I submit that 'whimsical' and 'subjective' are synonymous. You could include 'arbitrary', or 'fickle' in there, too, and it would describe the same thing. For what is 'subjective morality', other than a personal preference, or belief? And, in a godless universe, it is all subjective, contrived, imagined, and a delusion. 'I believe theft is wrong.' Who cares? Theft has been an essential element of animal survival forever. So if i can get away with taking something without danger to my person, why not? If theft gives me and my progeny added benefits, and enhances our survival, how is it wrong? No other animal society condemns theft, why should humans? Good theft would be a virtue, in a godless universe. Weak, poorly equipped humans, unable to defend themselves, or engage in skillful theft, are just easy pickings, and will not advance their genes. 'Jambalaya is good. Adultery is bad.' These are just subjective preferences, with only human opinions to guide them. They are, in fact, arbitrary and whimsical, if you posit a godless universe. ONLY if you posit Universal Morality, embedded by some unseen Source, can you appeal to it as 'objective'.
Well, why did you bother writing in the first place? And that's not a rhetorical question, I'm not trying to imply that you shouldn't have bothered, I want people to write on the forum. However, I imagine the answer to why you should bother to argue your arguments is very similar to why you should bother writing them at all. Then again, it might not be, so I figured I'd better ask first. It seems to me lack of interest isn't a good reason to let something stand. Nobody's winning in a legal court by saying evidence does not interest them. Of course, this isn't a court of law, you're allowed to not do things that don't interest you, you should just be aware that it is indistinguishable from not knowing what you're talking about.
If one understands the word objective. Yes. Every human, in every culture, all have the exact same morals for every detail of life.
If one talks to God daily and hears God speaking to oneself, is that person hearing voices in their head?
I submit that they are not. I have given an example of a concept of morality stemming from evolution, which is not subject to human whims (just like us having two arms isn't) yet is not objective, it originates in the human (and therefore does not apply to, for instance bees). I have pointed this out, yet when you see it, you effectively copy paste the stuff above, which does not resolve my comment. It seems to me you have mostly likely taken a different interpretation of the word subjective than is normally used when discussing subjective/objective morality. Who are "your progeny", from an evolutionary point of view? It is not only your immediate family. As far as the gene is concerned, everyone who has that same gene is equally important. If I screw over another human and that human shares that gene (and humans share the vast majority of all genes with one another), then there will be fewer of that gene, and that is against the evolutionary pressure of that gene. In the grand scheme of things, I haven't actually benefited the gene. Your argument about benefits to your progeny only applies on an evolutionary scale if you include all humans in your progeny. There are of course corrections to this, we are more sure that our immediate family shares our genes, so we are usually better at applying morality to them. If someone breaks morality, we infer that they are less likely to have the moral gene, and we are less inclined to be moral towards them, etc.. There are also other reasons why theft and other immoral behaviour is beneficial only in a narrow, shortsighted way. In a social species such as humans, individuals may gang up on an immoral individual. Similarly, there is interspecies competition, a group that fails to have each others' backs is more likely to get eaten by lions etc.. But most of that is beside the point, I'm not pushing a particular kind of evolutionary morality here, I'm making my point using a simplified version. My point is not that evolutionary morality is the truth, my point is that the idea of evolutionary morality shows you an instance of morality which is subjective without being whimsical, which in turn shows that the two are not the same thing. Arguably, they are no less arbitrary in a universe with a god. If personal preference is thrown to the wind, then so is God's decree. The fact that we don't know how God supposedly generates morality does not mean that it can solve the is/ought problem.
It is not a good argument. IF... there exists a Creator-God, who has the Ability to create life and the universe.. AND IF... this Being embedded moral values in man, as a conscience-guide for his behavior.. THEN.. These embedded guides of conscience ought to be observed. Defying them could have significant consequences, as the sting of conscience portends. To claim that God's standards are 'arbitrary', or 'just like ours!', is folly and delusion. Our finite reasoning, information, and perspective cannot compare with an infinite, all powerful Creator of the universe. We can only assume, that this 'conscience' was embedded for a reason, as violations cause great pain to our psyche.
An irrelevant deflection. Morality is either: 1. A Real Thing, embedded by God, OR 2. A human construct, for manipulation. IF.. there is no God, THEN.. morality can only be a human construct.. a subjective opinion with no basis in absolutes. A Creator-God is the only Source of morality, as a Real Thing.
It is not my main point, you seem to have forgot to answer that. I don't see that the "THEN" clause follows necessarily from the previous two. Neither IF clause includes an ought, yet the THEN statement does. You seem to try to fly some kind of logic in under the radar. You may be right in that defiance may result in consequences, but that only tells us that it is likely to be done, not that it ought to be done. Simply calling it a delusion does not an argument make. It is not reasoning, information or perspective that gives us (or fails to give us) the ability to create morals. We can for instance create thought experiments in which we have all the information and all the results to all the reasoning, yet it does not give us access to "ought", even within that experiment. The is/ought problem cannot be resolved by simply cranking up the amount of reasoning you somehow apply to it. I have yet to see a reason to believe that. Violations to our bodies cause pain to our bodies as well as psyche, that doesn't seem to be a reason to believe it couldn't have arisen from for instance evolution.
