Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

Morality comes from the same place as a god, the subjective consciousness of a life form.

[Belindi]

I agree with your posting, except that by my understanding you're describing Ethical standards, not Moral codes.

Is not The Declaration of Independence legally binding? After all, Empire Loyalists had to flee to Canada after America won the war. I'd have thought the morals as codified in The D of I are moral laws if not national laws too. Not mere ethics that pertain only to specific groups and professions.

My understanding (which I know is not universally accepted) is that Moral codes are what individuals use to make behavioral choices and Ethical standards are how individual behaviors are judged by the community.

Yes, I agree; with the proviso but be careful which 'community' is actually a thing, and which is not. Doctors have specific ethical code, so do teachers, and so do scientists. 'Community' is often said without the aggregate of persons' being a community at all.

[popeye1945]

Morality without God? More rationally stated, where would God be without the compassion of humanity, for religion and the concept of a God are creative biological extensions of the insecure nature of humanity.

[Lagayascienza]

Exactly. Biology is the fundament from which extensions such as morality emerge.

[night912]

My thesis is not IF there is a special moral code passed down by a deity, rather that something like that is the only type of moral code one could rationally be expected to follow.

I agree that it would be confusing to find a difference in morality from a god and morality from nature, however I think that if one were to truly believe that morality only came from "nature" it would be hard to convince someone to follow it. Just that something is natural does not mean it is good...is this not where human reason should say that we must suspend judgement because we cannot decide if nature is "good" ?

What you're doing here is special pleading. You're arguing that it's rational to follow the moral code that was handed down to us by a deity. The thing is, there's no difference between the two. Same arguments can be used for or against both moral codes. You're presuppossing that because something is natural, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is good. By doing this, you're dismissing the possibility that something is natural means that it IS good. This is where the problem lies regarding your argument. If we humans initially don't know what is morality good and require a moral code to guide us, then how can we tell the difference between the moral code of a deity and that of nature? Which system of morality is the one that is morally good and morally bad?

This also plays a part in regards to the problem with Divine Command Theory. Is the moral system given to us by a deity morally good because that deity deemed it so? Or is it because that system is morally good in itself, resulting in requiring the deity to follow that system in order for it to be a morally good deity? If it's because the deity deemed it to be moral, then that system is just a system consisting of the subjectively moral codes of that deity. So then, how is that any different than one's own subjective morality system?

[popeye1945]

Evolutionary ethics adequately explains our core morality and provides guidance without abstract systems like Kant's and without gods and religion. And our evolved morality has worked well enough. The problem with Kant's Categorical Imperative is that it doesn't work. Its rules are highly abstract and impossible to adhere to because they ignore the consequences of actions. Moreover, in terms of core human morality, we, in most cases, intuitively know right from wrong. Our moral intuition is an adaptation that has worked well enough to ensure our survival. Our inborn morality evolved as a quick and dirty solution to the problem of getting us to cooperate in small bands out on the savanna. It enhanced our individual survival for long enough to ensure the propagation of our genes. We don't need an abstract system like Kant's. And doing the abstract moral calculus would have been beyond our forebears out on the savanna just as it is beyond most of us today. Neither do we need a system based in religion. Religious rules are not the word of any god because gods are maximally unlikely to exist. And the gods people think do exist have different rules.

Our morality is real enough, but it is based in our evolved, subjective sentiments. Gods and rationality had nothing to do with it. We had moral sentiments long before we invented gods and religion. Insofar as our evolved, core human morality aided the propagation of our genes, it seems to have been motivated be a kind of logic, but evolution is not teleological; it has no foresight. It is a blind watch-maker. Whatever helps launch genes into the future is what is naturally selected for. Religion is false and all the convoluted theorizing of philosophical ethics in search of a rational morality have got nowhere over the last two-and-a-half millennia. And that is simply because our morality is subjective and cannot be objectified. Hume was the first to realize this. Evolutionary ethnics has shown him to have been right. But people still think they need religion in which to base their ethics. And religions want very much to keep people thinking that way. The jobs of preachers, the wealth of churches and their control over the folk all depend on it.

