than "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" because such stances have been used to justify immoral things. There is room for more than "There's no God, no meaning, no purpose... morality doesn't exist". There doesn't have to be religion involved in a logical study of morality. In the end, you will find that most people think murder is wrong, and for many if not most of those people, it is not because God said so. It is because it is a truth that we somehow know and have arrived at naturally.

Our brains understand other fundamental laws of the universe, without knowing exactly why we know them. Even the most basic mind comprehends that one banana is less than two bananas. The brain may not understand mathematics, and may never be able to explain why that is, but perhaps it is simply something that we wouldn't be able to function without. A basic, basic understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. Perhaps those who didn't understand that were naturally selected against and eventually died off. Morality may be the same way. A species seems to understand, on the whole, that it is not a wise move to wipe out others of your species. Sure, it gets more complicated than that, especially when it pertains to matters of territory or mating rights, but if a species spends most of its time wiping itself out, then sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to procreate with. That's too complicated a concept for some animals to understand, but it is a fundamental aspect of this existence: death is pretty much irreversible. Too much death and what happens is that your species doesn't exist anymore. And so you've exited the universe, in favor of others who understand or at least obey this concept.

But again, morality is not the same as consequences. What defines morality? There are too many factors for me to explain or even totally comprehend. But in my limited capacity, I can still see that some things are moral whether people think they are, or not. And so, what needs to be done is that we need to think about morality, and try to explain why things are moral in a way that is very fact-based, and objective. In a way we can understand. Much like science... man did not start off knowing exactly why certain objects fell to the earth, and some things soared above the clouds. But some people decided to examine it and look for the why. Indeed, we still do not know exactly how, but we do understand a lot of the why. And that understanding has led to great advances in human society. Greater understanding often leads to better application of ourselves. I believe that studying morality would be a great endeavor, and a lot of what is holding us back is the position that morality cannot be quantified or codified or defined in any way besides "That is what I believe" or some appeal to authority, or appeal to popularity, or appeal to violence.

There is room for much improvement, and much understanding here.

[CountArach]

The best moral system for our time might not be the best for a future time. That is not to say that there isn't a best for our time worth striving for. For example, you (CA) might argue that it is wrong for a certain amount of society to be in desperate poverty while a small fraction of a percent are hugely rich. This view may be outdated in a future society that doesn't have poverty problems.

I understand this and I also understand that I only believe what you stated because they are part of the same discourses that I have been most influenced by throughout my life. Humanism is also a Modernist discourse and I would never claim that I have transcended Modernity by any means. Absolutely we have a moral obligation to these people, but that is irrelevant because a scientific claim to morality, as I described, is based in Modernity and as such would not be applicable for more than the moment it is created in. I can understand that a constant re-evaluation would iron out some of the kinks in this, but at the same time these would themselves also be simply in response to other discourses, which is not a search for morality, it is a search for a scientific basis for our momentary belief systems.

Sounds like a pretty radical form of postmodernism you're adhering to, here. That kind of postmodernism has its limits. Not everything is merely competing discourses, some discourses are worth less than others. Compare "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" to "Martians control the White House". Derrida went a little too far to be taken entirely seriously if you ask me..

I have never in my life read Derrida, I look towards Foucault as the future of the study of History and Society in general. I agree that taking Postmodernism to a certain extreme has its downsides, but general facts can still be covered by the fact that the overwhelming majority of discourses would concur on basic "X happened" facts, simply disagreeing on the "X happened because of Y". The study of the marginalised discourses who deny the "X happened" part would be interesting and would undeniably further the study of the fact X. Foucault willingly used simple events to study things and just focussed on discursive analysis.

[The Stranger]

First of all, I want to say I find this thread and discussion fascinating. Thank you Sasaki.


My thoughts on the matter:

If morality is simply what our opinion of morality is, then it is merely subjective and there is no way to define anything as moral or immoral unless you take a vote or have a supreme ruler. Which is, of course, how many societies settle the issue. I think something is moral, others think it is immoral, and we have a difference of opinion. Sometimes we feel there needs to be a law against it, or a legal protection for it, and then we settle it by vote (hopefully) or have some person in an official-looking hat tell us it is right or wrong. I, on the other hand, think that it is obviously not the case that morality is a human construct, a figment of our imagination based purely on the popular opinions of the day. If that is the case, then what is our real argument when something is clearly wrong, but society accepts it? If slavery is considered okay by the masses, especially by the slave-owners, and morality is just an opinion with no meaning, then there is no reason they should listen to you when you say it is wrong. They can reply "it is right, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I believe it."

