What is Morality?

[Jamiet99uk]

The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So when slavery abolitionists were a minority, was slavery moral?

The Bible said slavery was moral, did it not?

[brian146]

i would like to point out that captain Friz is learning about how governments work

[JECE]

So morality is just what the majority decides is right and wrong. Ultimately, that is your claim. If you have more on your side, or stronger people on your side, then you determine morals.

This is bullshit. The vast majority of people (especially if they are atheists and are therefore not blindsided by potentially false moral codes) can determine for themselves that annoying their neighbor isn't very nice. What the majority thinks is irrelevant to the fact that each individual can come to that conclusion independently. Most people would be mighty annoyed at getting murdered.

You seem to be confusing social Darwinism with atheism. Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience that White, Protestant Christians used to justify a perverse moral universe that ultimately led to the Holocaust. That dark worldview was not supported by Charles Darwin and cannot be supported by the scientific method.

Jamiet99uk's point about society is important. Humans are social creatures. We are mostly wired to value the common benefit (or commonwealth, or common good, or public benefit, etc.) since that helps build a better, nicer world for us all to live in. Who wants to live in a world where might makes right?

The powerful do. Those with might. You are taking your own morals and applying them to all - but what about people who disagree with you? Who is more right? Atheism does not provide an answer, because it does not provide an ultimate standard to measure your own against.

Many don't care about the common benefit. What are we to do about them?

If morality is determined by the individual, then no one can condemn a murderer because their individual moral code allows it.
If morality is determined by society, then how does society determine morality? Does it put it to a vote? In that case, morality is what the majority says it is, and may shift with the majority's opinion. Does it choose a leader who will determine it by force? In that case, morality is determined by might.

Atheism inherently does not have a single moral standard. Individuals may, but they are often in conflict. Societies may, but they are often in conflict.
You assume that everyone wants the common good, that no one wants might makes right, and that everyone will come to the same conclusions about morals. But that are simply not true. Just because you want it doesn't mean everyone else does. How do we know that you are any more right than anyone who disagrees with you?

Dear Captain Sophist,

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

That psychopaths exist isn't relevant to this discussion. Perchance do Christians have an answer for what to do with them (while they are still alive)?

You seem to want to debate why socialism is right and fascism is wrong. That's great, but once again strays very far from the original discussion about atheism. My own view is that you can't win that argument with logic alone. Fascism is so dangerous precisely because it is internally consistent; most of the world isn't the murderous hellscape that fascists think it is, but fascism can certainly transform the world into that murderous hellscape if we let it. Hence the importance of pointing that out proto-fascists before it is too late, and giving them an alternative world to strive for! Do you have more sympathy for Christian socialism or Christian fascism?

[JECE]

The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So when slavery abolitionists were a minority, was slavery moral?

The Bible said slavery was moral, did it not?

Indeed:

https://thebrickbible.com/legacy/epistles/on_slavery/01_1t06_01pep06_05.html

https://thebrickbible.com/onslavery/

[CaptainFritz28]

i would like to point out that captain Friz is learning about how governments work

Do you mean that the government determines morality? Is that your claim, or do I misunderstand your meaning?

[CaptainFritz28]

This is bullshit. The vast majority of people (especially if they are atheists and are therefore not blindsided by potentially false moral codes) can determine for themselves that annoying their neighbor isn't very nice. What the majority thinks is irrelevant to the fact that each individual can come to that conclusion independently. Most people would be mighty annoyed at getting murdered.

You seem to be confusing social Darwinism with atheism. Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience that White, Protestant Christians used to justify a perverse moral universe that ultimately led to the Holocaust. That dark worldview was not supported by Charles Darwin and cannot be supported by the scientific method.

Jamiet99uk's point about society is important. Humans are social creatures. We are mostly wired to value the common benefit (or commonwealth, or common good, or public benefit, etc.) since that helps build a better, nicer world for us all to live in. Who wants to live in a world where might makes right?

The powerful do. Those with might. You are taking your own morals and applying them to all - but what about people who disagree with you? Who is more right? Atheism does not provide an answer, because it does not provide an ultimate standard to measure your own against.

Many don't care about the common benefit. What are we to do about them?

If morality is determined by the individual, then no one can condemn a murderer because their individual moral code allows it.
If morality is determined by society, then how does society determine morality? Does it put it to a vote? In that case, morality is what the majority says it is, and may shift with the majority's opinion. Does it choose a leader who will determine it by force? In that case, morality is determined by might.

