What is Morality?

[BrianBaru]

and about my question--and I am not positing rights or wrongs in this question--consider it philosophical--about if the religious tend toward absolutism and the non toward relativism?

Flash - I like your way of thinking, and vastly higher tolerance bar than mine. I think you are on the right track. Keep up the good fight!

As to BrianBaru's comments:
"I will posit the idea that there are moral absolutes. These absolutes do not limit our choices because we have free will, and we can do what we want. But we can apply a fairly simple standard to know if what we do is moral.

God’s first command to Adam was “Go forth and multiply.” God’s first command to Noah after the flood was “Go forth and multiply.” Even if you don’t believe in God or the Bible, survival of the species is a priority. The purpose of a code of morality is to ensure that we humans survive as a species. And then, to test if something is inherently moral, ie, helps us survive as a species, we ask “If everyone did this, would the species survive?”"

Really? You posit the idea of moral absolutes, and go straight to Judeo-Christian teachings - even to the point of homophobia - which apparently is a moral absolute because the Old Testament says so, and might endanger survival of the species.

He then goes on to call THATCHER of all people morally just because she was anti-socialist, so a decent sprinkling of neo-classical economic theory thrown in.

Some very mild criticism ensues, followed by justification and a failure to apply his own standards of proof and argument from CF.

Nauseating indeed.

"Really? You posit the idea of moral absolutes, and go straight to Judeo-Christian teachings"

You are missing the point. I am suggesting what you call the Judeo-Christian teachings could be the result of a Natural Law. It codifies those things that should be avoided because they could lead to the destruction of humanity, if all partake.

All Life is designed to survive and reproduce. I referenced Scripture, yes, because those were the first commands from God, just to show the importance of reproduction. Even without God, survival and reproduction is the prime directive. Humans may have received this directive from God, or figured it out on their own. This is an absolute of life. Morality are those rules which keeps humanity alive. I suggest that we test if something is indeed an absolute by asking, “If everyone did it, do we survive?”

I referenced Thatcher in reference to stealing. Government stealing is the worst kind, because you can’t defend against it. The Beatles wrote about this in Taxman. You can submit, or leave.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You are missing the point. I am suggesting what you call the Judeo-Christian teachings could be the result of a Natural Law. It codifies those things that should be avoided because they could lead to the destruction of humanity, if all partake.

All Life is designed to survive and reproduce. I referenced Scripture, yes, because those were the first commands from God, just to show the importance of reproduction. Even without God, survival and reproduction is the prime directive. Humans may have received this directive from God, or figured it out on their own. This is an absolute of life. Morality are those rules which keeps humanity alive. I suggest that we test if something is indeed an absolute by asking, “If everyone did it, do we survive?”

I referenced Thatcher in reference to stealing. Government stealing is the worst kind, because you can’t defend against it. The Beatles wrote about this in Taxman. You can submit, or leave.

I think my own morals are probably best described by natural law too, but I come to very different conclusions on the moral questions you've put forward.

My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?

An alternative natural law perspective on homosexuality is that same-sex relationships can embody the principles of human flourishing, emotional fulfillment, and mutual growth, extending beyond just procreation. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of love, fidelity, and support within relationships, aligning with natural law's focus on rationality, moral agency, and respect for human dignity. It recognizes the capacity of same-sex couples to contribute positively to personal development and the broader community, suggesting that such relationships can be morally aligned with the principles of natural law.

In lots of ways socialism also comports with natural law. Collective ownership can lead to greater common good in some cases. Give what you can, take what you need, is an economic principle that promotes human dignity. Property rights have never been absolute and something like the responsible use of resources for the common good seems to plausibly align with at least part of human nature (e.g., resource sharing within clans or families). There are good reasons to be skeptical of the benefits of real-life socialism, but in principle it doesn't seem at odds with a natural law worldview.