What can be said? How is it settled? Sure, we can vote on it, but if the premise is that morality is subjective, why are we bringing in popular opinion to settle the issue? If my morality is as good as their morality, shouldn't both be allowed to exist? Why must one belief system even trump the other by a vote, or be imposed on others by the sword? If all opinions are equal then why even have laws? If you're simply saying that majority rules define morality, or whoever has the most guns defines morality, then societal progress would never ever have been made. What changes things? Sometimes belief systems are imposed on others. Whenever there are laws, this is the case. Is it just the sword or the vote which gives them the right? To me, that is merely how our civilization settles the dispute. It is not the reason why things are right or wrong. Even if the votes are against you, and the guns are also against you, that does not make the status quo moral. It can be quite terrible, in fact. What makes something moral, if not our little opinions, our votes, or our guns?

If morality does not flow from the belief systems of the individual, or even the opinion of the masses, or the rule of those in power, from where does it flow? If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it. One might even consider this to be a religious stance I'm taking. But consider also that mankind did not invent mathematics. Mathematics is a natural extension of the laws of the universe. We have added words to it, and we have a limited understanding of it, but there are laws that we didn't invent, and truths we did not create. Truth is a thing we do not control by the vote, by our opinion, by the sword. Truth is objective, not subjective, or else it is not truth and there is no truth. If there is no truth, then mathematics would not exist.

Math is a very disciplined, principled, structured understanding of the natural law of the universe. This reality we are in... if we have three points, and the distance between points a and b is 3, and b and c is 4, and the points have an angle of 90 degrees on one side, the the distance between points c and a is 5. (I hope I got that right). This isn't something that we created, it existed before we were aware of it. We have simply named it and begun to understand it. Mathematics is an objective, logical, structured part of the understanding of the laws of this universe. To gain knowledge of x, we can understand everything about x simply by observing the other pertinent facts. And the correct answer is always the same. Logic is another thing. Man did not invent logic, we simply discovered truths and how they relate with one another. Sometimes our understanding of these truths is flawed, but that does not change them. It changes us. We also cannot change what is logical; it either follows logic or it does not. Some concepts are filled with too many unknowns for us to apply our limited understanding of logic. We also do not understand logic itself enough to be infallible when discussing truths.

Morality seems to me to be a very logical thing, or at the very least it should be. Slavery is immoral, but the reason for it is not because it was popular (I guarantee you it is unpopular with the slaves) and not because it was legal (if so, then all laws are moral... but we have laws that contradict other laws) and not because people could use violence to enforce it. There was a non-subjective reason; an objective reason why it was wrong. For it to be so objective, that means the reasons are based on an underlying truth about the universe... a truth that exists whether we are aware of it or agree with it. It is based on those truths that people should be treated equally. But what are those truths? Can we make a logical, scientific argument which explains why slavery is immoral? Why it is immoral even if you don't think it is immoral? That's very difficult. It can be more difficult than explaining why something is logical. Morality is an extremely complicated thing to quantify and define. The only way I know how is to begin with mathematics. A crude, crude beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.

The first principle I can think of when speaking about morality in mathematical terms is the principle that 1=1. One person is worth the same as another person. Why is this so? Again difficult to define. But it would be far more difficult to define why a person is not equal to another person. Perhaps we value an innocent, law-abiding person more than we value say, a terrorist, but that is when you add additional circumstances to the definition of the person. It is no longer a person of equal moral standing compared with another, but people of different moral standings. Instead of comparing apples and apples, you're comparing an apple and a rotten apple, or a better example would be an apple, and an apple filled with poison. Perhaps they both started out the same, they both started out as apples. But they became morally different through their actions. So perhaps 1=1, but not if you add another one. One plus one does not equal one. Now they are different. But we agree, they started out the same. 1 minus 1 does not equal 1. Morality is similar, if you take certain actions they have certain consequences, and the impact of those consequences might determine what makes things moral. What actions have an impact of morality? That's a whole different discussion. Even to begin with I have difficulties quantifying and defining morality. But then again I have difficulty with Calculus as well, that doesn't mean there aren't real answers.

