Morals without god/the bible

[Proinsias]

Thanks Byblos and Gman

Gman:

I'm not under the illusion that I've got it all together, that as you say can be a dangerous path. I do agree that if we compare ourselves to something infinitely good then we are not going to measure up too well.

I also don't claim to know everything about my own heart and I don't fully trust in myself.

My challenge to you is this... Do some real soul searching. Take a look into your hearts.. Understand the darkness of your own souls. I've done it and found complete evil. And not just a little evil, years of complete home grown darkness. Very sad... Let's not kid ourselves. Until you understand this, you will never understand the grace of God. Thanks to God He is so forgiving because I would have died many years ago.

Try it sometime. Look into your heart. Understand wisdom... Don't bury your head in the sand, fly with the eagles...

It's beautiful to know the truth!!! Oh I pray that someone will understand this. It will literally set you free..

The reason I'm posting here is that I am searching, both inwards and outwards.

Your flying with the eagles point reminds me a little of a favourite Chesterton quote: "Angels fly because they take themselves lightly."

[Gman]

No problem Proinsias. I completely understand..

Take care.
G -

[jlay]

Pro, I've put a lot of info here. I hope you have time to read.

Gman:

I'm not saying that people are great and never sin. I do agree we should have an accurate picture of ourselves. I don't think that having sinned or having witnessed great evil in my heart makes my heart desperately wicked and above all things deceitful any more than me doing something nice or witnessing great love in my heart makes my heart desperately good and truthful above all things. Pro, one thing we can be sure of. If there is no objective morality then no one has sinned.

Lets be honest with ourselves. We are not desperately wicked or desperately good, we're a bit of both.

Ok, let us start there. One thing I see, is you make an absolute statement about the nature of humanity and its moral condition. Not only does this undermine the root of morality being subjective only, but it indicates that you know the source of all morality and how to measure it. Also, it is contradictory in nature. Because if morality is subjective only, then someone's goodness or wickedness can shift and change depending on what cultural perspective one views it through. For example, a lot of Muslim nations view the holocaust as being morally good. Now, you can not say they are wrong. You can only say they are wrong according to your worldview. But you can't say they are inherently wrong. In their worldview they are right. And if there is no objective standard then no position is inherently superior to another.

But back to you. If, and I only say if, the God of the Bible is the real God and the source of objective morality, then are you wicked? How would you measure this? The apostle Paul said that 'by the Law is the knowledge of sin.' Measured under this glorious standard how would you fair? Now, it is important to note that Jesus said, that not just our actions, but our thoughts are also measured. And I think you will agree, the mind is where sin is conceived. A rapist doesn't rape without first harboring thoughts of rape in his mind.

Many people fall into the mistake of assuming that goodness is determined by a scale. That if we can pile enough good things on one side, then it will balance the other. We just need to get 50.1% on the good side to tip the scales in our favor. This is at the root of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. (Oddly, you stated that you have rejected these for reasons in your post. You are saying they are not THE TRUTH. Which implies that you are rejecting not just on the basis that they are wrong to you.)
But it doesn't make sense. Let me give you an example. Let's say you spend most of your life being nice. You help people occassionaly, you even do volunteer work. Then one day, in a fit of anger, you shoot your spouse dead. There you are before the judge. You explain to the judge, that he really needs to look at how good you have been for 99.9% of your life, and not just this heinous crime. It is likely that the judge would be offended at your ridiculous defense. He would say that your past 'good' deeds have absolutely zero bearing on the crime you are guilty of. And the judge would be right.
Yet somehow we don't see this in regards to our own crimes.

Now, we can all agree that murder and rape are wrong. Even if we don't agree that they are inherently wrong. You know and I know it is wrong to do these things. Now, if there is a God, is he like us? Keep in mind, he created the universe. He designed DNA, the atom, etc. I think we can say he is not like us. If (only saying if) He is like the God of the Bible, then He is not just higher than us in regards to power, but is infinately higher than us morally. It is not that God acts morally, but He is the source of morality. The bible says that God hates lying lips. The bible says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. (Rev. 21:8) The bible says that our sinful thoughts and acts are direct crimes against the holy character of the creator God.
If the Bible is true, then your past good deeds have zero bearing on the crimes you are guilty of.

you say you are not trying to establish that you are good, yet your arguments reveal that you are doing exactly that. In fact you have even gone a step further in making blanket statements about the moral condition of all humanity. The fault in trying to judge oneself good, is that you are NOT objective. People tend to judge themselves against what? Others. "I'm not as bad as so-n-so." "I've never killed anyone."