[BrianBaru]

You are missing the point. I am suggesting what you call the Judeo-Christian teachings could be the result of a Natural Law. It codifies those things that should be avoided because they could lead to the destruction of humanity, if all partake.

All Life is designed to survive and reproduce. I referenced Scripture, yes, because those were the first commands from God, just to show the importance of reproduction. Even without God, survival and reproduction is the prime directive. Humans may have received this directive from God, or figured it out on their own. This is an absolute of life. Morality are those rules which keeps humanity alive. I suggest that we test if something is indeed an absolute by asking, “If everyone did it, do we survive?”

I referenced Thatcher in reference to stealing. Government stealing is the worst kind, because you can’t defend against it. The Beatles wrote about this in Taxman. You can submit, or leave.

I think my own morals are probably best described by natural law too, but I come to very different conclusions on the moral questions you've put forward.

My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?

An alternative natural law perspective on homosexuality is that same-sex relationships can embody the principles of human flourishing, emotional fulfillment, and mutual growth, extending beyond just procreation. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of love, fidelity, and support within relationships, aligning with natural law's focus on rationality, moral agency, and respect for human dignity. It recognizes the capacity of same-sex couples to contribute positively to personal development and the broader community, suggesting that such relationships can be morally aligned with the principles of natural law.

In lots of ways socialism also comports with natural law. Collective ownership can lead to greater common good in some cases. Give what you can, take what you need, is an economic principle that promotes human dignity. Property rights have never been absolute and something like the responsible use of resources for the common good seems to plausibly align with at least part of human nature (e.g., resource sharing within clans or families). There are good reasons to be skeptical of the benefits of real-life socialism, but in principle it doesn't seem at odds with a natural law worldview.

“My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?”

I too believe morality is written in our DNA. Survival and reproduction are the most basic. Without those two, we die out.

What is written? Without absolutes, everything becomes relative.

Here are two examples of an issue of morality as put forth in two major religions:

The example in Islam on forgiveness Sahih Muslim, Book 17: 4206

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

The example of Christianity on forgiveness (John 8:1-11)

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

So one religion teaches killing for sin, the other teaches forgiveness. Which is morally right? If all sinners are killed, eventually we run out of people.

We are all sinners and fall short. But against what standard do we hold ourselves? Survival and reproduction may seem simplistic as a basis of morality. It is an absolute standard that can be applied with a little thought.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You are missing the point. I am suggesting what you call the Judeo-Christian teachings could be the result of a Natural Law. It codifies those things that should be avoided because they could lead to the destruction of humanity, if all partake.

All Life is designed to survive and reproduce. I referenced Scripture, yes, because those were the first commands from God, just to show the importance of reproduction. Even without God, survival and reproduction is the prime directive. Humans may have received this directive from God, or figured it out on their own. This is an absolute of life. Morality are those rules which keeps humanity alive. I suggest that we test if something is indeed an absolute by asking, “If everyone did it, do we survive?”

I referenced Thatcher in reference to stealing. Government stealing is the worst kind, because you can’t defend against it. The Beatles wrote about this in Taxman. You can submit, or leave.

I think my own morals are probably best described by natural law too, but I come to very different conclusions on the moral questions you've put forward.

My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?

An alternative natural law perspective on homosexuality is that same-sex relationships can embody the principles of human flourishing, emotional fulfillment, and mutual growth, extending beyond just procreation. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of love, fidelity, and support within relationships, aligning with natural law's focus on rationality, moral agency, and respect for human dignity. It recognizes the capacity of same-sex couples to contribute positively to personal development and the broader community, suggesting that such relationships can be morally aligned with the principles of natural law.

In lots of ways socialism also comports with natural law. Collective ownership can lead to greater common good in some cases. Give what you can, take what you need, is an economic principle that promotes human dignity. Property rights have never been absolute and something like the responsible use of resources for the common good seems to plausibly align with at least part of human nature (e.g., resource sharing within clans or families). There are good reasons to be skeptical of the benefits of real-life socialism, but in principle it doesn't seem at odds with a natural law worldview.

