What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

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?

I think that is true. To be religious, you must worship something. Typically people worship things with greater power than themselves, and if that does not manifest itself in physical form, then it does so in moral form, meaning that what they worship is the source of morality for them.
The non religious defy the idea that there is something more powerful than humans that should be worshipped, and thus morality is ours to choose.

Essentially, it is absolute monarchy v absolute anarchy.

[CaptainFritz28]

This has been an interesting thread. Much of which deserves comment.

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?”

Let’s apply this standard to a few human actions:

Murder. Clearly if everyone murdered someone, we’d be down to one human fairly soon. Murder is therefore inherently immoral. Murder is different than killing, as in stopping an invading army, or killing someone raping a woman while her baby is burning in an oven.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

This is rather interesting. It's sort of a golden rule in and of itself, being "do to others as you would wish to be done for everyone." It seems reminiscent of Kant's theories, which I generally agree with.

There are a few grey areas though - if everyone went into debt, the economy would collapse and society would cease to function, similar to theft. Thus, is being in debt immoral? Likewise, if everyone was a firefighter, we would all die without food. Is being a firefighter immoral?

I think it is generally a good theory, but I still believe that a standard is necessary.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This has been an interesting thread. Much of which deserves comment.

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?”

Let’s apply this standard to a few human actions:

Murder. Clearly if everyone murdered someone, we’d be down to one human fairly soon. Murder is therefore inherently immoral. Murder is different than killing, as in stopping an invading army, or killing someone raping a woman while her baby is burning in an oven.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

This simple standard really doesn't do a lot of convincing work in the examples you've chosen.

Murder in a context like war might help the survival of one group over another without risking the species.

Women who get abortions often go on to have other children later who they are better able to care for. Societies with fewer unwanted children gain all sorts of other fitness benefits.

We can sustain an awful lot of gay behaviour before it risks curtailing the next generation.

etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

This has been an interesting thread. Much of which deserves comment.

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?”

Let’s apply this standard to a few human actions:

Murder. Clearly if everyone murdered someone, we’d be down to one human fairly soon. Murder is therefore inherently immoral. Murder is different than killing, as in stopping an invading army, or killing someone raping a woman while her baby is burning in an oven.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

This simple standard really doesn't do a lot of convincing work in the examples you've chosen.

Murder in a context like war might help the survival of one group over another without risking the species.

Women who get abortions often go on to have other children later who they are better able to care for. Societies with fewer unwanted children gain all sorts of other fitness benefits.

We can sustain an awful lot of gay behaviour before it risks curtailing the next generation.

etc.

Notably, the standard was to apply an action to everyone. If everyone murdered, humanity would cease to exist. If everyone aborted their children, the same would occur. If everyone was gay, the same would occur. Certainly, society can handle a lot of murder, abortions, and honosexuality, but Brian's standard isn't whether a lot of people could do it, but if everyone could.

[Wusti]

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.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This has been an interesting thread. Much of which deserves comment.

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?”

Let’s apply this standard to a few human actions:

Murder. Clearly if everyone murdered someone, we’d be down to one human fairly soon. Murder is therefore inherently immoral. Murder is different than killing, as in stopping an invading army, or killing someone raping a woman while her baby is burning in an oven.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

This simple standard really doesn't do a lot of convincing work in the examples you've chosen.

Murder in a context like war might help the survival of one group over another without risking the species.

Women who get abortions often go on to have other children later who they are better able to care for. Societies with fewer unwanted children gain all sorts of other fitness benefits.

We can sustain an awful lot of gay behaviour before it risks curtailing the next generation.

etc.

Notably, the standard was to apply an action to everyone. If everyone murdered, humanity would cease to exist. If everyone aborted their children, the same would occur. If everyone was gay, the same would occur. Certainly, society can handle a lot of murder, abortions, and honosexuality, but Brian's standard isn't whether a lot of people could do it, but if everyone could.

I'm favourable to the idea there is an objective morality but to me this isn't it

I don't know why a gay person (or a person who decides not to have kids) is being immoral — it's their obligation to sustain the species? Why wouldn't this supposed wrong, for example, extend to breeding couples who have kids but don't have the maximum number of kids? Or to a man who decides to remain faithful to his wife instead of just impregnating as many women as possible?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

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.

Any chance we could get you to make arguments?

What about Flash's points do you find convincing, and what about the pushback to them do you find unconvincing? It's weird to just cheerlead in a thread like this, it isn't a popularity contest.