It still appears a contradiction to me that one should not trust one's own heart as one cannot fully understand one's own heart but one should trust in God when one cannot fully understand God. It seems to be saying that one should not trust oneself as one cannot understand oneself so therefore one should trust something else that one cannot fully understand instead preferably with all of that deceitful wicked heart that can't be trusted anyway.

Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think this exhibits sound logic or reasoning. There are many occassions where my child is required to trust me in which they don't fully understand my reasons. But they trust my authority. I could give you a lot of examples where you do, and have done this in other areas of your own life.

Where have I expressed a want for 'real' meaning attached to my position that suffering is wrong? I suspect you are projecting this upon me. I said I didn't like it and would like it to be minimized for all living things.

I'm not trying to establish an inherent moral value or quality in my position. I'm making it up as I go along. I don't want my position to have 'real' meaning, I've never said that it does have 'real' meaning beyond that which I and others attach to it.

I'm not trying to establish an inherent moral value or quality in my position.

Yes you are. You said its all gray area. You are saying that you are the source, and that your postition is the objective standard. You are trying to establish that your belief that morality is only subjective has value. You are trying to establish this. All people do this. They act that a moral position is a superior position to an immoral one. Therefore stating that there is an objective standard to measure a moral position against. You are claiming to not beleive in objective morality, yet you refuse to keep your arguments within that framework.

In fact, You just said a mouthful. 'I'm making it up as I go along.' Yet you seem so sure to reject the idea of objective morality. You have failed to show any real reason for rejecting such, other than the obvious detrimate to your position to be the God of your worldview. 'I am making it up as I go along.' I am creating my own reality. Truth is what I make it. I am a god unto myself.

Pro, the sooner you accept the truths your conscience is screaming at you, the sooner you will find the truth. You KNOW that genocide is wrong. Not because your parents told you so. Not because Obama told you so. Not because you wouldn't like genocide to happen to you. But because it IS. Your conscience bears witness to the truth of this.

I can label things right and wrong as easily as you can. I can condemn and judge things as easily as you can. As you say it's all preference. If you prefer to call something wrong based on a belief in God and objective morality that's your call. If I choose to call something wrong based on how I feel at that particular point in time then that's my call.

Friend, this is where you are missing what we are trying to communicate. We are not saying WE can label things right and wrong. We are saying, we have the instruction manual from the source itself. And that we don't label, but recognize in light of said source, and are ourselves subject to a morality that exist outside of our own fallible minds. One who holds to subjective only morality is the one who is labeling and playing god with moralilty.
Friend, when you stand before the source of morality, and you will, my hands will be free from your blood. Your errors have been exposed, and you have been pointed towards the truth. You will stand before Him, and the advice you have received here, will be a testimony against your unbelief.

[Proinsias]

Ok, let us start there. One thing I see, is you make an absolute statement about the nature of humanity and its moral condition. Not only does this undermine the root of morality being subjective only, but it indicates that you know the source of all morality and how to measure it.

Surely this then applies to anything that one declares subjective. If I declare fashion as subjective I'm then making an absolute statement about fashion, undermining the root of fashion being subjective, indicating that I know the root of all fashion and that I know how to measure it. Or cheese preference for that matter.

Also, it is contradictory in nature. Because if morality is subjective only, then someone's goodness or wickedness can shift and change depending on what cultural perspective one views it through. For example, a lot of Muslim nations view the holocaust as being morally good. Now, you can not say they are wrong. You can only say they are wrong according to your worldview. But you can't say they are inherently wrong. In their worldview they are right. And if there is no objective standard then no position is inherently superior to another.

I don't see the contradiction. I can say they are wrong, it's very easy, what I can't say is that they are inherently wrong and I'm fine with that. I agree that no position is inherently superior to another, as I've said many times I have no need for inherent qualities.

But back to you. If, and I only say if, the God of the Bible is the real God and the source of objective morality, then are you wicked? How would you measure this?

If the God of the Bible is real I'll let the God of Bible do the measuring and deciding if I'm wicked. I'm not up to the task. Same goes for any other God which may or may not be real.

Now, it is important to note that Jesus said, that not just our actions, but our thoughts are also measured. And I think you will agree, the mind is where sin is conceived. A rapist doesn't rape without first harboring thoughts of rape in his mind.