The only reasonable foundation for human morality is our common biology, for biology is the measure and the meaning of things. Experience and judgment are knowledge. In the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless. This is a commonality, and it makes sense for it to be the centre of morality, as the survival and well-being of biological entities. Humanity is the creator of meanings, whether inherited from our ancestors or a new value born of the present. While cultures differ, and geography differs, the pattern of our biology is one. Along with morality, human self-control will never be achieved until humanity realizes it is the source of all meanings. The time humanity sheds the supernatural will be a major evolutionary step.

[Good_Egg]

The only reasonable foundation for human morality is our common biology, for biology is the measure and the meaning of things. Experience and judgment are knowledge. In the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

The issue here is about minds and bodies. In common usage, "biology" refers to bodies, which includes brains, but not minds. The linkage between mind and brain is complex. Biology may be able to tell us that our body produces dopamine or serotonin under certain circumstances and this causes certain feelings in our minds, but this is not a complete explanation of mental values and mental processes.

This is a commonality, and it makes sense for it to be the centre of morality, as the survival and well-being of biological entities.

Whilst we do, in general, care about the survival and well-being of bodies, it's not clear that that's a complete description of what we care about. Nor is it clear why we should care about that and about nothing else.

Humanity is the creator of meanings, whether inherited from our ancestors or a new value born of the present. While cultures differ, and geography differs, the pattern of our biology is one. Along with morality, human self-control will never be achieved until humanity realizes it is the source of all meanings. The time humanity sheds the supernatural will be a major evolutionary step.

Perfectly fair to say that meanings exist in the mind, and that all the other creatures we have so far discovered have less-developed minds than humans have.

Whether "supernatural" is meaningful is a separate question. What I think you're proposing here is that our thinking about morality should not depend on any particular religious authority, nor on any particular culture, but only on that which is common to all humans across all cultures. And that's fine. Take it as read that nobody here will disregard any idea about morality that you may put forward merely on the grounds that some religious authority disagrees.

But if you truly focus on what is universal - common to all humans - then your statements cannot depend on the truth of premises that are non-universal across cultures. Morality is secular, not atheist.

[Belinda]

Evolutionary ethics adequately explains our core morality and provides guidance without abstract systems like Kant's and without gods and religion. And our evolved morality has worked well enough. The problem with Kant's Categorical Imperative is that it doesn't work. Its rules are highly abstract and impossible to adhere to because they ignore the consequences of actions. Moreover, in terms of core human morality, we, in most cases, intuitively know right from wrong. Our moral intuition is an adaptation that has worked well enough to ensure our survival. Our inborn morality evolved as a quick and dirty solution to the problem of getting us to cooperate in small bands out on the savanna. It enhanced our individual survival for long enough to ensure the propagation of our genes. We don't need an abstract system like Kant's. And doing the abstract moral calculus would have been beyond our forebears out on the savanna just as it is beyond most of us today. Neither do we need a system based in religion. Religious rules are not the word of any god because gods are maximally unlikely to exist. And the gods people think do exist have different rules.

Our morality is real enough, but it is based in our evolved, subjective sentiments. Gods and rationality had nothing to do with it. We had moral sentiments long before we invented gods and religion. Insofar as our evolved, core human morality aided the propagation of our genes, it seems to have been motivated be a kind of logic, but evolution is not teleological; it has no foresight. It is a blind watch-maker. Whatever helps launch genes into the future is what is naturally selected for. Religion is false and all the convoluted theorizing of philosophical ethics in search of a rational morality have got nowhere over the last two-and-a-half millennia. And that is simply because our morality is subjective and cannot be objectified. Hume was the first to realize this. Evolutionary ethnics has shown him to have been right. But people still think they need religion in which to base their ethics. And religions want very much to keep people thinking that way. The jobs of preachers, the wealth of churches and their control over the folk all depend on it.