Instead of critiquing the criticisms of Brian's couple hour old post (which I agree is extremely problematic), maybe you could elaborate on why you think Brian's post is wrong? Make an argument that might convince someone who doesn't already share your suspicion of his moral sentiments? I agree it's just a biased repackaging of Christian and economic conservative values - but how can we know that this is the wrong way to view morality? What's your preferred alternative?

[Flash2024]

Esquire I'm not an anthropologist--I said what I was, a vet. I got a Masters way way back.
Give me a break. You know as well as I there is a JudeaChristian heritage--it does not even mean you are Jewish or Christian (I'm not). You're being dense on purpose or just obstructive. And I said above that someone who had moved from elsewhere (Indian in this case) would not apply. What percent are you? I have no idea. But the idea is there is a shared value system stemming from a culture which evolved from those of the Book. You won't accept Western or JudeoChristian. Here's a Post article..you can see I'm not making it up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/17/once-judeo-christian-tradition-united-americans-now-it-divides-them/ You may not accept but don't get insulting.

[Flash2024]

That's it for me, this is getting patently just annoying.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Esquire I'm not an anthropologist--I said what I was, a vet. I got a Masters way way back.
Give me a break. You know as well as I there is a JudeaChristian heritage--it does not even mean you are Jewish or Christian (I'm not). You're being dense on purpose or just obstructive. And I said above that someone who had moved from elsewhere (Indian in this case) would not apply. What percent are you? I have no idea. But the idea is there is a shared value system stemming from a culture which evolved from those of the Book. You won't accept Western or JudeoChristian. Here's a Post article..you can see I'm not making it up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/17/once-judeo-christian-tradition-united-americans-now-it-divides-them/ You may not accept but don't get insulting.

Flash, the annoyance goes both ways because you don't address any of my substantive points.

You say that no one outside a particular culture can judge another culture's version of right and wrong. I'm deeply unconvinced this is true.

Even if it were true, how can you know that the right level of analysis is something like "Judea Christian" (vs. "oriental"? "muslim"? what are the other relevant groups here)? Why is this the category that matters and not some other grouping based on language , political affiliation, etc. I could split people who reasonably fall into the Judea Christian camp into 1000 groups, some of which have very little in common - why can they judge one another while someone who cannot reasonably claim this heritage / intellectual upbringing can't?

Even if it really is the case that actually the only people who can judge Judea Christian values are those who were also raised in them, it raises the thorny question of a million edge cases. Who in a pluralistic society like my home country of Canada can claim this mantle and who cannot?

This all feels akin to race essentialism, which is also nonsensical. A person of any heritage can make a casserole and they might do it even better than a midwestern person. An expert south asian casserole chef could absolutely try a Wisconsin womans casserole and find it lacking.

[Crazy Anglican]

Instead of critiquing the criticisms of Brian's couple hour old post (which I agree is extremely problematic), maybe you could elaborate on why you think Brian's post is wrong? Make an argument that might convince someone who doesn't already share your suspicion of his moral sentiments? I agree it's just a biased repackaging of Christian and economic conservative values - but how can we know that this is the wrong way to view morality? What's your preferred alternative?

Possibly an interesting side question. What is something you like about someone in this thread that disagrees with you? Not a popularity contest thing, but an earnest reminder that we're all just nerds playing a video game after all and would probably sooner have a beer together than an argument.


For me it's Jamie:

Gotta hand it to the dude. He's passionate. Jamie is somebody who honestly wants to have the world be a just place. I may not agree with him on pretty much anything of a theological nature, but I can recognize a good heart there. I'm probably going to visit the U.K in a few years when I retire and he's one of three people I'd like to meet up with (the other two being Octavious and Orathaic) and have a beer with at a pub.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Instead of critiquing the criticisms of Brian's couple hour old post (which I agree is extremely problematic), maybe you could elaborate on why you think Brian's post is wrong? Make an argument that might convince someone who doesn't already share your suspicion of his moral sentiments? I agree it's just a biased repackaging of Christian and economic conservative values - but how can we know that this is the wrong way to view morality? What's your preferred alternative?

Possibly an interesting side question. What is something you like about someone in this thread that disagrees with you? Not a popularity contest thing, but an earnest reminder that we're all just nerds playing a video game after all and would probably sooner have a beer together than an argument.


For me it's Jamie:

Gotta hand it to the dude. He's passionate. Jamie is somebody who honestly wants to have the world be a just place. I may not agree with him on pretty much anything of a theological nature, but I can recognize a good heart there. I'm probably going to visit the U.K in a few years when I retire and he's one of three people I'd like to meet up with (the other two being Octavious and Orathaic) and have a beer with at a pub.