I do believe in purity of thought and not just action - God or no God.

Many people fall into the mistake of assuming that goodness is determined by a scale.

I think it is a scale, just not an objective one. Good/bad, big/small, tall/short, happy/sad. All scales, all relative, all changing.

But it doesn't make sense. Let me give you an example. Let's say you spend most of your life being nice. You help people occassionaly, you even do volunteer work. Then one day, in a fit of anger, you shoot your spouse dead. There you are before the judge. You explain to the judge, that he really needs to look at how good you have been for 99.9% of your life, and not just this heinous crime. It is likely that the judge would be offended at your ridiculous defense. He would say that your past 'good' deeds have absolutely zero bearing on the crime you are guilty of. And the judge would be right.
Yet somehow we don't see this in regards to our own crimes.

I beg to differ. Judges take good or bad previous behaviour into account. The same way that my employer does, that I do as a parent or a friend. On a very serious crime past behaviour may not have much of a bearing but it will have some bearing.

If you have been a model citizen it will be taken into account and if this is the 3rd spouse you have killed it will be taken int account.

The judge would be wrong, see what I done there.

If the Bible is true, then your past good deeds have zero bearing on the crimes you are guilty of.

But the crimes one is guilty of are past deeds. And if the Bible is just another one of many holy books......

you say you are not trying to establish that you are good, yet your arguments reveal that you are doing exactly that.

Where exactly

In fact you have even gone a step further in making blanket statements about the moral condition of all humanity.

I fail to see how declaring morality subjective is me trying to establish I'm good.

The fault in trying to judge oneself good, is that you are NOT objective. People tend to judge themselves against what? Others. "I'm not as bad as so-n-so." "I've never killed anyone."

I'm not saying I am objective. Of course people judge themselves against others, in the same way people judge apples against other apples or sunny days against other sunny days. Judging oneself against God would seem rather pointless, God's always going to come off exactly infinitely better. It's like me saying I'm tall and you explaining that in comparison to something infinitely tall I'm actually really small or me saying my lunch is nice and you telling me that in comparison to something infinitely nice my lunch is horrible. You may have a point but it's not really one worth taking into account from my point of view. It's all relative.

Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think this exhibits sound logic or reasoning. There are many occassions where my child is required to trust me in which they don't fully understand my reasons. But they trust my authority. I could give you a lot of examples where you do, and have done this in other areas of your own life.

Well yeah, I do place trust in others. I earn the trust of my daughter and other people earn my trust. None of this trust is absolute. If we assume, for a moment, that God does not exist then there is no need for trust in God. If we assume that God does exist then we pick one and give it some trust, based of feedback we decide if we wish to increase or decrease that level of trust. You've picked one, I've not. Different people pick different Gods and place different levels of trust in them, some don't pick any.

You appear to have chosen a God and put as much trust as possible in that God. I'm not going to attempt to dissuade you from this, if it works for you then good for you.

Yes you are. You said its all gray area. You are saying that you are the source, and that your postition is the objective standard.

No I'm not. If I was I would have said that it was inherently grey. I've not said that my position is the objective standard either.

You are claiming to not beleive in objective morality, yet you refuse to keep your arguments within that framework.

I am keeping them within that framework. You are simply convinced there is an objective moral standard and that I am utilizing it, I don't think I will ever be able to convince you otherwise. I'm not trying to convince you that morality is subjective anymore than I would try to convince you that God doesn't exist, I'm just offering my view. It seems you have made up your mind and I must fit into the framework you are providing for me. If I choose not to the I must be wrong.

I am creating my own reality. Truth is what I make it. I am a god unto myself.

Yes.

Pro, the sooner you accept the truths your conscience is screaming at you, the sooner you will find the truth. You KNOW that genocide is wrong. Not because your parents told you so. Not because Obama told you so. Not because you wouldn't like genocide to happen to you. But because it IS. Your conscience bears witness to the truth of this.

You know that morality is subjective not because of God but because it IS. Your conscience bears witness to the truth of this.

Not very helpful is it?

Friend, this is where you are missing what we are trying to communicate. We are not saying WE can label things right and wrong. We are saying, we have the instruction manual from the source itself. And that we don't label, but recognize in light of said source, and are ourselves subject to a morality that exist outside of our own fallible minds. One who holds to subjective only morality is the one who is labeling and playing god with moralilty.