“My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?”

I too believe morality is written in our DNA. Survival and reproduction are the most basic. Without those two, we die out.

What is written? Without absolutes, everything becomes relative.

Here are two examples of an issue of morality as put forth in two major religions:

The example in Islam on forgiveness Sahih Muslim, Book 17: 4206

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

The example of Christianity on forgiveness (John 8:1-11)

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

So one religion teaches killing for sin, the other teaches forgiveness. Which is morally right? If all sinners are killed, eventually we run out of people.

We are all sinners and fall short. But against what standard do we hold ourselves? Survival and reproduction may seem simplistic as a basis of morality. It is an absolute standard that can be applied with a little thought.

I agree that without absolutes we risk falling into a relativistic trap where we have to give moral ascent to everything and anything.

I guess I'm just unconvinced that, because of this, we necessarily must posit that species survival is therefore the best and only moral absolute.

I suspect there is a multifaceted good we could call "human flourishing", which requires continued human existence, but also includes balancing against other values.

Moctave's post earlier about the logic of a morality based purely on survival underscores this point perfectly. We get nothing like a moral society (in my view) if the only absolute we entertain is survival - there are way too many ways to trade off survival against values like dignity, autonomy, minimizing suffering, etc. and I'm not willing to part with all of those.

I strongly suspect that lettings gays be gay, a condition which they find within their own nature, is not an aberration, doesn't meaningfully compromise the persistence of the human species (if it did, it would have been made a genetic impossibility already).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

^ ran out of time for an edit. My final point would have been that even if homosexuality contravened one aspect of natural law (if we all only did gay stuff there'd be no future generations), happy homosexual couples also contribute a lot of other natural law-based values to our society.

[CaptainFritz28]

This whole discussion about what is the basis for natural law leads to one conclusion - nature. The question then becomes, what is most natural? What is most intrinsically naturally moral? With that, we then recede into relativism. What is natural for one may be unnatural for another. A psychokiller may think it natural to kill, because that is how they were born. So then, nature becomes a tyranny of the majority, because what is natural is what the norm is, or what the majority is.

Hence, I believe there must be a standard, outside of nature and thus outside of relativism, which determines morality. The survival of the species doesn't work. "Human flourishing" is relative to what the majority thinks flourishing entails. There must be some absolute that supercedes this. Something provided the rules of nature, that which governs the physical world. Whatever that is likely has the authority to govern our morality as well. Something... supernatural...

If nature is all there is, then nature is circular. It must have created itself, existed for all time, and have ultimate power to create and govern morality. Sound familiar?
So it's either a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called nature, or it's a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called God, which created nature. Either way, you end up with something very monotheistic.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This whole discussion about what is the basis for natural law leads to one conclusion - nature. The question then becomes, what is most natural? What is most intrinsically naturally moral? With that, we then recede into relativism. What is natural for one may be unnatural for another. A psychokiller may think it natural to kill, because that is how they were born. So then, nature becomes a tyranny of the majority, because what is natural is what the norm is, or what the majority is.

Hence, I believe there must be a standard, outside of nature and thus outside of relativism, which determines morality. The survival of the species doesn't work. "Human flourishing" is relative to what the majority thinks flourishing entails. There must be some absolute that supercedes this. Something provided the rules of nature, that which governs the physical world. Whatever that is likely has the authority to govern our morality as well. Something... supernatural...

If nature is all there is, then nature is circular. It must have created itself, existed for all time, and have ultimate power to create and govern morality. Sound familiar?
So it's either a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called nature, or it's a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called God, which created nature. Either way, you end up with something very monotheistic.

A very quick response to this would be that natural law is not just the naturalism fallacy. There really is an objective way to talk about what is in our nature, not all suppositions about our nature are equally-valid.

There really does seem to be a human nature to contend with. There is a reason why I think it's wrong for a human to kill and eat another person, while I'm much less fussed if a bear does it. Any intelligible supernatural code would also need to take our nature into account.

