Does moral objectivity mean there is a God?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Murder (not war, not capital punishment, etc) is universally accepted as being immoral.

Capital punishment is accepted as OK in the USA, Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi and a few other places, but is considered immoral in most "western" nations including all of Europe.

You will be judged by the company you keep.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Certain moral codes are universal. Does this imply a supreme being? Try and explain your response if possible.

"morals" is a vague idea of an optimal strategy or a part/tool thereof in
the game theory governing the inerplay between individuals and society.


The fact that murder is universally deemed as reprehensible and
under threat of punishment is because you wouldn't have a functional
society if eveyone had to constantly fear being murdered. If people had to
spend all their time looking over their shoulders whether someone was
about to get them or waste resources on acts of revenge they
could not go about constructive jobs, raise families, etc.

A minimal level of security guaranteed to every individual has
proven crucial in order for a society to progress and be successful
in the game between individuals and groups. Societies that can
not guarantee such securities tend to implode and disapper (in a macroscopic
Darwinistic sense). The tool to guarantee the secuity is again
game theorietic - imposing s threat that out weight the benefit of,
e.g., murder.

There may be some inate hardwired "morals" - which, similarly, be
explained by biological selection and survival of primate groups and
societies. (this may be manifested in instincts like empathy etc)
It seem though, to the greater extend, the use of and adherence to
rules that guarantee the safety of individuals is cogniitively/culturally
evolved through time. There are many societies in history (and
even today) where arbirary killing and murder is not taboo - we
tend to look onto these societies as very primitive and lost in the dark
ages.

The full story is presumably a fair amount more complicated and
subtle. (Which it should be since it's a very long one)

Nevetheless, there is no reason to cook up some phantasy black box
instead of trying to understand the dynamics that brought about this
self-control of society (through "morals" of whatever) over the past
tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

Talking about deity doesn't explain anything (that only replaces one
unknown with another and confuses everyone) However, deity has
proven a very useful tool for a society to exercise contral over itself.

Cheers, Thomas

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Royd 0]

Quote

Show me one culture where what they define is murder is acceptable? Murders are carried out every day ... Yes, they are and every culture deplores them. no culture thinks murders are good

How about this culture embracing infanticide for the sake of convenience?

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Quote

Show me one culture where what they define is murder is acceptable? Murders are carried out every day ... Yes, they are and every culture deplores them. no culture thinks murders are good

How about this culture embracing infanticide for the sake of convenience?

Sorry I'm not quite clear on your meaning. If you are looking for a culture that accepts infanticide then in ancient Sparta infants that were judged to be weak or feeble would be killed by exposure on a hillside.

If you were making a crack at legal abortions then disregard.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

I see a BIG difference between murder and war, between murder and capital punishment. You are trying to make my "argument" for me by not distinquishing between killing and murder. My point is simply murder is universally immoral, and for people to kill someone they must call it something else -- if only in their minds. They still keep what most of us would call murder, as a moral code to keep. They justify killing in war, and in the criminal sysytem, but they still believe indescriminant killing is immoral. But let's move on.

Is there a culture where stealing among themselves (not from their enemies, not when times are tough and people steal to survive) just simply stealing among your own community to have what you don't have. Is there a culture where that is valued?

steveOrino

[Lindsey 0]

Is there a culture where stealing among themselves (not from their enemies, not when times are tough and people steal to survive) just simply stealing among your own community to have what you don't have. Is there a culture where that is valued?

I don't know that values like "stealing is wrong" is something that's innate. I think it's probably learned. In what society is the person/group who makes laws and/or carries out punishment not the same group who has something to steal. When you see that your hand gets cut off if you steal, then you teach your children not to do that. When anarchy comes about, do people have the same moral aversion to stealing?

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[JackC 0]

Quote

Is there a culture where stealing among themselves (not from their enemies, not when times are tough and people steal to survive) just simply stealing among your own community to have what you don't have. Is there a culture where that is valued?

It's a well known fact that cheap disposable cigarette lighters are fair game.