You are saying that you have a book which labels things, as do many holy and law books. You subjectively believe those labels are correct. If there is an objective morality I will be subject to then fine, I'll deal with that.

Friend, when you stand before the source of morality, and you will, my hands will be free from your blood. Your errors have been exposed, and you have been pointed towards the truth. You will stand before Him, and the advice you have received here, will be a testimony against your unbelief.

I'm not going to claim to have pointed you to truth, I'm just sharing my opinion. If you or me have inherent errors then let's let God deal with that. I'm sure you would get the same sort of response you have given me on an Islamic website and wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

[Gman]

You are saying that you have book which labels things, as do many holy and law books.

Pro,

I've studied most of the major religions and I can say without any doubt that the Bible if vastly different and unique than any other holy book in the world. I've debated this topic for years and nothing has even come close.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... Ta6hHw2PXk

[B. W.]

If you are absolutely certain there are no absolutes — how can you be absolutely certain of this?

I'm not absolutely certain of this, I didn't say I was. I've admitted many times I could be wrong. As I've said the possibility that I may be wrong is not really much incentive for me to switch to the viewpoint of another which may also be wrong.

So you are stating that you are absolutely certain of not being certain — then absolutes do indeed exist.

Right now, this current now, planets and solar systems exist. That is an absolute fact. We can count what we see and if these change — it does not negate the absolute fact that planets and solar systems exist or cease to exist in the future. They exist.

There are absolutes and since there are, there exist moral absolutes. Moral Law — OM whatever you like to term it is simply-knowing right from wrong, what good is verses what is nefarious.

If you base morality on relativistic principles that states that there are no objective standard that can be used in helping discover right from wrong, what good is verses what is nefarious, then what do you have but an absolute contradiction? Absolutely certain that all is relative? How can that be when no absolutes can exist?

Without an objective standard that exist then there would no human rights, no way we could know justice or injustice, no way to tell right from wrong, no way to arbitrate between people's own moral differences, no moral grounds for political or social dissent, etc and etc…

You can question what is right but how do you know what wrong is? How do you know what is wrong unless you know what is right?

Moral Relativism serves only as an excuse to justify human apathy toward discovery of Moral Law. It serves to justify remaining a non-being so no one can hold you accountable for anything. It says, “It's all a matter of taste like how ones prefer chocolate and another like's vanilla.”

Is sadistic sexual rape and murder of a baby wrong? This goes far beyond mere taste. We discover an absolute: murder is wrong. Who committed the wrong? Discovery is made. Our reactions help us discover what is good and nefarious. It is discovered by how others treat us and our own reactions to that as well as how we create morals to justify our actions.

Some may justify the act of sadistic sexual rape and murder of a baby as an okay act to do because it makes them feel good and alive but how can you challenge that form of moral reasoning if there is no absolute moral standard to guide you that such behavior and reasoning is wrong?

Morals are not a matter of taste. They come from a source and we have opportunity to discover that source or reject it — trade it off for that never-know-anything for certain purposeless life relativisticaly spent never getting anywhere, so by the way you can't condemn or judge me cause all is relative.

Moral relativism serves only as an excuse for violating objective moral law seeking to dodge its existence in hopes of circumventing any responsibilities for the wrongs we committed in thought and deeds.

Like the planets and solar system — these exist. How many, how they change, or even cease to exist is irrelevant to the absolute condition that they exist. Your own writings demonstrate a refusal to see that absolutes do indeed exist by your use of Daoist and Zen apologetics.

How can you be absolutely certain that you cannot be absolutely certain? What standard are you using to discover this? You stated that that the possibility that you may be wrong is not really much incentive for you to switch to the viewpoint of another which may also be wrong.

What standard are you using to derive this form of logic from? What if the standard you are using is wrong? If wrong then there must be a right and certainly then — not all things are relative, are they, since right has to exist for you to derive what wrong is.

For you to know wrong exist then there is a right that needs discovered. We, through process, discover what already exist. In the case of OM — the standards of a Moral Law Giver who lets us discover that right and wrong exist. (There is a right way of doing something and a wrong way).

We learn if, as well as how, our own moral reasoning (moral codes we created) are either right or wrong from an objective source that proves His justice just through the liberty of discovery.

You writing this is also proof that you do exist as well as a thinking and reasoning person who can and does discovers…

So you can discover that self does indeed exist. Would that be just or unjust?

Not so much proof from where I'm standing but an extension of the rather nice "I think therefore I am". Philosophical musings, not proof….