And besides, it's a misreading of natural law to think it says whatever is most natural is most right. The most important other component of natural law is a recognition that human reason can be used a means to discern morality - if we have within us the ability to evaluate a process that seems natural as antithetical to our flourishing (e.g., widespread psychopathy), we aren't compelled to condone it. This seems quite similar to how Christian moral philosophy works in practice (default to the Bible, but use your brain to avoid literally interpreting the words to mean genocide your enemies and valorize slavery).

I'd add that if a debate about our "nature" is going to be inconclusive and prone to subjective analysis (for sure, it will), one based on a supernatural realm that we, by definition, can't have evidence of seems even more likely to fall into this trap (as evidenced by the very fundamental moral disagreements religious folks encounter even when starting from the same Biblical principles).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If nature is all there is, then nature is circular. It must have created itself, existed for all time, and have ultimate power to create and govern morality. Sound familiar?
So it's either a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called nature, or it's a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called God, which created nature. Either way, you end up with something very monotheistic.

On second read this point got me thinking.

Yes, I do think nature creates itself indefinitely. And yes, I do think that the way nature is at any point is relevant to morality.

If humans were exactly like we are today, except they had no conscious experience at all, then I would say there's no such thing as human morality - it wouldn't be in our nature to have morally-relevant experiences or decisions. Likewise, if humans were genetically different and actually *loved* being tortured, then I'd reevaluate my stance about the badness of torture. It doesn't seem to matter much to me whether this is a process directed by God or one that developed in Its absence.

[CaptainFritz28]

A very quick response to this would be that natural law is not just the naturalism fallacy. There really is an objective way to talk about what is in our nature, not all suppositions about our nature are equally-valid.

I agree, but how do we determine what that objective standard is?

There really does seem to be a human nature to contend with. There is a reason why I think it's wrong for a human to kill and eat another person, while I'm much less fussed if a bear does it. Any intelligible supernatural code would also need to take our nature into account.

Again, I agree. Human nature definitely exists, and has to do with morals. And yes, any supernatural code must explain human nature as well.

And besides, it's a misreading of natural law to think it says whatever is most natural is most right. The most important other component of natural law is a recognition that human reason can be used a means to discern morality - if we have within us the ability to evaluate a process that seems natural as antithetical to our flourishing (e.g., widespread psychopathy), we aren't compelled to condone it. This seems quite similar to how Christian moral philosophy works in practice (default to the Bible, but use your brain to avoid literally interpreting the words to mean genocide your enemies and valorize slavery).

So herein lies my question - what is nature's standard? If it is purely logic, then there really isn't one, because logic alone can be used to justify just about anything, and unlike the Bible or other religions, logic doesn't have a standard to go off of.

I'd add that if a debate about our "nature" is going to be inconclusive and prone to subjective analysis (for sure, it will), one based on a supernatural realm that we, by definition, can't have evidence of seems even more likely to fall into this trap (as evidenced by the very fundamental moral disagreements religious folks encounter even when starting from the same Biblical principles).

If we want to debate the validity of different religions to each other, we can, and I have a great deal of reason to believe that the Bible, but not other religious writings, is ultimate truth.

As far as the Bible itself goes, A) We've gone over already that people lie about what the Bible says in order to accumulate personal power (health & wealth heresies as a prime example). B) We have not seen an issue in the Bible which cannot be resolved with basic logic, and if we want to go back to slavery we can, but I've made logical arguments for the Bible's condemnation of virtually every form of slavery, to which the only response has been "well some people say otherwise." Going back to point A, I'll bet you a lot of plantation owners in the southern USA cared a lot less about what the Bible actually says than they cared about keeping the power which slaveholding gave them. Simple logic leads to the conclusion that the Bible condones all slavery except for self induced debt servitude, and even then the slave must be treated with all the dignity and value of a human being. C) What people do in the name of the Bible is not always a reflection of the Bible's teachings. The Bible says do not murder, but the Crusaders murdered. Does that mean that the Bible is subjective about murder? No, it just means that people who call themselves Christians are not perfect, and sometimes do evil in the name of good.