Even harder to explain is that the same actions do not always have the same consequences. If someone were to commit adultery, and no one found out about it, what are the consequences? Other than guilty feelings, maybe nothing. If someone were to commit adultery, and then people found out about it, there are very different consequences. Yet they are both the same action... and they are both equally immoral. So morality is not based on consequences alone, either. If I started shooting random people, and I assassinated the next Adolf Hitler accidentally, the end result might have been a better world than it may have otherwise been. But I have still committed a heinous, evil deed. What if that same next-Adolf-Hitler could have been educated, or persuaded to do something better with their life? What if they become a saint? Then I have assassinated a saint, in addition to other people who didn't "deserve it". Thus, I have committed the same action and it appears to somehow be much worse an action. But we cannot predict the future, we cannot predict all possible consequences. Our own ignorance prevents us from having perfect knowledge about what is or is not moral, because the potential consequences of your actions are part, if not the whole, or what determines if something is moral or not. That is why I feel that morality may be something which is beyond our understanding, at least in the most advanced sense. Like science, we may never know everything about the universe.

But does that mean science is a wasted effort? I think not. Even a limited understanding of the world around us is far superior than none. It is a worthy endeavor. I believe morality is much the same way... a logical field of study and theorizing. There is room for more than "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" because such stances have been used to justify immoral things. There is room for more than "There's no God, no meaning, no purpose... morality doesn't exist". There doesn't have to be religion involved in a logical study of morality. In the end, you will find that most people think murder is wrong, and for many if not most of those people, it is not because God said so. It is because it is a truth that we somehow know and have arrived at naturally.

Our brains understand other fundamental laws of the universe, without knowing exactly why we know them. Even the most basic mind comprehends that one banana is less than two bananas. The brain may not understand mathematics, and may never be able to explain why that is, but perhaps it is simply something that we wouldn't be able to function without. A basic, basic understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. Perhaps those who didn't understand that were naturally selected against and eventually died off. Morality may be the same way. A species seems to understand, on the whole, that it is not a wise move to wipe out others of your species. Sure, it gets more complicated than that, especially when it pertains to matters of territory or mating rights, but if a species spends most of its time wiping itself out, then sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to procreate with. That's too complicated a concept for some animals to understand, but it is a fundamental aspect of this existence: death is pretty much irreversible. Too much death and what happens is that your species doesn't exist anymore. And so you've exited the universe, in favor of others who understand or at least obey this concept.

But again, morality is not the same as consequences. What defines morality? There are too many factors for me to explain or even totally comprehend. But in my limited capacity, I can still see that some things are moral whether people think they are, or not. And so, what needs to be done is that we need to think about morality, and try to explain why things are moral in a way that is very fact-based, and objective. In a way we can understand. Much like science... man did not start off knowing exactly why certain objects fell to the earth, and some things soared above the clouds. But some people decided to examine it and look for the why. Indeed, we still do not know exactly how, but we do understand a lot of the why. And that understanding has led to great advances in human society. Greater understanding often leads to better application of ourselves. I believe that studying morality would be a great endeavor, and a lot of what is holding us back is the position that morality cannot be quantified or codified or defined in any way besides "That is what I believe" or some appeal to authority, or appeal to popularity, or appeal to violence.

There is room for much improvement, and much understanding here.

i think more of the view of nietzsche. morality is no mora than perception, but the reason we discuss it and say that one is better than the other is because we all think we are right. we all want our truth to be the truth of for all. atleast the rulers do. it is difficult to account for voluntary agreement but i think it can be explained in the way that people adopt newer and better weapons when they come across it.

and about maths and objective truths, they are not truth we need in our lives. it is about the subjective truth of how i should live my life and how i become the person i want to be. objective minutes and such, extensive mathematics are not applied in day to day life. mathematics is true only within the system of mathematics. if you would not accept the system of mathematics as valid it is not true. same for the system of economics.

no truth in morality does not equal there is no truth at all. just as to say there is no objective standard in morality is not selfdefeating because it is not a moral claim but a claim about morality.

morality is not only about consequences but also about intention. not only that it is also about the view of the other people. if morality is objective though and things that were accepted to be moral were believed falsely to be so. they made mistake. the one thing i dislike is that every age in which the objective moralist brings forth his points he acts as if his age is the endstation, everything is know and discovered. they know what is true and dismiss 10000 years of history as irrelevant insofar it does not coincide with their view.