I said it appears that the self exists, not that it does indeed exist. I have no idea if an attempt to discover or discredit the self is just or unjust.

How can the self only appears to exist and not indeed exist? Do you only exist when you look at yourself in a mirror? You indeed exist as do the planets, solar system, stars despite how they may change over time — they exist.

Forget trying obfuscating the issues with Daoism and Zen syllogisms. You do exist and can discover things. If that process of discovery was denied you — how could that really be absolutely Just?

Moral relativism obfuscates and enslaves moral reasoning to chase logical absurdities. You and I are moral reasoning intelligent creatures who need an anchor for the soul: that anchor exists in the Moral Law Giver who knows the right way of doing something as opposed to the wrong way of doing something.
-
-
-

[touchingcloth]

B W -
As you're defending an objective morality, any chance you could explain a couple of things?

How does that objective morality get stamped in to people's minds? After all your brain functions evolved from a single cell, so is that objective morality somehow written in to your DNA?

How is it that different cultures, both now and in the past, have different moral codes?

[jlay]

You are saying that you have a book which labels things, as do many holy and law books. You subjectively believe those labels are correct. If there is an objective morality I will be subject to then fine, I'll deal with that.

Actually no. You can observe and test. The bible even says so. It has fulfilled prophecy. It also says that one can have these things made known to them. I've mentioned this before to you. Apparently you are not interested.

I would not claim to be seeking and open minded when in fact your own words condemn you. You say you KNOW morality, you claim you are just making it up as you go along.

I don't see the contradiction. I can say they are wrong, it's very easy, what I can't say is that they are inherently wrong and I'm fine with that. I agree that no position is inherently superior to another, as I've said many times I have no need for inherent qualities.

Aren't you saying that your position is superior? I am not talking about your ability to vocalize a word. I am talking about the meaning behind the word. Let us be honest. Are you saying that the position that raping a five year old child is not inherently worse than the position of abhoring such acts. Please answer this question.

I do believe in purity of thought and not just action

You say this as if there is something to be revered in this position. If no position is inherently superior, then why is purity of thought morally superior to a differing view?

I think it is a scale, just not an objective one.

If there is a biblical creator God, then is morality objective or subjective? Only asking, "if."

I beg to differ. Judges take good or bad previous behaviour into account.

I think you are being naive here. A good judge would not let a murderer go free because he did good things in the past. Keep in mind we are not just talking about labels of good and bad. We are talking about criminal offense. Remember the saying, that justice is blind.

But the crimes one is guilty of are past deeds. And if the Bible is just another one of many holy books......

Come on man. Have an original thought. We've discussed this on countless threads. The bible is NOT just another of many holy books. That is a weak platitude.

Of course people judge themselves against others, in the same way people judge apples against other apples or sunny days against other sunny days.

Really? People judging morals and ethics is the same as people judging apples? That is ridiculous. So, the holocaust is the same as say a barrel of spoiled apples to you? If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you think seriously.

It's like me saying I'm tall and you explaining that in comparison to something infinitely tall I'm actually really small or me saying my lunch is nice and you telling me that in comparison to something infinitely nice my lunch is horrible. You may have a point but it's not really one worth taking into account from my point of view. It's all relative.

I think when you go into these little rabbit trails you are only demonstrating the stubborn position you are holding to. Of course there are things that are subjective. As you see, they can be recognized. As can things that are objective. It is worth taking into account.
Say we are getting ready to jump out of a plane. I tell you that you need a parachute to survive the jump from 10k feet. You say, 'it's all relative.'

If we assume, for a moment, that God does not exist then there is no need for trust in God. If we assume that God does exist then we pick one and give it some trust, based of feedback we decide if we wish to increase or decrease that level of trust. You've picked one, I've not. Different people pick different Gods and place different levels of trust in them, some don't pick any.

Non sequitur.
Is there counterfeit money? Yes. Does that mean that all money has no true value. No. The reality of the counterfeit does not disprove the reality of the real. In fact, the opposite is true. No one would counterfiet money if it has no value. Why would one assume there is no creator. That is like looking at a painting and assuming it had no painter. Imagine looking at Mt. Rushmore and saying, 'I believe those human likenesses just happened by accident over time." You would admit that is absurd. Yet, you can look at a real human, with all the complexities, and the infinately delicately balanced world required for us to survive and assume, 'accident!'

