steveorino 7 #76 November 9, 2006 I'm not trying to "prove God." As you said, it is an act of faith. The Bible (Hebrews 11:1) defines faith as ... being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I simply observed there seems to be innate moral values that we all share. I asked the quetion why. Although I'm a Christian, I'm not trying to prove God. It is my opinion that God does not need me to "prove" Him. I theorized we have innate moral values because we were created with them. I also think Kallend and others have a good theory. Especally one that fits their world view. It just doesn't fit mine. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #77 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuote Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community? Or is stealing within the community a universal innate moral code? As I explained some posts ago there are/were cultures that have no concept of "property" and "theft". In that case they neither approve nor disapprove of something that for them is utterly meaningless. The idea of property itself is not "universal". Vale I'm sure even they had something they felt was theirs and not anyone elses, but if not, they would be a very rare exception to a moral that is pervasive throughout the world. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #78 November 9, 2006 >Certain moral codes are universal. Does this imply a supreme being? Side note - many animals show signs of the same sorts of morals we have. If a chimpanzee sees a trainer approaching another chimpanzee with a tranquilizer gun, the chimp will try to warn the other chimp - even if the two chimps have never seen each other before. Most primates will care for each other's babies, even if they are a different tribe (or even species!) In one famous case, a small human child fell into a gorilla's cage in a zoo. The gorilla picked up the child and carried her gently to a nearby door. Protection of children is a pretty universal moral. Likewise, most pack animals show a clear sense of "loyalty" to the pack/tribe/pod, and defend it against outsiders. We call that patriotism. Primates and cetaceans clearly experience loss when a companion dies, and they are intelligent enough to work to prevent the loss by defending the other animal from attack. Thus they value friendship and family ties. Our morals are more advanced than this, mainly because we can think more about how to accomplish our basic moral goals. But I think they have their roots in animal behavior, behavior that has evolved over the years to keep our families and friends - and by extension our bloodline - alive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #79 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteyou don't get my premise Steve: we get your premise, we just found holes the size of Australia in it. Thank youSteve: Re. Stealing. Strangely enough, given the relative seriousness of the offences, I would be more inclined to agree with you here than on murder. As a quick (and hopefully amusing) side note I'll go into ancient historian mode for a sec. The coming of age rituals in ancient Sparta involved the young citizen males living as outlaws for a year, denied food, fire and shelter, before they could enter military service. In this way they were in fact forced to hunt, steal and cheat to survive. There were also certain acts that they had to perform while outlawed - one of these was to go into Messenia and randomly murder a few Helots (slave population), the other - quite bizzarely - was to steal cheese from the altar of the temple of Artemis! Side note to the side note - the state of Sparta lived in constant fear that the Messenians would one day realise that "Hey, there's lots of us, only a few of them, and I reckon this pickaxe might come in quite handy in a fight!" Kinda says something about herd mentality eh? Back on topic - your original premise that shared morals/ behavioural patterns indicate the existence of god. The only "universal" values you have demonstrated so far a) only operate within a certain community - they aren't extended to fellow humans outside each co-dependant group and b) are neccesary for the smooth operation of society. From a divine point of view, it doesn't make sense, from a behavioural evolution point of view - it does.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #80 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community? Or is stealing within the community a universal innate moral code? As I explained some posts ago there are/were cultures that have no concept of "property" and "theft". In that case they neither approve nor disapprove of something that for them is utterly meaningless. The idea of property itself is not "universal". Vale I'm sure even they had something they felt was theirs and not anyone elses, but if not, they would be a very rare exception to a moral that is pervasive throughout the world. You're right, they probably did not share their loincloths, but I guess that's more from an innate sense of hygiene and "personal space" than because of private property issues. But even if you were to take their loincloth they would just fashion themselves a new one out of available materials, they would feel no need to hunt you down in order to punish you for your "crime". BTW "universal" and "exception" are mutually exclusive, you cannot ask for a counter-example and then brush it off as an "exception", at least not when talking about absolutes. Cheers, Vale Edited for spelling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #81 November 9, 2006 QuoteI'm saying NO culture approves of murder unless they