[Myrddraal]

Ok, I'm about to enter ATPG's post. If I'm not out the other side in three hours, tell my family I love them, and that though there may be storms ahead I've already taken the drying clothes in from the garden.

[Myrddraal]

They can reply "it is right, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I believe it."

I get your point, but fundemental differences in morality occur less often that you might think. In many historical cases such as slavery, one could quite strongly argue that there was some error according the slavers own moral principles. In going from their fundemental principles or axioms of morality to their codified form of morals, they had committed hypocracy, decieved themselves.
So you can argue against these people, without getting into absolute morality, by using their own principals to show them the wrong of what they are doing. Many slavers were Christian, and also believed in doing what is 'good' for 'society'. The hypocracy was that God's laws did not extend to black people or that black's were not part of society. You can argue against this using the bible or having a go at defining what 'society' is.

Why must one belief system even trump the other by a vote, or be imposed on others by the sword? If all opinions are equal then why even have laws? If you're simply saying that majority rules define morality, or whoever has the most guns defines morality, then societal progress would never ever have been made.

Let's not confuse the law with morality. The law has always been determined by a combination of popular opinion and the sword. That popular opinion may be based on a moral code, and I may personally believe that moral code to be the right one, so I am satisfied. If I believe that moral code to be 'wrong' then I may argue or fight against it. Others may come to agree with me and society shifts, laws change.
But for all that I may thing that one moral principle is 'right' and the other 'wrong', what scientific or logical argument can I use to back me up? There are none. Though I may be convinced in my heart of hearts that someone's moral code is 'wrong' I cannot fundementally prove it to be so.
Also, I'd like to stress that I'm not saying that all moral codes are equal. I believe that my moral code (which I hope you all share) is superiour to all others. What I am arguing is that I cannot prove this or fundementally argue about this in a scientific way.

If morality does not flow from the belief systems of the individual, or even the opinion of the masses, or the rule of those in power, from where does it flow? If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it. One might even consider this to be a religious stance I'm taking.

Definately sounding religious here , and I think I might even subcribe to your religion, but not on any scientific basis. You are defining some axioms here (albeit rather vague ones ), which I must accept in order to follow the rest of your argument.

There was a non-subjective reason; an objective reason why it was wrong.

But it is an objective reason you cannot define with logical reasoning. I may agree with you that there is some underlying objective reason why something is moral, but I cannot define that objective reason without simply saying 'because it is' (something Sasaki would object to) or 'because I think it is' (something Sasaki might accept )

The only way I know how is to begin with mathematics. A crude, crude beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.

Even mathematics has it's fundemental axioms. Like a scientific approach, a mathematical approach can only be taken once you have defined the axioms of morality. Although I disagree with lots in his post, the Stranger has the right of it here:

mathematics is true only within the system of mathematics.

I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.

[Myrddraal]

I get the feeling we're getting mired in details here so I thought I'd try to summarise, please feel free to add to this/correct me.:

If I've understood it correctly the purpose of this thread was to argue that scientific methodology could be used to determine morality, thereby making religion obsolete.

Several of us have argued that scientific methodology can only be used to explore and expand a system of morals based on some fundemental axioms which cannot be deduced scientifically.

This is very different from subscribing to Nietzsche's view, and saying that there is no spoon. I think there is a spoon.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fair enough. I say this because PVC brought up an example of a logically consistent system, and reason is used synonymously with (classical) logic many times.

So the natural followup question to you is, what other than logic do you need for good reasoning? Or does logic cover reason and you now want the "science" part along with it (reason being necessary but not sufficient)? Perhaps you need some empirical evidence that is interpreted through current scientific theory (for example, you need that jar of material but you also need the scientific theory which tells you it is oxygen and not dephlogisticated air like another theory).

Yes, you need some sort of ability to judge the premises of the logical arguments, and the ability to accommodate a range of information.