Atheism inherently does not have a single moral standard. Individuals may, but they are often in conflict. Societies may, but they are often in conflict.
You assume that everyone wants the common good, that no one wants might makes right, and that everyone will come to the same conclusions about morals. But that are simply not true. Just because you want it doesn't mean everyone else does. How do we know that you are any more right than anyone who disagrees with you?

Dear Captain Sophist,

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

That psychopaths exist isn't relevant to this discussion. Perchance do Christians have an answer for what to do with them (while they are still alive)?

You seem to want to debate why socialism is right and fascism is wrong. That's great, but once again strays very far from the original discussion about atheism. My own view is that you can't win that argument with logic alone. Fascism is so dangerous precisely because it is internally consistent; most of the world isn't the murderous hellscape that fascists think it is, but fascism can certainly transform the world into that murderous hellscape if we let it. Hence the importance of pointing that out proto-fascists before it is too late, and giving them an alternative world to strive for! Do you have more sympathy for Christian socialism or Christian fascism?

I don't see what socialism or fascism have anything to do with it. Both are based on the idea that the government decides morals.
However, to answer your question, I have more sympathy for Christian socialism, because in that case the government is recognizing higher authority, and in a perfect world socialism is better. Socialism or fascism alone are extremes and should be avoided, however, as we live in a world of sin and greed.

[CaptainFritz28]

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

I certainly understand that. But Atheism does not dictate an ultimate standard, and different Atheists may have different ultimate standards. Sometimes they come into conflict.
So how do we determine which Atheistic ultimate standard is better than another?

That psychopaths exist isn't relevant to this discussion. Perchance do Christians have an answer for what to do with them (while they are still alive)?

It is very relevant. First of all, there are people who don't want the societal good and are not physcopaths. Second of all, how are you to say that physcopaths are morally wrong? If their morals justify what they do, why are your morals any better than theirs?

You seem to want to debate why socialism is right and fascism is wrong. That's great, but once again strays very far from the original discussion about atheism. My own view is that you can't win that argument with logic alone. Fascism is so dangerous precisely because it is internally consistent; most of the world isn't the murderous hellscape that fascists think it is, but fascism can certainly transform the world into that murderous hellscape if we let it. Hence the importance of pointing that out proto-fascists before it is too late, and giving them an alternative world to strive for! Do you have more sympathy for Christian socialism or Christian fascism?

I don't see what this has anything to do with it. My argument revolves around the fact that not one of you has given me a straight answer for what to do when two Athiests' moral standards contradict each other.

[JECE]

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

I certainly understand that. But Atheism does not dictate an ultimate standard, and different Atheists may have different ultimate standards. Sometimes they come into conflict.
So how do we determine which Atheistic ultimate standard is better than another?

That psychopaths exist isn't relevant to this discussion. Perchance do Christians have an answer for what to do with them (while they are still alive)?

It is very relevant. First of all, there are people who don't want the societal good and are not physcopaths. Second of all, how are you to say that physcopaths are morally wrong? If their morals justify what they do, why are your morals any better than theirs?

You seem to want to debate why socialism is right and fascism is wrong. That's great, but once again strays very far from the original discussion about atheism. My own view is that you can't win that argument with logic alone. Fascism is so dangerous precisely because it is internally consistent; most of the world isn't the murderous hellscape that fascists think it is, but fascism can certainly transform the world into that murderous hellscape if we let it. Hence the importance of pointing that out proto-fascists before it is too late, and giving them an alternative world to strive for! Do you have more sympathy for Christian socialism or Christian fascism?

I don't see what this has anything to do with it. My argument revolves around the fact that not one of you has given me a straight answer for what to do when two Athiests' moral standards contradict each other.

There is no such thing as an atheistic ultimate standard. Atheism is just the absence of belief in or understanding of an abstract concept/entity that you call God.

I am not interested in philosophical explanations of morality, but they certainly exist and many of those who historically wrote about this subject were theologians or otherwise religious people. And none of us think similarly to your straw men amoral people, so why are they relevant to a discussion about atheists and Christians?

Your 'solution' to the apparent contradiction is 'might makes right', or the belief that some are superior to others (e. g., social Darwinism). This is a proto-fascist belief that none of us atheists are espousing.

[CaptainFritz28]

My solution is the Bible. Not a majority, societal decision, or might makes right.
I'm saying that if we remove all ultimate standards, such as the Bible, then there is no way to resolve conflicts of morals between individuals or societies.

None of you may think similarly to a murderer. However, your morals must be able to deal with someone who believes murder is morally fine, since there do exist such people.

