Atheist VS Christian morality: Good is evil and vice versa

[wbuentello]

Yes, I do mean to include our moral actions not only within a group, but outside that group as well.  If killing somebody is okay outside the group, the it is obvious that the moral against killing is subjective.  To begin with, lying, stealing and murder need to be defined.  For example, in Sparta it was expected that the males would steal--just don't get caught.  Stealing from Athenians was perfectly okay.  Murder depends upon the definition. If killing within the group was murder, perhaps killing outside was called something else.  But even so, if it is immoral to kill somebody within the group how could it be moral to do so outside the group.  Morals are thought of and usually meant to be applied everywhere and everywhen.

Morality only has significance within the context of the group. It is a means to prescribe social norms only within a given group in order to better secure group cohesion. Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them. You are free, of course, to define your own standards but then we would be speaking in apples and oranges.

[Mike Cl]

You're forgetting evolution is influenced just as much by culture and social norms as by the natural processes. Even if there are no universal rules, we obviously evolved altruism for a reason, and creating these moral laws simply helps reinforce altruism to benefit all of society. Religion has simply corrupted them.

Absolutely!  Altruism is not god based.  It has developed quite naturally as societies evolve.  I quite agree.  I also agree that religion has corrupted it.

[Mike Cl]

Morality only has significance within the context of the group. It is a means to prescribe social norms only within a given group in order to better secure group cohesion. Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them. You are free, of course, to define your own standards but then we would be speaking in apples and oranges.

I believe that Odoital would say that morals are universal--both inside and outside any group.  And that they were also dictated to us by God--and are therefore, objective.  I was, and am, suggesting that morals are derived by each society or group--and that those morals change over time. 

You said--Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them.
could you further explain that?  Commonly understood by whom?

[wbuentello]

I believe that Odoital would say that morals are universal--both inside and outside any group.  And that they were also dictated to us by God--and are therefore, objective.  I was, and am, suggesting that morals are derived by each society or group--and that those morals change over time. 

You said--Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them.
could you further explain that?  Commonly understood by whom?

Even from a Abrahamic theists perspective it would be extremely problematic if the moral law applied even to outsiders. This is why we see raping, pillaging and killing being condoned and even requested by God, as long as it is only committed against outsiders.

I want to also point out that the exclusive nature of morality is evident in the particulars of language, and these linguistic distinctions are observed also universally. For instance, murder is a term generally and historically reserved for a killing between group members. If it involves a non member it's referred to something like a killing, assassination or such. Now in today's world, overlap of these terms is much more likely but mostly only from third parties. The local news may report an intentional killing of a person from one group by a member from another group as murder but within the offending group the language would be much different. The same applies to the other universals I mentioned. Theft is theft within the group and acquisition without. Now this is a very brief treatment of the subject. There are lots of holes that I could fill, like the fact that we often belong to many many social groups at once. But in the interest of clarity I will let you steer the conversation.

As far as who's "who", I'm referring in general to the academics. Most people don't consciously examine their moral beliefs. Ethics has generally been in the domain of the humanities like philosophy but recently the social sciences have begun to make empirically based studies and discoveries in this field. We have now fields like the behavioral sciences, social psychology, anthropology and sociology making contributions to our understanding of ethics, both applied and theoretical.  I'm no expert but I believe I have studied it more then most non-academics. Hopefully I can at least point you in the right direction to form your own understanding because I believe it to be a very important subject.

[SGOS]

When a person believes they are moral, and they believe those morals come from a god, they are going to see a great deal of congruence between their own morality, and what they believe a god wants from them.  Since the two are identical, they must come from God, right?  The problem is that they will never know if their morality actually comes from a god, or if they just ascribe their moral values to a god.

As for raping and pillaging of outsiders, the ancients rationalized such inhuman behavior by saying it was God's will.  They even wrote it right into their Bible. 

"When we rape and pillage, we are following God's orders.  It has nothing to do with the fact that we want to dehumanize the enemy, show them who's in charge, and take their stuff."

[Mike Cl]

Even from a Abrahamic theists perspective it would be extremely problematic if the moral law applied even to outsiders. This is why we see raping, pillaging and killing being condoned and even requested by God, as long as it is only committed against outsiders.

I want to also point out that the exclusive nature of morality is evident in the particulars of language, and these linguistic distinctions are observed also universally. For instance, murder is a term generally and historically reserved for a killing between group members. If it involves a non member it's referred to something like a killing, assassination or such. Now in today's world, overlap of these terms is much more likely but mostly only from third parties. The local news may report an intentional killing of a person from one group by a member from another group as murder but within the offending group the language would be much different. The same applies to the other universals I mentioned. Theft is theft within the group and acquisition without. Now this is a very brief treatment of the subject. There are lots of holes that I could fill, like the fact that we often belong to many many social groups at once. But in the interest of clarity I will let you steer the conversation.