I like how diplomatic and thoughtful your responses have been.

I like how Fritz admits to errors and makes good faith corrections where he's worried he's been mispercieved.

I like Jamie's posts, although sometimes the tone feels nastier than I think is useful. He often makes a point with one incisive question, whereas it takes me several paragraphs.

Nearly everyone else has made contributions that I value.

In general I find this thread useful and interesting. I feel I have a much deeper understanding about how Christians reason about morality. I hope to learn more about the relativists' viewpoint too and I'm sorry if my questions seem angry — I'm trying to express that I remain extremely confused about what they actually mean. I've had my own moral assumptions tested. I feel like I'm both more informed about my own moral reasoning and more uncertain about it, which I count as a plus. This thread has prompted me to have very interesting conversations irl with my partner and family about aspects of morality that I think we all previously took for granted.

[Crazy Anglican]

Thanks for the kinds words.

To be clear though, I'm not suggesting that we all sing Kum Bay Yah around the campfire. I'm curious about what we find good about each other, since we can easily fall into polarization, which I think inhibits thinking.

I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of it. At least I've been told that I have a keen eye for criticism but when it comes to religion I'm not exercising the same rigor. Which might be the case. That's probably why I find myself lingering in these threads from time to time. It gives me access to differing perspectives.

I have to confess, I was a little intimidated by Esquire Bertissimo at first. When you think a topic through, you don't play games. You take the time to do a thorough job. Still you manage to put forth a position that's patient and thought provoking.

[mOctave]

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.
...
Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

So, your ultimate standard of morality is the continuation of humanity? That sounds reasonable. Here's what I suggest you do if you really want to follow that standard of morality:
1. Kill off every world leader who is interested on their own gain and power rather than the good of humanity, since they can't be relied upon to not do something like destroy the human race if it means they become more powerful.
2. Destroy the nuclear arsenal of every country on Earth. Also kill off everyone who knows anything about nuclear theory to prevent them ever making such a weapon and risking the planet's destruction. Oh, that includes 90% of those of us in first-world countries, by the way, who paid minimal attention in chemistry class. Similarly, make sure that no highly destructive technology is in the hands of the public where it could be used by power-hungry individuals or terrorists in order to destroy everyone.
3. Formally take control of the world as a supreme dictator. Now, you are mostly free from the dangers of any desire for power you might have, since you have absolute power. You might feel tempted to kill off a few peasants now and then who you really despise, but that's okay. After all, it's for the good of humanity.
4. Set up a limited group of people to keep an eye on everyone else, all of whom report directly to you and are under some form of mind-control (very severe threats may also work). Better yet, use machines, since they definitely won't betray you and risk destroying the world and everyone on it.
5. Start a eugenics program where you breed humans for maximum physical capabilities and minimum mental ones. After all, if we are all brain-dead, we are unlikely to reinvent weapons of mass destruction.

Now, chances are you (and everyone else on this thread) find the scenario I just proposed horrendous and immoral. Why? Sure, it involves the death of a billion people or so, but we're currently struggling with an overpopulation crisis, not an underpopulation one. Furthermore, this would kick the world back to a pre-industrial society, and pre-industrial societies tend to be more stable in terms of population. Underpopulation wouldn't be an issue, either, then. This plan, if followed completely, has a high cost in human capital but would prevent our death as a race by nuclear war, accidentally causing a hostile alien species to hate and destroy us, extreme-scale terrorism, etc.

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

My point is this: it isn't. If morality is to ensure the survival of humanity, then the best way I see to do it involves mass murder, violation of individual freedom, and so on.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

For this, let's presume that it is moral to ensure that humanity will survive. By that logic, there was a time when abortion and morality were certainly both evil. If even 25% of people had been homosexual and aborted all their pregnancies 2000 years ago, humanity would have been at risk of dying out within a few hundred years because the life expectancy was so low and the mortality rate so high.