Put simply, there is nothing to indicate that the Bible is not the proper candidate to be the objective ultimate moral standard. However, there must be some standard, and nature or natural law alone, without a standard and based purely on logic, is subjective.

[CaptainFritz28]

If nature is all there is, then nature is circular. It must have created itself, existed for all time, and have ultimate power to create and govern morality. Sound familiar?
So it's either a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called nature, or it's a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called God, which created nature. Either way, you end up with something very monotheistic.

On second read this point got me thinking.

Yes, I do think nature creates itself indefinitely. And yes, I do think that the way nature is at any point is relevant to morality.

If humans were exactly like we are today, except they had no conscious experience at all, then I would say there's no such thing as human morality - it wouldn't be in our nature to have morally-relevant experiences or decisions. Likewise, if humans were genetically different and actually *loved* being tortured, then I'd reevaluate my stance about the badness of torture. It doesn't seem to matter much to me whether this is a process directed by God or one that developed in Its absence.

And my contention is that nature was designed by God, and the reason that we don't generally love torture is because God willed it as so.
Basically all you're saying is that your God is nature, which I think is a step in the right direction, but also not all the way there.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

A very quick response to this would be that natural law is not just the naturalism fallacy. There really is an objective way to talk about what is in our nature, not all suppositions about our nature are equally-valid.

I agree, but how do we determine what that objective standard is?

That's the fun part. We don't know what the objective standard is. I think your contention and mine, though, is even if it's not perfectly knowable, we have good reasons to think we can still reason our way towards reasonable approximations of it.

There really does seem to be a human nature to contend with. There is a reason why I think it's wrong for a human to kill and eat another person, while I'm much less fussed if a bear does it. Any intelligible supernatural code would also need to take our nature into account.

Again, I agree. Human nature definitely exists, and has to do with morals. And yes, any supernatural code must explain human nature as well.

And besides, it's a misreading of natural law to think it says whatever is most natural is most right. The most important other component of natural law is a recognition that human reason can be used a means to discern morality - if we have within us the ability to evaluate a process that seems natural as antithetical to our flourishing (e.g., widespread psychopathy), we aren't compelled to condone it. This seems quite similar to how Christian moral philosophy works in practice (default to the Bible, but use your brain to avoid literally interpreting the words to mean genocide your enemies and valorize slavery).

So herein lies my question - what is nature's standard? If it is purely logic, then there really isn't one, because logic alone can be used to justify just about anything, and unlike the Bible or other religions, logic doesn't have a standard to go off of.

I don't claim to know it perfectly. The existence of suffering seems like *one* of nature's standards - it's real, experienced, and seems like a fact about our nature that comes with moral consequences.

I think we can apply reason to nature (substitute "God" for "nature" if you prefer) and come up with ideas about morality that aren't perfect, can't be perfectly proven, and yet aren't just totally stabs in the dark.

I'd add that if a debate about our "nature" is going to be inconclusive and prone to subjective analysis (for sure, it will), one based on a supernatural realm that we, by definition, can't have evidence of seems even more likely to fall into this trap (as evidenced by the very fundamental moral disagreements religious folks encounter even when starting from the same Biblical principles).

If we want to debate the validity of different religions to each other, we can, and I have a great deal of reason to believe that the Bible, but not other religious writings, is ultimate truth.