That is the assumption, but with no evidence or explanation as to 'how' or 'why' evolution would embed such delusions within us. Theft is the obvious example, but you could include adultery, or any number of human moral values. Any 'sense' of morality as a Real Thing, can only be a delusion, in a godless universe. There is only instinct and human decree, and nothing to embed a conscience. IOW, 'conscience' is a human construct, for manipulation. It is not real, but a delusion, in a godless universe.
It's a bold move to respond to me calling you out on leaving my arguments out by leaving that argument (and the argument I commented on you leaving out). I have given you several mechanics for it. But either way, my argument is not that it arose from evolution, my argument is that the thought experiment of a morality arising from evolution shows that there is a difference between whimsical and subjective morality. I have shown you a good three or four arguments which you have ignored. What is it about a conscience that makes it any less embedable by for instance evolution than instinct? I'd say morality is a bit like love. Even if it is instilled by evolution (and very effectively so), there is nothing false about it when it occurs.
It's not a deflection. No God, no morality, according to you. If there is a god and morality, something created that god. Presumably then, the creator of god would need morals. Even if morality is a human construct, which it is, so what? It's still morality. Since humans create words and define words, they are what humans define them to be.
Then why did you post it? And again, I do not wish to indicate that you shouldn't have posted it, but I am curious to a reason which favours writing it but not explaining it.
..according to simple logic. Morality, to be a Real Thing, must have a Source. A godless universe provides no source. ..an unproven and likely unprovable assumption. If something greater than God exists, then that would be the True God. Relative, whimsical morality, that has no universal basis. You pick whatever you like, and everyone else does the same. Fickle, subjective morality, is no morality at all. It is recognizing it for what it is: a human construct, for manipulation. A delusion. It is not real. It is made up by men. And that is how we have defined the words, as a arbitration between 'right and wrong', with a universal human consensus on what 'right and wrong!' means. It is rational conclusion, if you posit a Creator embedding His Rules within us. But it is an irrational delusion, to posit 'morality!', in a godless universe.
I've only seen the 'evolution did it!' argument for morality. And even if it did, there are no reasons to observe it, or ignore it. Expediency is the deciding factor, not anything absolute. For example: You see a hot babe. Your instincts want you to hit on her, with the hopes of spreading your genes. But your conscience tells you it would be 'wrong!' to cheat on your wife. The LAW might punish adultery, or allow it. It is usually more fickle, and changes with the social currents. It does not always reflect a universal moral sense. It reflects the values of those in power, mostly. Your conscience (at first, especially), would condemn you for entertaining the notion, and especially acting on it, even if your wife never found out. THIS is an example of a rational moral choice. You override your instincts, consider the Law, but mostly reason from a moral base. If you live in a godless universe, why not spread your genes, and bang the girl? You can hide it, and even if someone does find out, why should their deluded moralizing control you? It makes no difference, to the universe, whether you bang the girl or not. And if you do procreate (following your instincts), then the resultant progeny is good, for you and your genes. You have fulfilled your only purpose in life, other than survival. But, IF.. you live in a God made universe, AND IF.. this God embedded a moral sense in humanity, THEN.. your observation or defiance of the internal moral code may have consequences beyond the material. You may damage your soul, or psyche, or 'something' inside, that provided the moral compass.
Manking is the source Most all things human wise has no universal basis. Which is why there is no objective morals. Yes, it is made up by men. There is no other source. What consensus is there. How did this creator embed its rules? What make you think it has male qualities? It is more irrational to posit some morality on something that know one knows what it is.
Exactly. In a godless universe, 'morality!' can only be a human construct. It is not real. Only in a God made universe can there be a Real, 'morality'. ..then we agree. i observe a common, universal 'sense' of basic moral values, in the human animal. Irrelevant. The premise is only that the Creator DID. How or why might satisfy Intellectual curiosity, but it does not affect the reality of the morality, if indeed the Creator embedded it.
That's all morality is, a man made construct. It's also why it's not objective. If we have morality today, and we do, it is real. What basics? There are some close to universal senses, but do we know about every civilization in the world? Even out in the bush of jungles? Why is that the only premise? Maybe there's a creator and said creator set forth NO morals to humans.
You misspelled "inane". That aside, when my adversaries are unable or unwilling to provide answers I find acceptable, I have not the slightest expectation that they will give a damn that I find their answers unacceptable.
Follow the line of quotes. I was saying I have provided three or four arguments of mechanics by which there is an evolutionary pressure for morals (the benefits of a "moral" society, the fact that genes will benefit other copies of itself in others, interspecies competition). "Evolution did it" is not an argument, it is a thought experiment showing the difference between whimsical and subjective morals, a point which I have repeatedly called my main point, but which has remained unanswered. Humans have high cost children, and children with stable families tend to do well. Even if you have fewer of them, they tend to compete well for resources and mates. Thus, there is an evolutionary pressure to have stable families. That's not always the evolutionary pressure (it depends on environment and situation), which is why the instinct to hit on others still exists, but to ignore the pressure to invest in our children would be to consider only half of the facts. I would say in a God-made universe, morals are arbitrary. God could have decided that adultery was good, and you'd simply argue the other way.