redefine it or those they kill (justice, war, etc) It is not a difficult case to understand. There are other virtues that are typically universal. Is there a culture where turning your back on friends is approved of? What about the Maori? It seems they approved of muder for vendetta purposes, and that often extended to innocent relatives, infants included. This was approved of by society in the sense that there was no law against it and no "punishment" was given out by society itself, it was left to the offended party/ies to exact further vengeance as a response, in an often endless cycle of violence. The trick to succesfull vendettas was simply to leave no surviving relatives or affiliates, as no third party would step into somebody else's vendetta, it was simply seen as "not their businness" and intervention was inconceivable. Incidentally, they also practiced cannibalism and turning your back on friends was common practice and not the least frowned upon, of course only if in order to carry out a vendetta. Here is some info on this topic, just scroll down to "Utu and mana" if in a hurry. http://www.maori.info/maori_society.htm Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #82 November 9, 2006 QuoteBased on what I wrote your retort should have been -- there are cultures that believe killing is fine if they see it in another light than murder. Unless you can prove a universal standard for which killings are justified and which ones aren't, your murder example is illogical, and your argument falls apart.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #83 November 9, 2006 So, then you believe there are no universal moral codes? If that is so then all moral judgments are meaningless. They are simply either cultural or personal. Who am I to say the murder of MLK is wrong? Sure, in American culture it may be wrong, in my personal opinion it may be wrong. But it is not ABSOLUTELY wrong. Right? That is what I hear you saying. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #84 November 9, 2006 QuoteSo, then you believe there are no universal moral codes? If that is so then all moral judgments are meaningless. They are simply either cultural or personal. Who am I to say the murder of MLK is wrong? Sure, in American culture it may be wrong, in my personal opinion it may be wrong. But it is not ABSOLUTELY wrong. Right? That is what I hear you saying. Ooh, interesting!Right and wrong are abstract concepts - they do not actually exist, we have created them. One difficulty in asking if a thing is absolutely good or absolutely bad is that not everyone will think of right and wrong the same way you do. If you look at, for example, Plato's Republic it spends a large amount of time talking about 'the good' and the search for the eternal form of 'the good.' Its often difficult to follow from a modern point of view because what is seen as 'good' or 'just' very often bears no relation to what we now would consider morally right. One popular theory at the time was that 'good' was simply self interest. In that sense moral judgements are not absolute. That shouldn't mean that they are meaningless though. With a good code of morals we can make our societies work better.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #85 November 9, 2006 Oh, but they are meaningless if there is no absolute. At least by definition they are arbitrary. It was wrong by own world view and American culture to assassinate MLK, but according to your theory , it was NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #86 November 9, 2006 Just because something is not universal does not make it meaningless. Societies are built upon guidelines (that they create and are thus not absolute), disregarding these guidelines causes the fabric of society to tear (so they are not meaningless). Study philosophy and sociology for more information. PS: I ask you this, if there are universal moral guidelines created by God, what principles did God use to create them? If God created them without any principles then they would be less meaningful (similar to the guidelines presented by authoritarian governments). If God created them with some principles (preferably logic and reasoning) then they would have more meaning but more importantly we should be able to derive the same guidelines using the same principles (preferably logic and reasoning) and thus the guidelines are actually independent of God."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #87 November 9, 2006 QuoteJust because something is not universal does not make it meaningless.. Poor choice of words on my point. If they are not universal then they are arbitrary. The assassination of MLK was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. Maybe arbitrarily wrong, but not ABSOLUTELY wrong ... right? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMiller 1 #88 November 9, 2006 Forgive me if this is said prior, but I have not read this whole thread. I happen to study this sort of thing. If there are universal morals, then it follows that they must exist outside of God. The age old question is, is it good because God commands it, or does he command it because it is good? If he commands it because it is good, then morals exist ouside of God, and therfore he cannot be the creator of everything. If they are good because he commands them, then the choice is seemingly arbitrary, and God would not be fully rational. God as the creator of everything, and being fully rational and good are qualities that I think theists cannot give up, for they are the core of what God is. If God exists, then he created everything. If there are objective morals, then God did not create everything. There are objective morals Therefore God does not exist. You should conclude the opposite of what you did if there are objective morals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #89 November 9, 2006 QuotePoor choice of words on my point. If they are not universal then they are arbitrary. The assassination of MLK was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. Maybe arbitrarily wrong, but not ABSOLUTELY wrong ... right? MLK's assassin felt justified in his actions. Therefore it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. There was at least one perspective from which it was a good thing.