Yes. Along with gun threads, and the like. How is it not an example?

You may reply people don't usually question their moral axioms in those threads, and this is true (though at least in abortion threads, you would probably find attacks on the religious moral edifice). But it makes sense why they don't. These people are going based off axioms they hold. They probably believe that morality is the domain of (their interpretation of their) religion even as you conversely may believe it belongs to science and reason.

Well yes, I expect they do. Which is why I started the argue that it shouldn't belong to religion. However, I will probably revise that in a minute.

"As the other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else."
-Aquinas

But, I think although you can't argue in proof of the principles, you can argue for the principles. You can argue for our number system being in base 10 by saying that for ordinary purposes there is no reason to change it, since change would be difficult and pointless, and so on. But we needn't accept that base 10 is the one true way--when binary and hexadecimal are found to be useful, we use them instead. In other words, there are reasons why we choose to accept a given axiom. I may not be able to logically disprove your axiom, but if I can show that the reasons you used when you chose to accept it apply better to a different axiom, isn't that significant?

************

I do think that you are right about my conflating a couple things in the thread. I was mixing a couple different ideas.

I should say that morality doesn't necessarily belong to science and reason over religion and individual opinion. But that if it does belong to religion, it needs to be shown to do so by reason and/or science.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I've understood it correctly the purpose of this thread was to argue that scientific methodology could be used to determine morality, thereby making religion obsolete.

That was one point, but the main one was that axioms are arguable. We don't just take anything as an axiom, right? There are many moral axioms, and we must have some way of choosing between them. The way of choosing between them is science and reason (I'll allow reenk his mystical intuition if he wants). Where I went wrong is assuming from the start that choosing between them would involve dismissing the religious axioms, as you and reenk pointed out in some form

That is a valid discussion I think, but my main point was that it has to be argued.

If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it.

I wouldn't say universe pizza. Morality is inherent to human nature, we can say, it's in our genes. That's where the objectivity comes from. You can have a logically consistent moral system that starts with the axiom that that the goal of life is kill everyone you see, and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

[Myrddraal]

and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

How unscientific of you Sasaki. I agree though.

PS: this definately get's my 'favourite Backroom thread of the month' vote.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah ah, you keep jumping on science when I said science and reason :)

Glad you've enjoyed it, I certainly have.

[The Stranger]

I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.

lol should i be offended or flattered :P

and Sasaki is a figment of our imagination. Put in our minds solely to annoy and haunt people in mafia games and take the sword in the backroom-arena.

[The Stranger]

That was one point, but the main one was that axioms are arguable. We don't just take anything as an axiom, right? There are many moral axioms, and we must have some way of choosing between them. The way of choosing between them is science and reason (I'll allow reenk his mystical intuition if he wants). Where I went wrong is assuming from the start that choosing between them would involve dismissing the religious axioms, as you and reenk pointed out in some form

That is a valid discussion I think, but my main point was that it has to be argued.



I wouldn't say universe pizza. Morality is inherent to human nature, we can say, it's in our genes. That's where the objectivity comes from. You can have a logically consistent moral system that starts with the axiom that that the goal of life is kill everyone you see, and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

thats just survival instinct. and we turn it into morals. it is also in animals but they dont turn it into as extensive systems as ours.

so far ive only heard one moral code which i believe could be or should be morally objective:

any action or intention should always keep in mind and act upon the greatest happiness of all those involved.

or something like it. it sounds utilitarian, but thats not what it was i think. ill look it up.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I wouldn't say universe pizza. Morality is inherent to human nature, we can say, it's in our genes. That's where the objectivity comes from. You can have a logically consistent moral system that starts with the axiom that that the goal of life is kill everyone you see, and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

Objectivity does not flow from within. The object is outside of us, part of the universe. A subjective thing is one which changes depending on the perspective or opinion of the observer... an objective thing exists whether we perceive it, understand it, or agree with it or not. Just because we understand things about electricity and can use it to power our society, that does not mean we invented electricity, we simply understand it better. It existed before we could comprehend it. It is an objective thing.

If morality is a purely human construct, based not on the natural world but on our opinions and beliefs, then it will never be a thing beyond our whims. If morality is based upon the phenomena inherent to the universe itself, such as death, cause and effect, and so on, then it is not merely an idea, but a thing to be studied and observed and quantified as a science, not merely an opinion.