I'm amazed you haven't spotted the great gaping hole in your argument yet.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

I see a BIG difference between murder and war, between murder and capital punishment. You are trying to make my "argument" for me by not distinquishing between killing and murder. My point is simply murder is universally immoral, and for people to kill someone they must call it something else -- if only in their minds. They still keep what most of us would call murder, as a moral code to keep. They justify killing in war, and in the criminal sysytem, but they still believe indescriminant killing is immoral. But let's move on.

Is there a culture where stealing among themselves (not from their enemies, not when times are tough and people steal to survive) just simply stealing among your own community to have what you don't have. Is there a culture where that is valued?

Probably not, but there have been cultures where there is no concept of "property", be it private or communal. As a matter of fact some of them still survive (with a nice show of arrogance we like to call them "primitive"), usually they're hunter/gatherer cultures in temperate climate areas, where there is no need to stock food (it's everywhere, you only need to know how to catch it) or to have a shelter (the weather is always fine), and any tool you might need can easily be manufactured from available materials.
In such cultures land cannot belong to anybody, more often than not things are seen the other way around (people "belong" to the land).
Moreover, in such cultures any food that is caught is usually shared freely not necessaily just among family members, not even the fodd you have collected yourself "belongs" to you in the sense that we understand it.
Without the concept of property there is no concept of "stealing", and you can't consider something that (for you) does not exist either moral or immoral.
Therefore, this is not an example of a truly "universal" moral value.

Cheers,

Vale

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

My point is simply murder is universally immoral, and for people to kill someone they must call it something else

And that is precicely the reason that your point doesn't work. Killing people for no real reason (not war, not punishment, not sacrifice) with no moral judgement is and always has been quite widespread in the world. The word murder (as per your definition) is the word people give to a killing they find morally objectionable - so of course they dissaprove of it. Its the most basic circular argument I've ever seen!

On another tack you again admit that unjustified killing is fine, as long as its not called murder. So why on earth would god give us a moral objection to a word and not the action it describes? It makes no sense.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

My point is simply murder is universally immoral, and for people to kill someone they must call it something else

And that is precicely the reason that your point doesn't work. Killing people for no real reason (not war, not punishment, not sacrifice) with no moral judgement is and always has been quite widespread in the world. The word murder (as per your definition) is the word people give to a killing they find morally objectionable - so of course they dissaprove of it. Its the most basic circular argument I've ever seen!

On another tack you again admit that unjustified killing is fine, as long as its not called murder. So why on earth would god give us a moral objection to a word and not the action it describes? It makes no sense.

Being widespread and morally acceptable are different. Thanks you proved my point -- "murder" is universally objectable. If you cannot see the diffrence cultures put on murder and war and justice, that is your issue not mine.

Show me where I admitted unjustified killing is fine. If this "debate" is circular YOU need to let up on the toggle!

How about cultures where stealing from your own community is accepted as being moral. Are there any?

steveOrino

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Show me where I admitted unjustified killing is fine.

Right here.

Quote

When your culture redefines what a human is you can commit autrocities such as genocide Native Americans and Slavery (Africans) While these terrible things happened the culture as a whole, never accepted murder as okay -- You may kill your slave or an Indian, (things considered less than human are okay to kill -- a WHOLE different debate)

Quote

If this "debate" is circular YOU need to let up on the toggle!

It is your argument that is the circular fallacy (people use murder to describe a killing they don't agree with, therefore no one agrees with murder) not our debate. So please tell me - why would god make us morally object to a word and not the actual act of unjustified killing?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Based 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.

I hardly "admitted unjustified killing is fine".


No one agrees with murder is PRECISELY my debate. I NEVER said no culture believes killing is wrong. I'm sorry you don't "get it."

I've used up my energy explaining this easy principle over and over again.

Let's move on. Found those cultures that approve of stealing from within the community, yet?

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

No one agrees with murder is PRECISELY my debate. I NEVER said no culture believes killing is wrong. I'm sorry you don't "get it."

Please read and inwardly digest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

there are cultures that believe killing is fine if they see it in another light than murder.

