WLC and the moral argument

[Nicki]

I watched a good video recently of William Lane Craig speaking on the case for Christian theism. He mentioned the difference between moral ontology and epistemology, which has been explained on here before in a way I found confusing - that epistemology refers to what is right and wrong, while ontology means that there is right and wrong. I took that to mean that what's actually right and wrong can change. Craig said epistemology refers to how we know what's right and wrong, and that it's not always easy to know what our moral duties are. It seemed to answer the question of how people's moral values can differ - sometimes they get it wrong.

Having said that, I don't find the moral argument for God very convincing. To me seems too easy to be able to say that morals would have developed because it was beneficial for people (or members of a lot of animal species, for that matter) to live in groups, and that those individuals who tended more towards antisocial, selfish behaviour would have been excluded from their group and have had a lower chance of survival than those who treated others well and made themselves popular.

[Philip]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

[Nicki]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

Because they don't like it? Yes, people are self-centred, but that's why they would have wanted to belong to a group (like a tribe) and feel safe, so they had to maintain a certain standard of behaviour. On top of that most would have actually liked and cared about many of their family members and others in their group, and so would have wanted to be good to them. Or is that the social orientation which could have developed from wanting to belong to a group (under evolution at least)? Given that most apes and monkeys are social, it's likely that if we have common ancestors with them, the ancestors were social as well. This (evolution) is not what I necessarily think; I'm just discussing the ideas.

[Nicki]

OK, I just posted that and then a couple of minutes later turned on the TV news - this woman was talking about people separated from their tribes being in danger, leading to us being wired to feel anxious when we're alone. It was the usual thing about modern loneliness and encouraging people to connect with others. Coincidence?

[Philip]

Animals were created before and separate from people - read Genesis carefully. Do you not know anything about progressive creationism?

[Nicki]

Animals were created before and separate from people - read Genesis carefully. Do you not know anything about progressive creationism?

Do I not know anything? Are you being sarcastic? As I said I don't necessarily believe in evolution myself; I'm still undecided about the creation method. I just thought someone might appreciate some conversation about the moral argument.

[Philip]

Nicki: Do I not know anything? Are you being sarcastic? As I said I don't necessarily believe in evolution myself; I'm still undecided about the creation method. I just thought someone might appreciate some conversation about the moral argument.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. But the idea that morals evolved to make society work easier - that breaks down when one considers that selfish, narcissistic, evil people that have great power and thus don't NEED to get along, nonetheless have the same basic moral responses whenever wronged themselves, and this is despite the fact that they often not only don't need to get along, but trying to do so would fail to accomplish their desires, to take from / steal, repress, or dominate others so as to get whatever it is that they want.

[Kenny]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

Thieves have no interest in being moral. They know when they steal it is wrong, but they do not care. I don't think she was talking about those kind of people when she spoke of developing morals, I think she was referring to the people who want to be moral, and who try to be moral.

[RickD]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

Thieves have no interest in being moral. They know when they steal it is wrong, but they do not care. I don't think she was talking about those kind of people when she spoke of developing morals, I think she was referring to the people who want to be moral, and who try to be moral.

Subjectively moral?

[Kenny]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

Thieves have no interest in being moral. They know when they steal it is wrong, but they do not care. I don't think she was talking about those kind of people when she spoke of developing morals, I think she was referring to the people who want to be moral, and who try to be moral.

Subjectively moral?

Yes! It seems every time I feel like giving up, you come up with something like this; and you give me hope again.

[RickD]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

Thieves have no interest in being moral. They know when they steal it is wrong, but they do not care. I don't think she was talking about those kind of people when she spoke of developing morals, I think she was referring to the people who want to be moral, and who try to be moral.

Subjectively moral?

Yes! It seems every time I feel like giving up, you come up with something like this; and you give me hope again.

If I can have a positive effect on just one person per day, I feel like I don't need to jump off a bridge.

[Kenny]

That basic morality is but a strategy for the good interactions of society breaks down when we consider that human nature is exceptionally selfish, and that those in power tend to not care what those they have power think or how they are hurt. Plus, the basics of right and wrong transcend to being found in societies around the world, now and in ancient times. Even thieves view sins against them as wrong. If stealing isn't considered wrong by a thief, why do thieves universally consider themselves wronged whenever they are the victims of thievery? Etc.

Thieves have no interest in being moral. They know when they steal it is wrong, but they do not care. I don't think she was talking about those kind of people when she spoke of developing morals, I think she was referring to the people who want to be moral, and who try to be moral.

Subjectively moral?

Yes! It seems every time I feel like giving up, you come up with something like this; and you give me hope again.

If I can have a positive effect on just one person per day, I feel like I don't need to jump off a bridge.

(LOL)

[PaulSacramento]

I watched a good video recently of William Lane Craig speaking on the case for Christian theism. He mentioned the difference between moral ontology and epistemology, which has been explained on here before in a way I found confusing - that epistemology refers to what is right and wrong, while ontology means that there is right and wrong. I took that to mean that what's actually right and wrong can change. Craig said epistemology refers to how we know what's right and wrong, and that it's not always easy to know what our moral duties are. It seemed to answer the question of how people's moral values can differ - sometimes they get it wrong.

Having said that, I don't find the moral argument for God very convincing. To me seems too easy to be able to say that morals would have developed because it was beneficial for people (or members of a lot of animal species, for that matter) to live in groups, and that those individuals who tended more towards antisocial, selfish behaviour would have been excluded from their group and have had a lower chance of survival than those who treated others well and made themselves popular.

For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).
This is a "no-brainer" and basic Philosophy 101.
Either a person accepts this or they don't understand the difference and if they don't understand it, don't bother debating it.

[Kenny]

I watched a good video recently of William Lane Craig speaking on the case for Christian theism. He mentioned the difference between moral ontology and epistemology, which has been explained on here before in a way I found confusing - that epistemology refers to what is right and wrong, while ontology means that there is right and wrong. I took that to mean that what's actually right and wrong can change. Craig said epistemology refers to how we know what's right and wrong, and that it's not always easy to know what our moral duties are. It seemed to answer the question of how people's moral values can differ - sometimes they get it wrong.

Having said that, I don't find the moral argument for God very convincing. To me seems too easy to be able to say that morals would have developed because it was beneficial for people (or members of a lot of animal species, for that matter) to live in groups, and that those individuals who tended more towards antisocial, selfish behaviour would have been excluded from their group and have had a lower chance of survival than those who treated others well and made themselves popular.

For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).
This is a "no-brainer" and basic Philosophy 101.
Either a person accepts this or they don't understand the difference and if they don't understand it, don't bother debating it.

People who do not believe the Objective view, debate the subjective view all the time. Agree or not, those conversations do take place

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
For one to discuss what IS right and wrong ( subjective view), we must first accept that there IS Right and wrong ( Objective view).

I'm not sure you have that correct. You may want to check your sources, and reword that.

I think you may mean that one has to recognize that morals exist(ontology), before logically being able to discuss what is right or wrong(epistemology).

Paul,

You may be conflating objective morality, and ontology.