If you are looking for a scientific, reasonable morality, you will not find it in our emotions or belief systems. You will find it in observation of the universe and the society itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Objectivity does not flow from within. The object is outside of us, part of the universe. A subjective thing is one which changes depending on the perspective or opinion of the observer... an objective thing exists whether we perceive it, understand it, or agree with it or not. Just because we understand things about electricity and can use it to power our society, that does not mean we invented electricity, we simply understand it better. It existed before we could comprehend it. It is an objective thing.

If morality is a purely human construct, based not on the natural world but on our opinions and beliefs, then it will never be a thing beyond our whims. If morality is based upon the phenomena inherent to the universe itself, such as death, cause and effect, and so on, then it is not merely an idea, but a thing to be studied and observed and quantified as a science, not merely an opinion.

If you are looking for a scientific, reasonable morality, you will not find it in our emotions or belief systems. You will find it in observation of the universe and the society itself.

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.

thats just survival instinct. and we turn it into morals. it is also in animals but they dont turn it into as extensive systems as ours.

Why do you say survival instinct? We have the brain structure required to make moral judgement, that is why we have morality.


VVVVV well said pizza

[Askthepizzaguy]

I get your point, but fundemental differences in morality occur less often that you might think. In many historical cases such as slavery, one could quite strongly argue that there was some error according the slavers own moral principles. In going from their fundemental principles or axioms of morality to their codified form of morals, they had committed hypocracy, decieved themselves.
So you can argue against these people, without getting into absolute morality, by using their own principals to show them the wrong of what they are doing. Many slavers were Christian, and also believed in doing what is 'good' for 'society'. The hypocracy was that God's laws did not extend to black people or that black's were not part of society. You can argue against this using the bible or having a go at defining what 'society' is.

Not all immorality is based in hypocrisy, however. A large amount of it is, but I do not need to subscribe to someone's belief system alone and point out where they are being internally inconsistent to argue that they are being immoral. What they BELIEVE is irrelevant. I'm talking about what they do and how they treat others, regardless of belief. Their morality or immorality is based upon that, and even if they were being totally consistent with their philosophy, that does not ipso facto make it correct and morally righteous.

Let's not confuse the law with morality. The law has always been determined by a combination of popular opinion and the sword.

That's precisely what I was saying. Law, opinion, and violence do not make morality.

That popular opinion may be based on a moral code, and I may personally believe that moral code to be the right one, so I am satisfied. If I believe that moral code to be 'wrong' then I may argue or fight against it. Others may come to agree with me and society shifts, laws change.
But for all that I may thing that one moral principle is 'right' and the other 'wrong', what scientific or logical argument can I use to back me up? There are none.

There are none yet.

A science will never be if people do not try. What argument could I use to make men fly? Were I a cave man, perhaps I could not. But if I knew about the principles of aerodynamics, perhaps I could make men fly.

Simply because I cannot do so now, that does not mean I can never.

Though I may be convinced in my heart of hearts that someone's moral code is 'wrong' I cannot fundementally prove it to be so.

One couldn't fundamentally prove the Earth was round without the proper evidence and equipment.

I am wary of simply saying "I cannot" and leaving it be. That leads to nothing.

Also, I'd like to stress that I'm not saying that all moral codes are equal. I believe that my moral code (which I hope you all share) is superiour to all others. What I am arguing is that I cannot prove this or fundementally argue about this in a scientific way.

Why not?

Other sciences are still in development. Do we understand the human mind fully? No, we do not. We cannot explain everything we see. And yet there is a science of the brain.

Surely there can be a science of morality, if, as I hold to be true, morality is an objective concept, not a subjective one.

Definately sounding religious here

A man who believes the world is round, without proof, even with mathematics to back him up (which later proved to be miscalculated) may have to have belief in his opinions before he has the proof. Otherwise, why look for the proof?

But it is an objective reason you cannot define with logical reasoning. I may agree with you that there is some underlying objective reason why something is moral, but I cannot define that objective reason without simply saying 'because it is' (something Sasaki would object to) or 'because I think it is' (something Sasaki might accept )

That is because we lack the objective terminology, we lack the initiative to study the phenomenon of morality, and we are as cavemen attempting to describe eternity. But, over time, I believe it is possible to say more than "I believe it is so."