The fact that they are so easily able to see it in another light shows the flaw in your argument. If god installed in us a moral judgement that murder was wrong we would not be so easily able to redefine our way out of it. We would see murder as wrong no matter what we called it!

Riddle me this, why would god make us morally object to murder within the community - but eminently capable of murdering with no justification those we see as outsiders/ underlings?

It makes a huge amount of sense from a behavioural evolution standpoint but simply does not hold up to a 'God wants us all to be lovely' explanation.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

As I said -- you don't get my premise --- I'll move on.

My original question stems the the debate does moral objectivity indicate there is a God? You explained away murder with semantics (or perhaps I have )

Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community? Or is stealing within the community a universal innate moral code?

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community? Or is stealing within the community a universal innate moral code?

Even if we accept stealing as a universal moral faux pas, how does that imply god exists? Why can it not just imply that people don't like having their crap stolen?

You're still begging the question.

[Butters 0]

Morals were more likely created by man (hopefully through logic and reasoning) in an attempt to create social guidelines that benefited the individuals and the group.

Example: Do Not Steal

Benefits the individual because it lowers your chance of being robbed.

Benefits the group because if someone is robbed there are complications (loss of possesion, loss of trust, ...)

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

As I said -- you don't get my premise --- I'll move on.

My original question stems the the debate does moral objectivity indicate there is a God? You explained away murder with semantics (or perhaps I have )

Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community? Or is stealing within the community a universal innate moral code?

The same argument that was given for murder can be given for stealing. Societies have never believed the act of killing someone is wrong in and of itself, it depended on who and why. Societies have never believed the act of stealing from someone is wrong in and of itself, it depended on who, what, and why. This is because morals were most likely created by man (hopefully through logic and reasoning) in an attempt to create social guidelines that benefited the individuals and the group. (If someone isn't part of the group then they are excluded from the moral guidelines, so you can murder or steal from them.)

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,602]

Quote

Are there any cultures that approve of stealing within the community?

There are cultures that don't understand the concept of stealing. What's one person's is shared with others willingly.

Violating the common rules of the local society seems to be a pretty universal faux-pas. However, since the rules of local society are man-made, I'm not sure I'd say that God is in charge of specifics. That God made us in a way that most people desire some order, and that we use the tools we have to generate that order -- that I can believe.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Butters 0]

You are trying to state that universal morals exists, that God created universal morals, and therefore God exists. The problem is you are stating that God created universal morals before you prove that God exists. This is bad logic, you have to prove that God exists before you can prove that God created anything.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,602]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that universal morals don't exist, but that people seem to have a need for some sort of social structure, so they invent one. There's a concept of "right" and "wrong" built into most of them. And they're different for different societies.

Therefore, if there's a God, what might be said was that he gave us the tools to deal with this innate need. I choose to believe in God, but I don't believe in universal morals. And I think that trying to either prove or disprove the existence of a god is fruitless and silly. That's why it's called faith.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Butters 0]

You must have posted while I was typing. Sorry, I was replying to the original poster.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Remster 30]

Quote

you don't get my premise

Steve: we get your premisse, we just found holes the size of Australia in it.

Remster

[Nightingale 0]

Steve, it seems to me that no country will officially sanction "murder." However, the reason for this seems to be that they simply don't have to.

They change their laws and twist their definitions and search for a way to justify to themselves, their people, and the rest of the world, why they're arbitrarily killing people they don't like.

Examples:

Namibia (1904)
Turkey, (1915 Armenian genocide)
Ukraine (1932)
The Holocaust
The Khmer Rouge (1975 Cambodian genocide)
Guatemala (1982)
Rwanda, (1994)
Bosnia (1995)

Better list here

"People don't simply wake up one day and commit genocide. They start by setting themselves apart from others, diminishing the stature of those adhering to dissenting beliefs in small, insidious steps. They begin by saying, 'We're the righteous, and we'll tolerate those others.' And as the toleration diminishes over time, the inevitable harms are overlooked." -religioustolerance.org

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

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