morality == religion? Sez who?

[Ben Kenobi]

Finally have the time to tackle this thread!

Loinburger:

So, in order for this argument to defeat dualism, we'd need to presuppose that humans cannot differentiate between, e.g., benevolence and malice, without being explicity told by some outside force "this is benevolence, and this is malice."

This does not work. For example, how could you distinguish the benevolent force from the malevolent? It could be the malevolent force telling you that something is benevolent, when it is not.

In fact, I see no other way around this than to presuppose some form of a conscience given to us by God. Ergo, humans can differentiate between benevolence and malice through their conscience without the requirement of outside intervention.

This argument also allows one to show how God could save those before Christ came to Earth, as well as how he could save those who have never heard of Christ.

An alternative implication is that good an evil cannot exist without each other.

Yeah, I get your bifurcation, but you are left with the puzzle. Are the natural numbers named the way they are arbitrarily? Or do they represent something else, and would otherwise have arisen precisely the same way, even given different conditions?

For example, consider the base 10. We use it because we have 10 fingers, but not all cultures or societies have used base 10, some were quite fond of base 60.

This would seem to imply, regardless of the base, you will always end up with a system of numbers that favours the natural numbers first, before any definition of rational, irrational, imaginary or transcendent.

Now, supposing good and evil existed independently, I believe it would be entirely impossible for us to distinguish between the two of them. For example, how could you explain the existence of a conscience, if the evil power and the good power were equally strong? Why would one permit the other to write a law in our hearts?

Then the idea of a law being written on our hearts is unnecessary -- the law might as well not exist.

But it does.. It's something that exists, that we see in ourselves. The task is how do we explain how it comes about?

The point is that a conscience given us by a creator is equivalent to lessons learned from adults/peers/etc. if we need to relearn everything in our consciences anyway. The morality == religion argument doesn't apply.

Innocence can often see what experience cannot. Therefore conscience is not the same as the lessons we learn from our peers, and often experience and conscience act as opposing forces.

Not at all. I can say that one runner is faster than another runner without having some absolute concept of what the "fastest" runner would be, similarly, I can say that Hitler was more evil than Mother Theresa without having some absolute concept of what the "most good" or "most evil" person would be.

But do good and evil work the same way?

If you had two runners, running alongside each other, it is easy to see which one is faster. However, what if you did not see the beginning of the race? Or if you saw them running off in opposite directions? It would not be immediately clear which was the fastest.

You would need some way of objectively measuring the two in order to confirm the fact that one runs faster than the other, a measure that exists independently of the participants.

Any experiment in science demands such a measuring rod, which is why we get into problems with Heisenberg, when to measure something affects the object in which we are measuring.

Just as one needs an objective measure for speed, in order to establish conclusively whether or not someone is faster, so you need an objective measure in order to conclusively establish whether or not someone is better than someone else.

You're left with following God based on the amoral belief that he is eternal, and assuming that he must therefore have a good nature because you've already agreed to accept his definitions of "good" and "evil."

Well, some things flow from the concept that God is eternal. It is not an amoral preposition, in that it has moral consequences.

For example, it refutes dualism, in that one of the two exist independently and simultaneously, and the one that existed for eternity must also be our creator, and the author of our conscience.

For if the eternal one did not write our consciences, then why would he permit the evil one, who he made to do the same? It makes much more sense, that he would write our conscience.

Thus, it seems reasonable to me that the one who is eternal, also have a good nature, rather than an evil one.

Why not? You said that I'd have everything with which to raise a child, and that includes instruction that would bestow a perfect knowledge of good and evil.

Because the instructor would also have to be perfect, and so on...

True, but there are bound to be moral problems for which no perfect solution exists, unless you were to change the definition of "perfect" to mean "most satisfactory."

Why so? Perfection is difficult, but only because we are limited.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not? Darth Vader was evil, despite having some good in him

Who could say that the evil outweighed the good? And why?

How so?

We see things as they ought to be, yet we cannot make things work properly.

God is part of nature. Everything is part of nature, by definition.

Hence the term, supernatural. There exist things beyond nature, including God.

If God were part of nature, then how did he come into being? Why should we worship a God who is simply part of nature, over a tree or anything else?

Why not worship ourselves, since we are a good deal more clever than the things we see in nature.

Why not?

Objective morality, by definition, is not subject to temporal constraints.

[Ben Kenobi]

And who said neoplatonism was dead?

Greeks are responsible for everything.

Can't get away from them!

[Ben Kenobi]

I always fnd these religion debates lobsided because no one argues from a Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist or other non-monotheistic view.

I find them lopsided anyways...

Hard to find enough Christians, let alone folks from other religions.

[Ben Kenobi]

If this is true, isn't religion incomprehensible, and therefore meaningless?

1. Just because something is currently incomprehensible does not mean that it is meaningless.

For example, you could not make heads nor tails of general relativity postulated by Einstein, so does that mean that general relativity is meaningless? The meaning could be there, but not currently in a form such that we will understand.

2. Even if we were to presuppose that it is impossible for man to decipher something, it would not mean that such knowledge would be meaningless. It would rather point out some fundamental limitation in human beings, which is meaningful knowledge.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless you admit that the Judeo-Christian god is not omniscient, determinism is the only possible conclusion.

He could simply refrain from acting, which cannot give testimony in favour of, or against his omnipotence.

Ergo, determinism is not the only option.

Rather, it is a consequence, that if God does not exist, how does one postulate the existence of a free will? Determinism thrives without God, and not the other way around.

[Kuciwalker]

Rather, it is a consequence, that if God does not exist, how does one postulate the existence of a free will?