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #90 November 9, 2006 It may not be absolutely wrong but given the context it can be judged to be wrong to a high degree (to a high enough degree that it may be considered absolute). PS: I believe (think) in logic and reasoning which yeilds the concept of abosolute but live in reality which yields degrees."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #91 November 9, 2006 QuoteMLK's assassin felt justified in his actions. Therefore it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. There was at least one perspective from which it was a good thing. Geesh, talk about missing the point. There are immoral people -- nobody is debating that. Gawd! But you do believe it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong from a moral standpoint, right? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #92 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteMLK's assassin felt justified in his actions. Therefore it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. There was at least one perspective from which it was a good thing. Geesh, talk about missing the point. There are immoral people -- nobody is debating that. Gawd! But you do believe it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong from a moral standpoint, right? Was the betrayal of Jesus (which led to his death) absolutely immoral?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #93 November 9, 2006 QuoteIt may not be absolutely wrong but given the context it can be judged to be wrong to a high degree (to a high enough degree that it may be considered absolute). And my logic is flawed? By definition absolute can't be "close enough" steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #94 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt may not be absolutely wrong but given the context it can be judged to be wrong to a high degree (to a high enough degree that it may be considered absolute). And my logic is flawed? By definition absolute can't be "close enough" I was not stating that it was absolute I was stating that it could be considered absolute."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #95 November 9, 2006 QuoteWas the betrayal of Jesus (which led to his death) absolutely immoral? To me betrayal is not absolutely wrong/immoral. i do not believe it would be wrong If I betrayed the trust of my boss who was committing a heinous crime. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #96 November 9, 2006 considered ... hmmmmm, so I'm not the only one using semantics steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #97 November 9, 2006 QuoteBut you do believe it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong from a moral standpoint, right? From my moral standpoint it was absolutely wrong. But as I said, my moral code is my abstract construct - it doesn't actually exist and huge amounts of people will disagree with it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #98 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut you do believe it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong from a moral standpoint, right? From my moral standpoint it was absolutely wrong. But as I said, my moral code is my abstract construct - it doesn't actually exist and huge amounts of people will disagree with it. Therefore it is NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong ... right? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #99 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWas the betrayal of Jesus (which led to his death) absolutely immoral? To me betrayal is not absolutely wrong/immoral. i do not believe it would be wrong If I betrayed the trust of my boss who was committing a heinous crime. So we have come to the conclusion that morals do not prove the existence of God and morals are not absolute. So what is your point? "The innocent shall suffer… big time." Ignignokt"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #100 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteMLK's assassin felt justified in his actions. Therefore it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong. There was at least one perspective from which it was a good thing. Geesh, talk about missing the point. There are immoral people -- nobody is debating that. Gawd! Perhaps it was not I who missed the point. The very existence of the ability for "immoral" people to exist proves there are no absolute morals. QuoteBut you do believe it was not ABSOLUTELY wrong from a moral standpoint, right? That is what I said. If a single person considered it as good thing, then it cannot be absolute. The assassin would not have acted had he not considered it to be the right thing to do. Therefore, MLK's assassination was not absolutely immoral. As you said yourself, 'By definition absolute can't be "close enough.'" Since MLK's assassination was a murder, murder is not absolutely immoral.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