How does that objective morality get stamped in to people's minds? After all your brain functions evolved from a single cell, so is that objective morality somehow written in to your DNA?

That could be a possiblity. Since DNA is information. And information doesn't create itself. It could be programming from the programmer. Although I wouldn't reduce the conscience to just information.

How is it that different cultures, both now and in the past, have different moral codes?

Depends how you look at it. If you look at just the core essentials, you will see that most cultures agree. Murder, lying and stealing are wrong. Stealing anothers wife, etc. Why are there differences? Well, that is simple. People get it wrong. A Christian would say the main culprit is sin. Why are there different economic philosophies? You will find in modern economics that all are based around currency, even though there may be very different ideas on how it is handled and used. There are differences, but the core values are the same.

I'm not going to claim to have pointed you to truth, I'm just sharing my opinion. If you or me have inherent errors then let's let God deal with that. I'm sure you would get the same sort of response you have given me on an Islamic website and wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

You are fooling yourself if you think a Muslim will ever use reason, logic or philosophy to persuade you that Islam is true. Another fallacy you have that all religions are the same.

[touchingcloth]

How does that objective morality get stamped in to people's minds? After all your brain functions evolved from a single cell, so is that objective morality somehow written in to your DNA?

That could be a possiblity. Since DNA is information. And information doesn't create itself. It could be programming from the programmer. Although I wouldn't reduce the conscience to just information.

What I was getting at here was the mechanism by which objective morality would be imparted; hard-coded or somehow presented to someone after they are born/become conscious/reach a certain age...

How is it that different cultures, both now and in the past, have different moral codes?

Depends how you look at it. If you look at just the core essentials, you will see that most cultures agree. Murder, lying and stealing are wrong. Stealing anothers wife, etc. Why are there differences? Well, that is simple. People get it wrong. A Christian would say the main culprit is sin. Why are there different economic philosophies? You will find in modern economics that all are based around currency, even though there may be very different ideas on how it is handled and used. There are differences, but the core values are the same.[/quote]
The "core essentials" as you call them really come out of necessity rather than any moral code - a society that didn't somehow limit murder, lying and stealing would not function at all. Limits on those acts would exist whether morality was objective or not.

When you say the differences between cultures is because of "people getting it wrong", what are they getting it wrong with respect to?

[jlay]

I wouldn't say the concience is hard coded.

But that doesn't mean that behavior is not learned as well. The argument for morality being objective is not that it is hardwired perse.

When you say the differences between cultures is because of "people getting it wrong", what are they getting it wrong with respect to?

Ultimately objective morality. But it depends. You'd have to be more specific. perhaps I should have been more detailed in my answer, and I apologize. Keep in mind that subjective morality does exist. So, there are things that can be considered wrong in one culture and not in another. Like marrying your cousin. Or an adult marrying a 16 year old. That doesn't mean they are objectively wrong. Take murder for example. Is murder only wrong because a person, persons, culture, society says, 'murder is wrong.' Or, is there something inherently wrong about murder? Contrast this to a 21 year old dating a 16 year old. In American culture this is usually considered immorral. But is it really objectively wrong or a preference of the culture?

The "core essentials" as you call them really come out of necessity rather than any moral code - a society that didn't somehow limit murder, lying and stealing would not function at all. Limits on those acts would exist whether morality was objective or not.

So murder and rape arent' really wrong, they just arose out of cultural necessity?

I think you are looking at the functioning of society through glasses colored by the civility we enjoy in Western society in the 21st century.

[touchingcloth]

I would say the concience is hard coded.

But that doesn't mean that behavior is not learned as well. The argument for morality being objective is not that it is hardwired perse.

When you say the differences between cultures is because of "people getting it wrong", what are they getting it wrong with respect to?

Ultimately objective morality.

But if objective morality is learned, how is it learned? And if it is hard coded, does that mean we all have a copy of some objective morality in our DNA?

The "core essentials" as you call them really come out of necessity rather than any moral code - a society that didn't somehow limit murder, lying and stealing would not function at all. Limits on those acts would exist whether morality was objective or not.

So murder and rape arent' really wrong, they just arose out of cultural necessity?

I think you are looking at the functioning of society through glasses colored by the civility we enjoy in Western society in the 21st century.

You missed my point. I was saying that, taking aside whether they or right or wrong or whether objective morality exists or not, they are necessities. Any society that didn't have some mechanism for weighting behaviour towards not murdering, lying and stealing wouldn cease to exist pretty quckly (as a crude example, it is essential that birth rates exceed murder rates). So any society that exists necessarily will have some way of keeping some behaviours in check.