I make the decisions. Therefore, I have free will. eof

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This does not work. For example, how could you distinguish the benevolent force from the malevolent? It could be the malevolent force telling you that something is benevolent, when it is not.

The terms "benevolent" and "malevolent" aren't just arbitrary labels. Just compare their dictionary definitions for starters -- "wishing/doing charity" is not the same thing as "wishing/doing harm." A murderer or rapist or whatever could tell me that he is benevolent, but unless I'm morally incompetent I wouldn't believe his self-applied label regardless of how powerful he is.

In fact, I see no other way around this than to presuppose some form of a conscience given to us by God. Ergo, humans can differentiate between benevolence and malice through their conscience without the requirement of outside intervention.

What you're describing is not differentiation without outside intervention, what you're describing is differentiation with the assistance of divine programming.

This would seem to imply, regardless of the base, you will always end up with a system of numbers that favours the natural numbers first, before any definition of rational, irrational, imaginary or transcendent.

The natural numbers are the same regardless of what base they are written in -- there's no such thing as a "base-2 natural number system" or a "base-10 natural number system" or whatever have you, there's just the "natural number system." So I'm not quite sure what argument you're trying to make here.

Now, supposing good and evil existed independently, I believe it would be entirely impossible for us to distinguish between the two of them.

Do you mean to say that you could not distinguish between love and hate, or between assistance and harm, unless some divine being told you the difference?

But it does.. It's something that exists, that we see in ourselves. The task is how do we explain how it comes about?

What precisely exists? You seem to be arguing that we have this innate knowledge that we cannot access unless we are taught it, but that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that everybody innately has a full stomach, but that they can't access their full stomach until they eat a large meal.

Innocence can often see what experience cannot.

A pithy saying does not an argument make.

If you had two runners, running alongside each other, it is easy to see which one is faster.

Similarly, if you compare two possible solutions to a moral quandary side-by-side, you can compare the two.

However, what if you did not see the beginning of the race? Or if you saw them running off in opposite directions?

How are these situations analogous to the comparison of good and evil?

You would need some way of objectively measuring the two in order to confirm the fact that one runs faster than the other, a measure that exists independently of the participants.

Not if they're running the same race.

What you're essentially arguing here is that you can't accurately compare the moral worth of two different courses of action if you introduce too many additional variables. I agree -- you can't accurately compare anything if you introduce too many additional variables. All you can do is account for the unknowns as best as you can to reach an estimate.

For example, it refutes dualism, in that one of the two exist independently and simultaneously, and the one that existed for eternity must also be our creator, and the author of our conscience.

Leaving aside the problem with your definition of conscience, there's still the problem that if somebody authored our consciences then somebody must have authored our temptations as well, leaving the dualism problem intact.

Because the instructor would also have to be perfect, and so on...

Then you're using circular reasoning. "Humans can't be morally perfect because they can't learn moral perfection, because humans can't be morally perfect." Well, it's not entirely circular, since it all begins with God creating a morally imperfect being in the form of Adam in the first place.

Why so? Perfection is difficult, but only because we are limited.

The problem with throwing around terms like "perfection" is that they're pretty meaningless in almost all circumstances, unless they're given the meaning "most satisfactory" instead. F'rinstance, the concept of a being who is "perfect" in moral terms is just as nonsensical as the concept of a being who is "perfect" in terms of weightlifting. Besides using a circular example along the lines of "God is morally perfect and moral perfection is God" or whatever, there's no meaningful way to define moral perfection just as there's no meaningful way to define weightlifting perfection.

Objective morality, by definition, is not subject to temporal constraints.

Not true -- "Absolute" is not the same as "Objective." F'rinstance, world records change all of the time, but nobody argues that the processes used to measure these records are arbitrary or subjective or whatever.

[Ben Kenobi]

I make the decisions. Therefore, I have free will. eof

But you cannot see it, or touch it, or detect it?

What is this you that you speak of?

[Kuciwalker]

What precisely exists? You seem to be arguing that we have this innate knowledge that we cannot access unless we are taught it, but that doesn't make any sense.

Ergo, Plato makes no sense*

*I wholly agree

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But you cannot see it, or touch it, or detect it?[/q]

I can detect it. By all indications, I am, in fact, the person who makes my decisions. I'm not being mind-controlled.

[LDiCesare]

I want to say two things: My own views and a few words about Hindu morality.

I don't think there is any absolute morality. I define morality as what you want people to do to you, and immorality as what you don't want them to do to you. That's obviously subjective, which means I don't believe in 'good' or 'evil', as absolutes.

About Hindus: If you read the Mahabharatah, you should understand that the one thing which will lead you to heaven instead of hell is to follow your dharma. I didn't say 'the' but 'your' dharma. There is a god called Dharma, so this god is morality itself. So from a morality point of view, Hinduism (at least in the Mahabharata) is monotheistic (there's a single god who defines morality).
Still, the only absolute is to follow one's Dharma, which is very vague. There is one character in the epic who doesn't follow his dharma, and thus acts against Dharma (the 'bad guy', Duryodhana). Consider Karna for example. His dharma is to help Duryodhana. This means it is good for him, and he will be rewarded in heaven, to help an evil man further his ends. Consider the use Duryodhana makes of terms translated as 'good': "Haven't I been a good king?", to which the Pandavas can only answer that yes he was a good king.
Morality doesn't have anything to do with good and evil. It is about how people should behave. It is possible that some people should behave in an evil way (Karna) and behaving in a good way is not necessarily enough(Duryodhana).
Morality is not about good and evil, but about how one should behave (you can also take the example of geasa in Irish myths - they aren't good or evil, but it's immoral to break a geas, a bit like a taboo- which can be personal or put on a group of people).