As far as the Bible itself goes, A) We've gone over already that people lie about what the Bible says in order to accumulate personal power (health & wealth heresies as a prime example). B) We have not seen an issue in the Bible which cannot be resolved with basic logic, and if we want to go back to slavery we can, but I've made logical arguments for the Bible's condemnation of virtually every form of slavery, to which the only response has been "well some people say otherwise." Going back to point A, I'll bet you a lot of plantation owners in the southern USA cared a lot less about what the Bible actually says than they cared about keeping the power which slaveholding gave them. Simple logic leads to the conclusion that the Bible condones all slavery except for self induced debt servitude, and even then the slave must be treated with all the dignity and value of a human being. C) What people do in the name of the Bible is not always a reflection of the Bible's teachings. The Bible says do not murder, but the Crusaders murdered. Does that mean that the Bible is subjective about murder? No, it just means that people who call themselves Christians are not perfect, and sometimes do evil in the name of good.

Put simply, there is nothing to indicate that the Bible is not the proper candidate to be the objective ultimate moral standard. However, there must be some standard, and nature or natural law alone, without a standard and based purely on logic, is subjective.

I don't know if this part is a great use of our time. We've already spent a *lot* of words about whether or not human logic + bible necessarily results in good moral outcomes and I'm not convinced it does. This isn't a criticism unique to the application of biblical morality - if my preferred stance is something like natural law sans God, then it's equally true that human logic + human nature doesn't necessarily equal good moral outcomes.

Likewise, I deeply suspect that I will not be convinced that the Bible is the proper candidate for the objective ultimate moral standard. This *requires* a faith commitment I'm not willing to take and to my knowledge there's no good way to reason someone into this belief.

[BrianBaru]

This whole discussion about what is the basis for natural law leads to one conclusion - nature. The question then becomes, what is most natural? What is most intrinsically naturally moral? With that, we then recede into relativism. What is natural for one may be unnatural for another. A psychokiller may think it natural to kill, because that is how they were born. So then, nature becomes a tyranny of the majority, because what is natural is what the norm is, or what the majority is.

Hence, I believe there must be a standard, outside of nature and thus outside of relativism, which determines morality. The survival of the species doesn't work. "Human flourishing" is relative to what the majority thinks flourishing entails. There must be some absolute that supercedes this. Something provided the rules of nature, that which governs the physical world. Whatever that is likely has the authority to govern our morality as well. Something... supernatural...

If nature is all there is, then nature is circular. It must have created itself, existed for all time, and have ultimate power to create and govern morality. Sound familiar?
So it's either a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called nature, or it's a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called God, which created nature. Either way, you end up with something very monotheistic.

“The survival of the species doesn't work.”

It is the only thing that works. I’m Roman Catholic. I believe we were created by God for a purpose. I’ll repeat - God’s first command to Adam was “Go forth and multiply.” God’s first command to Noah after the flood was “Go forth and multiply.” God wants us to survive and multiply. Survive.

Survival of His creation - we humans - is God’s desire.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

“The survival of the species doesn't work.”

It is the only thing that works. I’m Roman Catholic. I believe we were created by God for a purpose. I’ll repeat - God’s first command to Adam was “Go forth and multiply.” God’s first command to Noah after the flood was “Go forth and multiply.” God wants us to survive and multiply. Survive.

Survival of His creation - we humans - is God’s desire.

I wonder if you could reply to Moctave's post yesterday in particular? I found his critique to be very powerful and I'm curious what the best argument is against it.

It seems to me like this style of survival-based moral absolutism would definitely not create a world that is in line with other Catholic ideals. We could trade away beauty, dignity, and love for survival in so many instances. Prayer and other Catholic traditions are themselves probably not aligned with a maximalist vision of human survival and multiplication (that time could be spent breeding, improving the food system, establishing off-earth colonies). Aldous Huxley's Brave New World would align with a maximum-survival vision of the human race, but it involves raising genetically engineered people in vats, trying to enforce a human monoculture, placating the masses with constant drug use, etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

This whole discussion about what is the basis for natural law leads to one conclusion - nature. The question then becomes, what is most natural? What is most intrinsically naturally moral? With that, we then recede into relativism. What is natural for one may be unnatural for another. A psychokiller may think it natural to kill, because that is how they were born. So then, nature becomes a tyranny of the majority, because what is natural is what the norm is, or what the majority is.