As far as who's "who", I'm referring in general to the academics. Most people don't consciously examine their moral beliefs. Ethics has generally been in the domain of the humanities like philosophy but recently the social sciences have begun to make empirically based studies and discoveries in this field. We have now fields like the behavioral sciences, social psychology, anthropology and sociology making contributions to our understanding of ethics, both applied and theoretical.  I'm no expert but I believe I have studied it more then most non-academics. Hopefully I can at least point you in the right direction to form your own understanding because I believe it to be a very important subject.

I find this area to be interesting, too.  I especially am interested in sociological anthropology--but I have not read about it in years.  If you could suggest some current studies and/or authors who write about it, I'd appreciate it. 

Where do you think our morals originate from? 

[wbuentello]

I find this area to be interesting, too.  I especially am interested in sociological anthropology--but I have not read about it in years.  If you could suggest some current studies and/or authors who write about it, I'd appreciate it. 

Where do you think our morals originate from?

When I get home and get a chance I'd be more then willing to look to see what all I have in my meager little library that I might find helpful.

The origins of morals... What a great question. I've thought about this quite a bit. Morals seems to be a requirement of any social creature with a sense of individuality. This is easy to illustrate by looking at the creatures that live on the extremes of the sociability scale. At one end you would have non-social, very independent creatures like say tigers or bears. You would expect very little, if any, moral sense in these animals. A hermit living on the woods by his/herself gives a rats ass if they do something offensive, no one is there to offend or wrong.
At the other extreme we have the super social organisms. The most illustrative examples would be bees or ants. But since they're typically not perceived to have the intelligence required to develop a moral sense then these examples are not very helpful. There are a few lesser known mammalian species that seem to function with a hive mind like a certain species of mole. But I think it might be more helpful to think of what a sentient hive mind creature would be like in a social context. If you've ever seen star trek you may be familiar with the Borg. A super advanced race of beings that are essentially of one mind. In this case there also would be little, if any, need for a moral sense. Everyone is always on the same page all the time.

Everything else falls somewhere in between. The creatures closer to the center of the sociability scale are the ones with the most well developed moral sense. Half individual, half social. What are these creatures? The ones that form groups. Now there are a lot of animals that fall into this category and this is where intelligence comes into play. The higher the intelligence the better developed and more nuanced the moral sense is. For along time morality was considered wholly and poorly in the human domain. Not so anymore. A growing numbers of studies on animals like dogs, dolphins and simians are beginning to shine light on the hubris of humans. So it turns it that our individuality is just as important as our sociability in the origins and development of or moral sense

[Mike Cl]

When I get home and get a chance I'd be more then willing to look to see what all I have in my meager little library that I might find helpful.

The origins of morals... What a great question. I've thought about this quite a bit. Morals seems to be a requirement of any social creature with a sense of individuality. This is easy to illustrate by looking at the creatures that live on the extremes of the sociability scale. At one end you would have non-social, very independent creatures like say tigers or bears. You would expect very little, if any, moral sense in these animals. A hermit living on the woods by his/herself gives a rats ass if they do something offensive, no one is there to offend or wrong.
At the other extreme we have the super social organisms. The most illustrative examples would be bees or ants. But since they're typically not perceived to have the intelligence required to develop a moral sense then these examples are not very helpful. There are a few lesser known mammalian species that seem to function with a hive mind like a certain species of mole. But I think it might be more helpful to think of what a sentient hive mind creature would be like in a social context. If you've ever seen star trek you may be familiar with the Borg. A super advanced race of beings that are essentially of one mind. In this case there also would be little, if any, need for a moral sense. Everyone is always on the same page all the time.

Everything else falls somewhere in between. The creatures closer to the center of the sociability scale are the ones with the most well developed moral sense. Half individual, half social. What are these creatures? The ones that form groups. Now there are a lot of animals that fall into this category and this is where intelligence comes into play. The higher the intelligence the better developed and more nuanced the moral sense is. For along time morality was considered wholly and poorly in the human domain. Not so anymore. A growing numbers of studies on animals like dogs, dolphins and simians are beginning to shine light on the hubris of humans. So it turns it that our individuality is just as important as our sociability in the origins and development of or moral sense

I like and appreciate your answer.  It was not the direction I was expecting it to go.  That is far from being bad--and it is most interesting and I'd like to explore morals and other animals in much more detail. 

But what I was aiming toward, in humans, what do you see as the creator of what we call morals? 

[wbuentello]

I like and appreciate your answer.  It was not the direction I was expecting it to go.  That is far from being bad--and it is most interesting and I'd like to explore morals and other animals in much more detail. 