If there is no ultimate standard to measure one's individual morality against, how can you be sure that your personal version of morality is any better than the personal morality of someone who believes murder is good? You still have not given me an answer, and i claim it is because you cannot. Atheism cannot deal with such moral conflict other than by the tyranny of the majority or of the mighty.

[JECE]

Tyrannical prohibition on murder

[Johnny Big Horse]

This is a really good discussion. I don't have an answer to this. You end up with two societies that want each other dead. I guess then they fight, kill and destroy each other, and then the fighting is over, and then we make art and play diplomacy again.

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

There is some wisdom in those old books.

Interesting conclusion. I think I agree, but maybe you could rephrase or clarify it so I know exactly what I'm agreeing to? I am not precisely sure of your meaning.

huh.. well, my thinking was, there is no good answer here when you have two societies intent on killing the other. Where is morality then? The morality of both societies back up their bloodlust.

My thinking is, and I don't know, but in situations like this, we can only refer to history and holy books. Ecclesiastes says there is a time for war. And perhaps that is all there is to it. It is kind of an Eastern concept. What is, is. And here we have two societies that want to kill the other. It is. And thus they war. And there is no more to say about it. To moralize is silly. It is a time for war, and that is all there is to it.

[Johnny Big Horse]

The "moral code" of a very small minority of people who have chosen to breach some of society's most basic conventions does not need to be respected. So we put them in jail.

So when slavery abolitionists were a minority, was slavery moral?
Before support for the LGBTQ movement was a majority, the social shunning of them was moral?
Before women's rights advocates were a majority, women not having as many rights as men was moral?

You are really good, Captain.

[Johnny Big Horse]

My solution is the Bible. Not a majority, societal decision, or might makes right.
I'm saying that if we remove all ultimate standards, such as the Bible, then there is no way to resolve conflicts of morals between individuals or societies.

None of you may think similarly to a murderer. However, your morals must be able to deal with someone who believes murder is morally fine, since there do exist such people.

If there is no ultimate standard to measure one's individual morality against, how can you be sure that your personal version of morality is any better than the personal morality of someone who believes murder is good? You still have not given me an answer, and i claim it is because you cannot. Atheism cannot deal with such moral conflict other than by the tyranny of the majority or of the mighty.

Captain, Some folks are totally turned off by religion. As soon as you mention Bible, you may lose them. This is a really good thread, and I really enjoyed seeing Jamiet get bested. He is very sharp, but you romped all over him this time.

I think you are right, that there must be an objective standard. The Bible is a good standard, but which parts of the Bible. How about the part where Lot had sex with his daughters, or where God commanded the Hebrews to kill every living thing in Canaan, including the livestock and babies. The Bible is full of evil. Just like Moslems say that their religion is one of peace, and they truly see it that way, outsiders and some fanatics in their religion can point to sections where Mohammed beheaded infidels, and where warring on nonbelievers is one's duty. There were times in our Christian history were our Church authorities used the Bible to condone pogroms against Jews, the Crusades, the selling of indulgences, etc.

I think Thomas Paine really kills your argument in his book, The Age of Reason. A lot of people base their arguments on the Bible, as if IT were the ultimate authority, but as he explains in detail, the Bible was not written by the people who the Church claims wrote it. The original followers of Jesus were called the Nazarene for a time, and then Ebionites, a name meant to discredit them. They were marginalized by the followers of St. Paul, the greater Church, because they still maintained a lot of Jewish beliefs, whereas Paul's followers, the gentiles, abandoned most of them. After Jesus died, the leaders of the Jesus movement were Jewish. Jesus's half brother, James, was the original leader. Being typical Jews, the apostles did not agree with each other, and they certainly did not agree with Paul, who never met Christ. The original gospels were Jewish works, including, the Gospel of the Hebrews. The gospels we know of, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were all written AFTER 180, well after anyone who knew Jesus was dead for 80 years. There is no mention of these books in the writings of the early Church fathers, because they did not exist. Only after 180 is mention of these books found in communications of the early Church fathers. Extensive study has been made of the early books of Christianity, and from the study, one can only conclude that the gospels we know of were written by men, not a god. They were perverted with all sorts of miracles that probably never happened, as miracles became the thing in the second century. The earlier books did not have miracles in them. They didn't have the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the loaves and fish thing, the wine from the dregs, none of it. It came later, well after Christ and his contemporaries were dead.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the Council of Nicea, where the politicians of the day, we call them bishops and cardinals, assembled with Constantine, the Roman Emperor to decide what is the true belief and what is false. These politicians threw out over 48 religious works, and edited the gospels we have now. A group of politicians determining what we need to believe. (We do that now in the US with our censorship policies.)