Hence, I believe there must be a standard, outside of nature and thus outside of relativism, which determines morality. The survival of the species doesn't work. "Human flourishing" is relative to what the majority thinks flourishing entails. There must be some absolute that supercedes this. Something provided the rules of nature, that which governs the physical world. Whatever that is likely has the authority to govern our morality as well. Something... supernatural...

If nature is all there is, then nature is circular. It must have created itself, existed for all time, and have ultimate power to create and govern morality. Sound familiar?
So it's either a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called nature, or it's a circular, self-existing, infinite, and all-powerful being called God, which created nature. Either way, you end up with something very monotheistic.

“The survival of the species doesn't work.”

It is the only thing that works. I’m Roman Catholic. I believe we were created by God for a purpose. I’ll repeat - God’s first command to Adam was “Go forth and multiply.” God’s first command to Noah after the flood was “Go forth and multiply.” God wants us to survive and multiply. Survive.

Survival of His creation - we humans - is God’s desire.

Doesn't work as an ultimate standard. God didn't create us just to survive. He created us to glorify Him, and sometimes the things we do to ensure our survival are not glorifying to Him. The Tower of Babel would have ensured humanity's survival, and living all together with one language would too, but that was not God's design.

I certainly agree that something that kills the species is going to be bad. However, I don't think morality can be limited to just that.

[BrianBaru]

"I certainly agree that something that kills the species is going to be bad. However, I don't think morality can be limited to just that."

If we don't survive, we won't be able to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

It starts with His first command - Go forth and multiply. Survive. All His commands help us survive.

[CaptainFritz28]

"I certainly agree that something that kills the species is going to be bad. However, I don't think morality can be limited to just that."

If we don't survive, we won't be able to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

It starts with His first command - Go forth and multiply. Survive. All His commands help us survive.

Certainly, that is the first commandment, but not the greatest. The greatest commandment is given as loving God and loving others. Survival is necessary to do that, sure, but it is not the end goal. Survival is a means to the end of glorifying God and loving Him. As the means, it is necessary to the end, but it is not the end in and of itself.

[Crazy Anglican]

This is my final semester in high school, so I have a lot of things to attend to. Hopefully I'll have the time sometime soon to make a sort of blanket post to cover all the topics I've missed.

No beer for you.




Also, isn't it kind of the point that morality isn't natural. If people aspire to it and amend their behavior in an attempt to increase it, then it isn't the natural state of being for humans.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Also, isn't it kind of the point that morality isn't natural. If people aspire to it and amend their behavior in an attempt to increase it, then it isn't the natural state of being for humans.

This is maybe a strange way of framing it?

I'd say that morality is "natural" in the sense that what's good or bad (in my view) depends on facts about our evolved nature and the world as it is. Not that living a moral life comes naturally to humans, or that anything a human does that plausibly comes from our nature is necessarily good.

[CaptainFritz28]

This is my final semester in high school, so I have a lot of things to attend to. Hopefully I'll have the time sometime soon to make a sort of blanket post to cover all the topics I've missed.

No beer for you.




Also, isn't it kind of the point that morality isn't natural. If people aspire to it and amend their behavior in an attempt to increase it, then it isn't the natural state of being for humans.

I would say that morality is natural in the sense that God created it, and it is the natural way that things should be. However, as you note, it is not human nature. Our nature, since the fall, has been to tend towards sin.

So I would say that natural law comes from morality, and thus morality is natural, but not that morality comes from natural law. It depends on your framing of it, but I think we agree on the principles themselves.

[DougJoe]

Second, I apologize for the many posts which have gone unresponded to. This is my final semester in high school, so I have a lot of things to attend to. Hopefully I'll have the time sometime soon to make a sort of blanket post to cover all the topics I've missed.

You haven't caught the dreaded senioritis too badly, I hope? Do you have post graduation plans?