These days, however, we have the opposite problem. Populations are too high to live comfortably. I would argue that this is why most people don't have any problem with abortions or homosexuality these days. After all, your personal choices are not likely to destroy a race of 8 billion people and counting. Once our population peaks and begins to decline again, perhaps abortions and homosexuality will be viewed as "wrong" again, and the population will slowly return to equilibrium. After all, I'm not aware of any gene that guarantees a desire to have abortions or be homosexual: these are qualities that are suppressed by a society in which they are actively harmful, but keep a wealthy, overpopulated society from destroying itself. If everyone was homosexual, the birth rate would be extremely low, right? But, Brian, are you homosexual? I would expect not, from what you've said. Even if you are, I presume you have chosen to still lead a heterosexual life. Likewise, I highly doubt that everyone will suddenly get up and choose to become homosexual, thus dooming humanity. It reminds me of an analogy I heard once. A couple is sitting in their dining room, and they read an article in a newspaper that says that a supervised drug consumption site is opening in their neighbourhood. Are they going to suddenly go get high because its been opened? No.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

Here you're presuming a capitalist, industrial society, and then demonstrating that socialism doesn't work in such a society. However, there have been numerous societies in which there was no concept of money or property. With technological advancements, these societies have become more and more rare, but it still doesn't make sense to presume that our concept of money and ownership is the only one in existence. I'm reminded here of stamp scrip, a currency in which each dollar bill (for example) needs a stamp a day or else it loses its value. Each stamp, in turn, costs 1 cent. This is a perfectly reasonable economic system, which has been historically very effective at combating inflation. Of course, it's a system which isn't in common usage because the rich and powerful generally don't like becoming less rich and powerful. Ironically, the payment of scrip of any kind was made illegal in the US in 1938. Did this protect some workers who were being paid useless wages? Yes. Did it also ensure that any "socialist" system of managing currency such as stamp scrip or—God forbid—outright communism run on the foundations of human decency wouldn't be successful? Also yes.

Sure, theft isn't a very effective survival strategy for humanity. But property itself isn't a fundamental human constant in the way most of us view it today. We're so tied up in our own biases that we think the world is obvious, but it really isn't. What is obvious is our own biases and presumptions. It's why politics and religion are so controversial.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I have to confess, I was a little intimidated by Esquire Bertissimo at first. When you think a topic through, you don't play games. You take the time to do a thorough job. Still you manage to put forth a position that's patient and thought provoking.

I'm very interested in the ideas we're talking about. Maybe too interested lol. I think sometimes I have put my interest in these arguments over competing values, like being brief in my posts or maintaining the right level of decorum.

The secret ingredient to my better-argued posts (which certainly isn't all of them) has been a prolonged period of unemployment. I start a new job next week and the quality and frequency of my posts is going to fall dramatically.

[mOctave]

Possibly an interesting side question. What is something you like about someone in this thread that disagrees with you? Not a popularity contest thing, but an earnest reminder that we're all just nerds playing a video game after all and would probably sooner have a beer together than an argument.


For me it's Jamie:

Gotta hand it to the dude. He's passionate. Jamie is somebody who honestly wants to have the world be a just place. I may not agree with him on pretty much anything of a theological nature, but I can recognize a good heart there. I'm probably going to visit the U.K in a few years when I retire and he's one of three people I'd like to meet up with (the other two being Octavious and Orathaic) and have a beer with at a pub.

Honestly, I think pretty much everyone on this thread has made valuable contributions. I've gotten a bit annoyed over the assumptions that people have been making, but I think that even the hardcore somewhat extreme views (like Jamie, Brian, or Fritz in the first few posts where he pointed to the Bible as an ultimate source of morality) have been really helpful in allowing for a fuller, more meaningful discussion.

[CaptainFritz28]

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

I don't know if I agree with Brian's theories as a standard, I simply find them an interesting take. My "defense" of it was not so much a defense as an attempt to redirect what I believed to be a misrepresentation of the theory.

Also, what is there to prove? Again, I'm not advocating for it.

[CaptainFritz28]

This simple standard really doesn't do a lot of convincing work in the examples you've chosen.

Murder in a context like war might help the survival of one group over another without risking the species.

Women who get abortions often go on to have other children later who they are better able to care for. Societies with fewer unwanted children gain all sorts of other fitness benefits.

We can sustain an awful lot of gay behaviour before it risks curtailing the next generation.

etc.

Notably, the standard was to apply an action to everyone. If everyone murdered, humanity would cease to exist. If everyone aborted their children, the same would occur. If everyone was gay, the same would occur. Certainly, society can handle a lot of murder, abortions, and honosexuality, but Brian's standard isn't whether a lot of people could do it, but if everyone could.

I'm favourable to the idea there is an objective morality but to me this isn't it

I don't know why a gay person (or a person who decides not to have kids) is being immoral — it's their obligation to sustain the species? Why wouldn't this supposed wrong, for example, extend to breeding couples who have kids but don't have the maximum number of kids? Or to a man who decides to remain faithful to his wife instead of just impregnating as many women as possible?