Ok, let me summarize.
1. You are a great debater, the best I have seen, really.
2. You are right that we need an absolute authority to determine morality.
3. I believe, as do you, that that authority should be supernatural, the Divine.
4. You are wrong in thinking that the Bible is the ultimate authority, as the Bible is a flawed book written and edited by flawed men.

[CaptainFritz28]

First of all, thank you for the compliments. I do not deserve such praise.

I have heard many dispute the authenticity of the Gospels we have now, and I am hesitant to throw them and all of Paul's writings aside (as I'm sure you or anyone else would be).
That side, I would like to know more of the specifics of the case you present.
So, I have a few questions, which I would be much obliged if you would answer:

Which books do you claim are the correct accounts of Jesus' life on Earth?
Where are they mentioned by early Church fathers, before the current Gospels?
What reasons did the Council of Nicea give for not including them in the Bible?

I would greatly appreciate if you would humor my curiosity, as I do desire to find the truth.

[mOctave]

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't actually establish morality, just states rights belonging to a given moral code.

Also, it only exists because it was accepted by the UN General Assembly. This is still a majority-makes-right system.

Individual morality may exist, sure, but over time the people we deem amoral or immoral aren't as likely to pass on their beliefs. Over time, it really is a case of majority-makes-right.

My solution is the Bible. Not a majority, societal decision, or might makes right.

Ah, but who chose to accept the bible?

[CaptainFritz28]

This is a really good discussion. I don't have an answer to this. You end up with two societies that want each other dead. I guess then they fight, kill and destroy each other, and then the fighting is over, and then we make art and play diplomacy again.

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

There is some wisdom in those old books.

Interesting conclusion. I think I agree, but maybe you could rephrase or clarify it so I know exactly what I'm agreeing to? I am not precisely sure of your meaning.

huh.. well, my thinking was, there is no good answer here when you have two societies intent on killing the other. Where is morality then? The morality of both societies back up their bloodlust.

My thinking is, and I don't know, but in situations like this, we can only refer to history and holy books. Ecclesiastes says there is a time for war. And perhaps that is all there is to it. It is kind of an Eastern concept. What is, is. And here we have two societies that want to kill the other. It is. And thus they war. And there is no more to say about it. To moralize is silly. It is a time for war, and that is all there is to it.

The more I try to reason out an argument to the contrary of this (that's how I test something with which my instinct is to concur), the more I agree with it. While I believe every effort should be made to reduce the conflict from the threat of war to peaceful negotiations, I think that there are certain cases in which groups of differing ideas cannot be withheld from fighting to the death.
That said, I believe that if I were in charge of the decision for a society to go to war or not, I would have to very carefully weigh my options, and I believe the moral choice would be the one which causes the least death, suffering, and moral evils. Is the other society genocidally killing without any indication of stopping? If so, yeah. That would be a reason to go to war, after they clearly won't accept negotiations. Is the other society simply not giving up land which my people think they're entitled to? In my mind, not a reason to start a war. However, if they attack my society, I believe every people group has the right to self defense, when they are innocent.

But even then there may be other options. Can I root out the problem before war is the only answer? (i.e. assassinate Hitler or Hussein before they start a war)

I agree that there is a time for war. I would caveat that I also believe that that time is very rare.

[CaptainFritz28]

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't actually establish morality, just states rights belonging to a given moral code.

Also, it only exists because it was accepted by the UN General Assembly. This is still a majority-makes-right system.

Individual morality may exist, sure, but over time the people we deem amoral or immoral aren't as likely to pass on their beliefs. Over time, it really is a case of majority-makes-right.

My solution is the Bible. Not a majority, societal decision, or might makes right.

Ah, but who chose to accept the bible?

Aha! You see, here is my point. The Bible should not be accepted because people agree with it; it should be accepted because it is right. It's canon was determined by a council, yes, but that council determined the books not based on what they liked or disliked, but based on factors that made them verifiable as canon, such as the writers being apostles or closely in contact with apostles, the text not contradicting other parts of Scripture, etc.

Anyhow, even if everyone disagreed with the Bible except for me, it would still be truth. Now, I would want to examine why they disagreed with it, but the fact of a majority disagreeing does not change its truth.

If we remove ultimate standards, however, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights must not only be moral because a majority agree to institute it, but it loses its morality if the majority turn against it. Because the Bible is an ultimate standard, it will never lose its morality.

[CaptainFritz28]

Tyrannical prohibition on murder

Without an ultimate standard, that's exactly what it is.