The only reasonable foundation for human morality is our common biology, for biology is the measure and the meaning of things. Experience and judgment are knowledge. In the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless. This is a commonality, and it makes sense for it to be the centre of morality, as the survival and well-being of biological entities. Humanity is the creator of meanings, whether inherited from our ancestors or a new value born of the present. While cultures differ, and geography differs, the pattern of our biology is one. Along with morality, human self-control will never be achieved until humanity realizes it is the source of all meanings. The time humanity sheds the supernatural will be a major evolutionary step.

God is rationality itself. This fact fits with your thesis that morality is biological. Humans need to crave reason because all our power to exist is founded , not on speed or muscle power or large numbers of offspring, but on reason. We crave reason /we crave God: same thing.

[Count Lucanor]

God is rationality itself... We crave reason /we crave God: same thing.

There's as much rationality in the concept of god as there is in any other product of human fantasy, Leprechaun included.

[Lagayascienza]

Evolution gave us a propensity to search for meaning and for creating stories. That explains our god stories and the near universality of religion. But it doesn't make god stories/religion true. All the evidence suggests that we invented gods and not vice versa.

[popeye1945]

Carl Sagan's response to the question. Where would we be without God? Answer: "We would be on our own." We are on our own, and no God is the source of morality, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Even the subjective state we cannot escape is the only way we can know what is termed objective reality, a reality that might not otherwise exist. Morality exists only for life forms, a necessity for social creatures. Both morality and God are biological extensions of humanity's insecurity. Religion is a mythology meant as an orientation to its believers on how to function in the world. It was the first pathetic attempt at a science of the world. In the absence of life or biological consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless; only through the experiences of biology is there meaning, which is then bestowed upon the world as if it were the property of the world as an object. Civilization and its structures are biological extensions in our outer world and hold meaning only for biological life. If humanity is to master self-control, it must be acknowledged and become common knowledge that humanity/life is the source of all meaning.

[Good_Egg]

In the absence of life or biological consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless; only through the experiences of biology is there meaning, which is then bestowed upon the world as if it were the property of the world as an object. Civilization and its structures are biological extensions in our outer world and hold meaning only for biological life. If humanity is to master self-control, it must be acknowledged and become common knowledge that humanity/life is the source of all meaning.

In the absence of Mind, no meaning can be apprehended. But that doesn't make Mind the source of meaning.

Imagine you're an explorer, wandering through some ancient ruins in a jungle where your people have never been before. Imagine you come across a human skeleton. What does that mean to you ? It means beware! There is something here that is capable of killing humans.

Because you're intelligent, you apprehend that meaning. (If you had only animal-level intelligence, you might think "Can I eat it ? Will it eat me ? Can I mate with it ? No, so not important".)

Meaning received is one half of communication. But in this case, there is no other half. No mind sent that message. It could have done. In a slightly different scenario, another explorer in whose footsteps you follow could have deliberately left his dead companion unburied in order to send that message of warning.

So when you say "...hold meaning only for biological life..." you're right but imprecise. Things can hold meaning only for intelligent life, and so far the only intelligence we know is biological.

But your conclusion that life is the source of meaning is false. Minds recognise patterns whether or not mind is the source of those patterns.

[popeye1945]

I have a suggestion for the mountain of discontent about the fact that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Put your many heads together and, as an alternative, describe how meaning comes about. Reread what I have stated, point out as clearly and briefly as possible the process you would put in place as the correct theory.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that nations vary from atheistic to theocratic, and the nations ate the either extremes of the religiosity spectrum have the worst human rights. Then again, atheistic states tend to lionise the polity to the point where their are approximately equivalent to theocracies.

Nations with a mix of atheism and theism seem to be more humane. I suppose these societies more respect individuals, rather than treating them as fodder for a "higher power", be it Allah for Afghanistan and Iran or Kim or the CCP for NK and China respectively.

There's always tension between the good of individuals and higher powers.

As far as I'm concerned the Sun and planet Earth are higher powers. Our lives are akin to bubbles in the foam of the biosphere's waves.