As you may note in my response to Brian's theory here, I brought up that this does tend to include gray areas such as the one you brought up, which I think eliminates it from a list of possible absolute standards. As my response to Wusti goes, I'm not on board with the theory, I simply noticed a logical fault and moved to correct it. There are arguments against Brian's theory, but the one you brought up before wasn't it.

[CaptainFritz28]

Possibly an interesting side question. What is something you like about someone in this thread that disagrees with you? Not a popularity contest thing, but an earnest reminder that we're all just nerds playing a video game after all and would probably sooner have a beer together than an argument.


For me it's Jamie:

Gotta hand it to the dude. He's passionate. Jamie is somebody who honestly wants to have the world be a just place. I may not agree with him on pretty much anything of a theological nature, but I can recognize a good heart there. I'm probably going to visit the U.K in a few years when I retire and he's one of three people I'd like to meet up with (the other two being Octavious and Orathaic) and have a beer with at a pub.

A welcome temporary reprieve, reminiscent of the Christmas Truce of 1914.
Honestly, even before I read this, I was about to comment regarding the commendable character of Esq. Bert.

I have noted that almost all of Bert's posts are thought provoking, well thought out themselves, and generally very logical (although we wouldn't be having debate if I didn't think him wrong on some of those points of logic lol). He is willing to see things from all sides, and is willing to disagree with those like Wusti or Flash who are also skeptical of God's existence. He doesn't just become an echo chamber, but rather has nuance in his views, which I highly appreciate. Also, and on a more general level, he is not insulting or demeaning of others simply because of their beliefs. He's rarely rude.

As for m0ctave, I think that he is one of the most reasonable fellows on this thread. I have found myself making assumptions about him, and then being proven wrong, and finding that he actually has a lot of logic to his claims.

I would like to take this brief respite from the general debate to state a few things which I have wished to state for a while but not found the place to say it.
First, I apologize, I really do, for any insults, rudeness, or otherwise offensive posts I have made. Sometimes I have had very little time to write things for which I should have given much more thought, resulting in... not the best way to say things.
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.
Third, I think my views have seemed a lot more "extreme" than they actually are, which is hopefully something I can clarify in the aforementioned blanket post. This is largely due to the fact that some of my earlier posts on this thread were... poorly worded, to put it lightly, and lend themselves, by nature of being confusing or unclear, to unintentional straw-men by others. This is a fault of my own, and if I could go back and rewrite what I wrote I would rephrase and clarify a lot.
Finally, I want to say that this whole discussion has been incredibly enlightening for me. Although my beliefs have changed very little, if at all, my perspective has shifted massively, and I've had to reason through things which I had not had to reason through before. Thus far, I've come out of the discussion strengthened in my faith, but far more nuanced in my views.

Thanks, y'all, for engaging in this discussion. I hope to be able to post more soon, and hopefully clarify a few more things pertaining directly to the topics of debate themselves.

[CaptainFritz28]

This has been an interesting thread. Much of which deserves comment.

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?”

Let’s apply this standard to a few human actions:

Murder. Clearly if everyone murdered someone, we’d be down to one human fairly soon. Murder is therefore inherently immoral. Murder is different than killing, as in stopping an invading army, or killing someone raping a woman while her baby is burning in an oven.

Abortion. If everyone aborted their young, we would not bear children, and we would die out after a short time.

Homosexuality. Similar to abortion, the species would die out if everyone only had sex with the same sex.

Those are biggies and obvious examples of immoral behavior – actions that do not continue the species. Other actions need more thought.

Stealing. If everyone stole, there would be no incentive to produce, since the fruit of the labor would be taken. Not unlike Margaret Thatcher’s admonition that “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” If everyone simply took what they wanted, producers would stop producing, or “Go Gault”

And so on. Yes, a simple standard.

This is rather interesting. It's sort of a golden rule in and of itself, being "do to others as you would wish to be done for everyone." It seems reminiscent of Kant's theories, which I generally agree with.

There are a few grey areas though - if everyone went into debt, the economy would collapse and society would cease to function, similar to theft. Thus, is being in debt immoral? Likewise, if everyone was a firefighter, we would all die without food. Is being a firefighter immoral?

I think it is generally a good theory, but I still believe that a standard is necessary.

To rephrase this:
I think that the idea that to be morally good, an action must be one which can be universally applied and still be morally good, is generally a good theory. However, there are many cases in which the version of it which Brian has postulated fails, and thus, while I like the general concept of it, in practice it would never serve as an objective standard of morality.

I think that limiting morality to the survival of the species is one of its primary flaws, which I'll get into in more detail later.