[Johnny Big Horse]

There exist ultimate standards aplenty, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that just celebrated its 75th anniversary within the last week.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't actually establish morality, just states rights belonging to a given moral code.

Also, it only exists because it was accepted by the UN General Assembly. This is still a majority-makes-right system.

Individual morality may exist, sure, but over time the people we deem amoral or immoral aren't as likely to pass on their beliefs. Over time, it really is a case of majority-makes-right.

My solution is the Bible. Not a majority, societal decision, or might makes right.

Ah, but who chose to accept the bible?

Aha! You see, here is my point. The Bible should not be accepted because people agree with it; it should be accepted because it is right. It's canon was determined by a council, yes, but that council determined the books not based on what they liked or disliked, but based on factors that made them verifiable as canon, such as the writers being apostles or closely in contact with apostles, the text not contradicting other parts of Scripture, etc.

Anyhow, even if everyone disagreed with the Bible except for me, it would still be truth. Now, I would want to examine why they disagreed with it, but the fact of a majority disagreeing does not change its truth.

If we remove ultimate standards, however, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights must not only be moral because a majority agree to institute it, but it loses its morality if the majority turn against it. Because the Bible is an ultimate standard, it will never lose its morality.

Damn. Captain, you were so logical and had such great arguments, but they fell to pieces when you get to the Bible. Or perhaps, maybe you didn't have arguments. What you had was really good socratic methods showing us all how stupid our arguments are. But on one of your main subpoints, I fully agree with you. We need a firm and accepted standard of morality, and that it should be suprahuman, because humans change what they think is important. Suprahuman means, I guess, that it should come from God.

I agree with your point that the UN Declaration on Human Rights may change over time, or maybe in time of total war, everyone will agree that it is of no consequence, and therefore it may not be the moral standard. Good argument.

The Bible is right whether people agree with it or not. That is also a good argument almost. Whether people agree with it or not does not make it the definitive moral standard. Ok. I buy that too.

But, the Bible, as we know it, was composed by politicians who are probably just as flawed as the people who wrote the UN document.

Why was there a council of Nicea? It was because everyone seemed to agree that there is one definitive Truth about Jesus, God and the World, only everyone seemed to have differing views of what that truth was. Whomever believed the wrong truth would be exiled, jailed, murdered. The Roman Christians killed more Christians than the Roman pagans did, on a per year basis. They did it over doctrinal purity. Just like the Bolsheviks and Menshiviks, or the differing factions of the French Revolution.

Do I have any answers? Hell no! I don't trust groups to come up with answers either.

To me, the best morality comes from Albert Schweitzer, a mystic and noble prize winner for peace, who everyone has forgotten. He said "life is sacred"' and all decisions should be based on that. That is the foundation of his morality.

[Johnny Big Horse]

First of all, thank you for the compliments. I do not deserve such praise.

I have heard many dispute the authenticity of the Gospels we have now, and I am hesitant to throw them and all of Paul's writings aside (as I'm sure you or anyone else would be).
That side, I would like to know more of the specifics of the case you present.
So, I have a few questions, which I would be much obliged if you would answer:

Which books do you claim are the correct accounts of Jesus' life on Earth?
Where are they mentioned by early Church fathers, before the current Gospels?
What reasons did the Council of Nicea give for not including them in the Bible?

I would greatly appreciate if you would humor my curiosity, as I do desire to find the truth.

Read this book or at least the first few chapters. The History of Christianity, the first 200 years. By Judge Wait. It is fascinating. He pieces the history together from the writings of the early church fathers. You can read it for free here.

https://archive.org/details/historyofchrist00wait

Essentially, the gospels we have evolved over time. Things were added, taken away, from the original accounts of the life of Jesus. Then we get what we have now.

Newton also questioned Christianity in some good ways I think. And much of his questioning also came from the writings of the early fathers, writings that were made before the gospels were written.

A quote from newton: "Now though the unity of the Church depended upon the unity of the faith and therefore the rule of faith was unalterable, yet before the end of the second century some of the Latin churches in opposition to heretics began to add new articles to it. And after they had, by adding some articles in the language of the scriptures, made precedents for creating to themselves a creed-making authority: they began to add articles in other language than that of the scripture till they lost the primitive Apostolic rule of faith, and by the loss of it brought all into confusion."

Anyway, the problem with Christianity, or any religion that the state controls, is that it becomes a political instrument to manage and control the people. Political decisions are made, and the doctrines are changed accordingly.

It is a shame. When a religion gets to a certain level of acceptance, the state ruins it.

(I could take it further but I won't.)