<p>Read up on Natural Law theory for a theological defense.</p>
<p>The point is that accepting anything as immoral or moral requires simply asserting something unproven at some level of the justification.</p>
<p>Let’s make this very simple and concise:</p>
<p>Pick an issue of morality. Prove that it is correct on an empirical level.</p>
<p>You can’t. Which is why if we are discarding all higher power, there is absolutely no justification for any moral whatsoever. If you want to prove me wrong, just do what I said above – pick an issue and prove it.</p>
<p>Why not? Even if you say you don’t believe in a higher power if you try to argue for anything being “wrong” then you have admitted that you do in fact believe in some higher standard by which right and wrong are judged.</p>
<p>Murder. I think that murder is wrong. Why? Because you are robbing another person of life. Humans are social creatures by nature; we generally stick to groups. So are, say, hyenas. Hyenas don’t have a god. They also don’t turn to one another and murder each other on the spot, for no reason other than “it seemed right.” Why? Because it doesn’t “seem right,” it’s biologically programmed that they not do so for the betterment of the pack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that there is a higher standard - society. It’s not beneficial to society if we start murdering one another. If we all murdered one another, there would always be fear and risk, and then we wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything. Since we work in societies, it doesn’t make sense to turn on one another. Why is it “wrong” to steal? It’s negatively and directly affecting another person, which can, in turn, negatively and directly affect society. On the other hand, why is it not “wrong” to allow gay marriage? Two consensual adults aren’t doing any harm to society by sharing love with one another.</p>
<p>Why would what “seems right” always “be right?” There’s no way to say that our behavior is “ultimately right.” It certainly “seems right” for some people to murder; that doesn’t make it beneficial in the long run. “Natural law” is, in my eyes, perfectly plausible - but that doesn’t mean there’s a higher power. Gravity is a physical law but it doesn’t imply a higher power, either. I don’t understand why you have connected the two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean “correct”? Biological programming is all we really have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would it need to be “uniquely definable?” Betterment of the pack is the goal because it almost always leads to the benefit of the individual and/or the individual’s offspring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove that a higher power exists. Here’s the evidence for society as a higher standard. All life exists for one reason: to survive. Some animals survive on their own. Others survive in packs. Humans survive better in packs. As humans have become more complex, both internally and as a measure of technological achievement, “packs” have become “society.”</p>
<p>Quote:
Generally, what most people are happy with, that is what that order is based on. More likely than not, unhappy people will cause problems in a society. Law is derived from social norms, which naturally comes from commonly accepted morals, but that is not always the case.
Yeah, let’s through around random terms like “happy” and hope that people can work with such an abstract concept. What is happiness? Is it different from contentment? How does the happiness of one person compare to that of another?</p>
<p>Quote:
If murder was legalized, people who are capable of murder would just kill whoever they wanted, whenever they pleased. Obviously you can imagine how that would get messy.
I can’t. Because you never defined order. I’m confused as a result. Why would massive murder sprees be disorderly? What if total lawlessness is what I consider order, as men are totally free creatures for whom laws only create entropy as they interfere with natural order?</p>
<p>Quote:
Morality differs by individuals, there are commonly accepted morals, but that does not necessarily mean that those morals are absolutely correct.
You’re right. It doesn’t. But I don’t care about what is commonly accepted. I care about what is right. Start thinking from that perspective and you will be better able to understand what I am saying.</p>
<p>What exactly is right? It’s not always what is commonly accepted, and your definition of right is different from someone else’s.</p>
<p>Quote:
I was referring to the fact that he stated that he put the website out there as a more “eloquent” way of phrasing his beliefs so I just assumed that he at least had some background knowledge.
I answered the question. I’m still waiting to see who is squirming on this forum.</p>
<p>Wow, from sex to religion to murder and now to morals and the origin or purpose…</p>
<p>If someone can outright state where in religious doctrines it states that premarital sex is bad, or where those morals came from regarding premarital sex, I’ll believe it.</p>
<p>Honestly, I have no idea what everyone is arguing about.</p>
<p>To ask someone to prove that God exists is silly. It’s not science. And using “prove it” as a response is getting this conversation nowhere. You haven’t proved your statements either.</p>
<p>If you want to be philosophical, how do you know?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I strongly recommend an introductory biology course, but I’ll do my best:</p>
<p>“Betterment of the pack” means increasing the potential for everyone to live. Those animals that follow pack behavior generally understand that there is power in numbers. So, each pack wants to maintain the pack in order to increase the chance of survival of each of its members. So, diminishing the pack is not ideal - either is weakening the pack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you suggest is another purpose of life?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean, on a moral level? As in, why is it “right” or “wrong” to shoot me in the face? Well, if we look at it animalistically, if we are members of the same pack, then you would be weakening the pack by doing so. Since we are not at odds (on a warring level), then there is no benefit to your purpose of life should you shoot me in the face. At this point, human nature appears more complex than animalistic behavior, but that does not exempt us from adhering to the same basic principles.</p>
<p>Society isn’t “good.” That’s an arbitrary thing to say. Society is what it is. Since we are pack animals, we generally strive for the betterment of the pack. That doesn’t make it good or bad. Some animals eat their weak. They do that for the betterment of the pack. That doesn’t make that behavior inherently good or bad, but it does make that behavior correct in their eyes.</p>
<p>Why is this good? Why should be try to do this? Your entire premise stems from this – an unfounded statement.</p>
<p>Basically, prove that it is morally right to follow biological programming, empirically. It is impossible, as you acknowledge – thereby proving my point that morality without a higher power is nonexistent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not relevant. Prove it or it does not stand. You would have to disprove the possibility of every single other possible outcome (having already proved complementarity) for the premise to be valid.</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa…look, just because YOU as a flawed person would murder and ravage without conviction of an omnipotent, judgmental deity does not necessarily mean everyone else has such “darkness in their hearts”.</p>
<p>And to add on, there is no real right or wrong, simply what we as a society have labeled beneficial or detrimental to the greater whole. For example, murder harms others, giving freely helps, etc. So we call those things right, or moral.</p>
<p>And to get back on subject, premarital sex was labeled an abhorrence back in the days when birth control/an edge for women was death. That was when perverted old guys ruled everybody, and wanted to control who or what could do what. Or maybe as society people then just decided that free sex without some sort of official binding would mess up their world. Who knows. But in case you’ve noticed, lately in this era, premarital sex isn’t such a crime anymore.</p>
<p>That’s because we’ve evolved somewhat, to the point where normal people recognize that it’s OKAY to do some personal things without some priest breathing down your neck and holding your rights on a reign with religious doctrine on the other end.</p>
<p>How is the definition of “order” and “happiness” a moral judgment if moral judgment just means judging what is right and wrong. Also, you DO know that laws change, right? So are you going to argue that morals change as well?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was responding to TCBH when he said -
</p>
<p>And then I said
</p>
<p>Sure he didn’t say anything to directly suggest that I believe there is a moral imperative to follow laws. But I assumed he did, because I was wondering why else he would ask something like that. How about you start reading posts.</p>
<p>Turns out TCBH wasn’t really arguing for a point, he likes asking rhetorical questions? lol xD</p>
<p>Anyway Baelor, you still haven’t proved how my scenarios were “wrong”.</p>