[jlay]

I corrected my post. I meant to say, "I wouldn't say the conscience is hard coded." Meaning that the conscience is more than just a piece of genetic info.

I wouldn't know if conscience is 'in' the DNA.

But if objective morality is learned, how is it learned?

How is math learned? No one can explain to you exactly how math is learned. But we know the brain does it. The human mind has the capacity to understand abolute things, and asign knowable values to them.

You missed my point. I was saying that, taking aside whether they or right or wrong or whether objective morality exists or not, they are necessities. Any society that didn't have some mechanism for weighting behaviour towards not murdering, lying and stealing wouldn cease to exist pretty quckly (as a crude example, it is essential that birth rates exceed murder rates). So any society that exists necessarily will have some way of keeping some behaviours in check.

Well, one would have to have a conscious awareness to consider those things. Evolution doesn't have a conscience. Maybe someone should inform deadly viruses that they are impossing on our necessary lives.

[touchingcloth]

But if objective morality is learned, how is it learned?

How is math learned? No one can explain to you exactly how math is learned. But we know the brain does it. The human mind has the capacity to understand abolute things, and asign knowable values to them.

Education is important here as well. At one point or another in your life you've been taught "this is addition - these are the outcomes of addition". You're taught the current conventions and axioms of maths, and these build upon your capacity to understand things and assign them values. There isn't an equivalent for objective morality that I can see; if objective morality is learned, then where from? Does everyone learn it?

You missed my point. I was saying that, taking aside whether they or right or wrong or whether objective morality exists or not, they are necessities. Any society that didn't have some mechanism for weighting behaviour towards not murdering, lying and stealing wouldn cease to exist pretty quckly (as a crude example, it is essential that birth rates exceed murder rates). So any society that exists necessarily will have some way of keeping some behaviours in check.

Well, one would have to have a conscious awareness to consider those things. Evolution doesn't have a conscience. Maybe someone should inform deadly viruses that they are impossing on our necessary lives.

I didn't say that the lives of the people were necessary, just that it stands to reason that - if they exist in a society - that their society necessarily has checks and balances on things like murder, even if the checks and balances weren't the outcome of conscious thought. The virus analogy fits though - it stands to reason that if we find both humans and viruses deadly to humans, that the virus isn't 100% deadly or isn't able to enter 100% of humans (it works especially well if the virus depends on humans for its own survival - if the virus was 100% deadly and able to infect 100% of humans then it would end up wiping itself out).

[Gman]

I corrected my post. I meant to say, "I wouldn't say the conscience is hard coded." Meaning that the conscience is more than just a piece of genetic info.

I wouldn't know if conscience is 'in' the DNA.

Conscience is more a electrical/chemical process. It's not like you cut open the brain and find out what someone read that day. Although conscience is stored in memory like a memory chip, it is chemical and electrical. Similar to a computer without the chemical.

"Although a memory begins with perception, it is encoded and stored using the language of electricity and chemicals. Here's how it works: Nerve cells connect with other cells at a point called a synapse. All the action in your brain occurs at these synapses, where electrical pulses carrying messages leap across gaps between cells.

The electrical firing of a pulse across the gap triggers the release of chemical messengers called neurotransmitters. These neurotransmitters diffuse across the spaces between cells, attaching themselves to neighboring cells. Each brain cell can form thousands of links like this, giving a typical brain about 100 trillion synapses. The parts of the brain cells that receive these electric impulses are called dendrites, feathery tips of brain cells that reach out to neighboring brain cells.

The connections between brain cells aren't set in concrete -- they change all the time. Brain cells work together in a network, organizing themselves into groups that specialize in different kinds of information processing. As one brain cell sends signals to another, the synapse between the two gets stronger. The more signals sent between them, the stronger the connection grows. Thus, with each new experience, your brain slightly rewires its physical structure. In fact, how you use your brain helps determine how your brain is organized. It is this flexibility, which scientists call plasticity, that can help your brain rewire itself if it is ever damaged."

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-memory1.htm

[touchingcloth]

Gman - my question to jlay was not so much if consciousness was in the DNA, but rather if he thinks that the objective moral code itself is (in the way in which certain aspects of the phenomenon of consciousness are hard-coded, e.g. turning external stimuli into mental models, being "aware" of oneself, etc.).