But what I was aiming toward, in humans, what do you see as the creator of what we call morals?

So in humans specifically we have a burning sense of individuality that is often in conflict with our longing desire for community. Both of these are inherent characteristics of humans and because of this apparent duality we have evolved a sense of right and wrong. Morality comes naturally to us.

Is this closer to answering your question? Maybe you were asking how it is that we decide how to express our morality?

[Termin]

I like and appreciate your answer.  It was not the direction I was expecting it to go.  That is far from being bad--and it is most interesting and I'd like to explore morals and other animals in much more detail. 

But what I was aiming toward, in humans, what do you see as the creator of what we call morals?

  Survival. We are social creatures and very much depend on others for our survival.  I think it really is that simple, now originally that attitude only went so far as our family, but later it would be extended to tribes, and then nations and someday, hopefully all humans.

  It's imperfect of course, but most things that are evolved are.

[wbuentello]

  Survival. We are social creatures and very much depend on others for our survival.  I think it really is that simple, now originally that attitude only went so far as our family, but later it would be extended to tribes, and then nations and someday, hopefully all humans.

  It's imperfect of course, but most things that are evolved are.

I mean, not to be a Debbie downer but if it really was this simple we would see a moral sense in all creatures since they all needed to survive. There for there has to be more specific reasons why a moral sense develops

[Solitary]

You mean there isn't, even most animals know they shouldn't harm those they love or bothers if not hungry, unless they are so primitive they haven't developed the higher feelings of empathy. What happens to all these people that are moral just because they believe a God will punish them when their passions overcome their principles, or are supported by religious dogma in the Testaments? Who's morals are the correct ones? In some primitive tribes all the men in the village have a shot at any that has her period. If evolution doesn't support morality, how do you explain this? I have been as immoral according to Christian morality as you can get, have I hurt people because of it? Yes! But only because the people that were hurt were Christian moralists.   

[wbuentello]

You mean there isn't, even most animals know they shouldn't harm those they love or bothers if not hungry, unless they are so primitive they haven't developed the higher feelings of empathy. What happens to all these people that are moral just because they believe a God will punish them when their passions overcome their principles, or are supported by religious dogma in the Testaments? Who's morals are the correct ones? In some primitive tribes all the men in the village have a shot at any that has her period. If evolution doesn't support morality, how do you explain this? I have been as immoral according to Christian morality as you can get, have I hurt people because of it? Yes! But only because the people that were hurt were Christian moralists.

Maybe you didn't read any of my other posts. I clearly stated that morality is evolutionary and that other animals exhibited morality. I also showed animals that didn't exhibit moral awareness and also explained why.
So it is ultimately is reducible to survival but so is everything else that is evolutionary. It's the easy answer and offers no real enlightenment into the origins of morality. Again I don't mean to belittle your answer but I'm just pointing out that you may not have posted that if you had read my previous posts on this thread

[Mike Cl]

So in humans specifically we have a burning sense of individuality that is often in conflict with our longing desire for community. Both of these are inherent characteristics of humans and because of this apparent duality we have evolved a sense of right and wrong. Morality comes naturally to us.

Is this closer to answering your question? Maybe you were asking how it is that we decide how to express our morality?

I do see a tension of the individual and the group.  The individual wants to survive and survive the best it can; and in the long run it will still need to be in a group (if even just loosely) to help insure his survival.  So, what would be a good working definition of what morality is--the code of conduct that each society or group formulates for the members of that group or society--could that be one?  And those rules, then evolve as the group changes. 

In my discussion with Odoital, I said that morals are all subjective.  He states that all morals are objective and are codified by God.  So, what do you think--are morals subjective or objective?

[wbuentello]

I do see a tension of the individual and the group.  The individual wants to survive and survive the best it can; and in the long run it will still need to be in a group (if even just loosely) to help insure his survival.  So, what would be a good working definition of what morality is--the code of conduct that each society or group formulates for the members of that group or society--could that be one?  And those rules, then evolve as the group changes. 

In my discussion with Odoital, I said that morals are all subjective.  He states that all morals are objective and are codified by God.  So, what do you think--are morals subjective or objective?

I think your definition works fine.
As far as whether morals are objective or subjective; this has always been a healthy debate within the philosophical community. Huge amounts of literature exist on this specific debate. However, like I said earlier, there recently has been empirical evidence collected which indicate that there are a very limited set of morals which are indeed universal. Most of this specifically comes from the anthropological fields. Animal behaviorists have also augmented these findings by very similar universals within non-human species. But outside of this very limited list, ethics is very subjective.

So like everything else in the world the truth is somewhere in the middle.