Even mathematics has it's fundemental axioms.

At one point, those axioms did not exist because we had not theorized about it yet. Morality is the same way.

Like a scientific approach, a mathematical approach can only be taken once you have defined the axioms of morality. Although I disagree with lots in his post, the Stranger has the right of it here:

Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?

I think the reason why is because people are happy with their beliefs. Challenging the status quo and offering new theories is frightening to people, or confusing. Some might even call it dangerous. Certain people who wanted to study the dead were called witches and sorcerers and wizards and evil people. This study lead to modern anatomical knowledge and modern medicine.

I believe there is room for theory and advancement in the field of moral and ethical study.

I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.

It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.

I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.

Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does. The act is still immoral... doesn't matter if there are humans involved. Certainly morality impacts human beings, and certainly specific examples such as "man cheating on wife" requires people. But I would argue that a truly objective morality would apply to all forms of intelligent beings, naturally, and by extension. It is just a strange circumstance where I can only name humans as intelligent beings in this sense, at least comparably intelligent to humans. I'd imagine that if there were gods, morality would apply to them as well. Greater-than-human beings? If they have intelligence and they commit consequential deeds, then their choices have morality or immorality.

Some people believe in demons and devils. Intelligent non-humans who plot to corrupt and twist and make suffer and destroy. Are these things immoral? Just because we live in a human-centric world, that does not mean that the universal laws which seem to apply only to us especially, necessarily are such. They would apply to any intelligent beings. But if I am a man standing in an empty room, and I have never seen other people, it is difficult to prove my point that other people might also stand in empty rooms. I don't have evidence of any universal truth here, but that does not mean it does not exist.

[The Stranger]

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.



Why do you say survival instinct? We have the brain structure required to make moral judgement, that is why we have morality.


VVVVV well said pizza

yes that doesnt change a thing. we the moral judgement brain structure adds morality to what is survival instinct. if we did not have that moral structure we would be like animals in that respect (or atleast our current conception of animals and their possibilities) a baboon has pretty much the same survival instinct as we do, yet a dominant baboon male killing an infant is not doing anything wrong. while if a human would do so, most people would say that he is doing something wrong.

the most basic (often referred to as objective, because they are found in almost if not every culture) moral claims are to be traced back to these instincts. they are not outside us, but they are inherently in us. if morality was something objective, outside us, within the universe (or why not also outside the universe, surely then things would still be moral if the universe would cease to exist) than it would also have to be shared atleast in some respect by other intelligent alien lifeform. not only that, but also to the gods.

and im very much doubting that.

[The Stranger]

It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.

I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.

superstitious? me? now im offended!

i just dont understand why people who charge at religion and morality and such to the very foundations that support it, but refuse to look if their own building is properly supported, if at all.

there is a difference between the scientific method and science. a difference between mathematics and the mathematic system, between practised religion and religion as a system.

if you accept christianity to be true than it works. if you accept the mathematic system to be true than 1 + 1 = 2. but actually its complete bs. Why can't A not be NotA at the same time. in reality manythings are and are not at the same time. yet we accept the rule of A cant be NotA at the same time as an objective truth.

[The Stranger]

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.



Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does. The act is still immoral... doesn't matter if there are humans involved. Certainly morality impacts human beings, and certainly specific examples such as "man cheating on wife" requires people. But I would argue that a truly objective morality would apply to all forms of intelligent beings, naturally, and by extension. It is just a strange circumstance where I can only name humans as intelligent beings in this sense, at least comparably intelligent to humans. I'd imagine that if there were gods, morality would apply to them as well. Greater-than-human beings? If they have intelligence and they commit consequential deeds, then their choices have morality or immorality.

Some people believe in demons and devils. Intelligent non-humans who plot to corrupt and twist and make suffer and destroy. Are these things immoral? Just because we live in a human-centric world, that does not mean that the universal laws which seem to apply only to us especially, necessarily are such. They would apply to any intelligent beings. But if I am a man standing in an empty room, and I have never seen other people, it is difficult to prove my point that other people might also stand in empty rooms. I don't have evidence of any universal truth here, but that does not mean it does not exist.

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.