God's moral code

[sohryu]

im new to this thread so i apologize in advance if my premises will be lame. as what the gentle man said earlier, morality is diverse.

hence, there is no wrong answer as there is no right answer. basis for ones morality may come from culture, religion, environment or oneself... or a situation much like a turning point in a story.

 

my moral code may be similar to some in a general way as mine is based on logic, reality and bit of religion.

i dont like killing as i can also be killed, doesnt mean i wont resort to it if its my only option.

i dont like abortion but it doesnt mean i will stop a woman from doin it if her life depends on it.

i dont like stealing.. done so in the past but i didnt know any better then.

 

one would have to ask me about a situation so i can elaborate.

[skitz]

There, right there, someone finally answers the question. A MIXTURE OF INFLUENCES which includes religion. Thank you Sohryu. But for clarification purposes, can you please state whether you are an atheist or not? The whole point of this exercise is to challenge the atheists on what their moral code is and their justification for it.

 

And let me correct you on one point -- THERE IS A WRONG ANSWER to these questions. And most of the atheists have found that wrong answer (unbelievable!) And that is to NOT to answer the question at all. Or to keep on questioning the question when it is simple and straightforward enough. What's with all this bullshit nonsense atheists? What are you hiding behind this tactic of yours? Not HONEST enough even to yourselves?

 

If you've got no moral code, then just say so. If your moral code is God's-moral-code-revised-to-suit-my-whim then say so. You people are hedging.

Edited September 1, 2010 by skitz

[blah12345]

Question ko lang po, which God is this topic referring to? The Roman Catholic God? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Greek Gods?

[knoll1234]

without morality man would have been extinct by now

[skitz]

Question ko lang po, which God is this topic referring to? The Roman Catholic God? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Greek Gods?

 

WRONG ANSWER na naman. See Sohryu? There is a wrong answer and the atheists have found it.

 

Typical ATHEIST diversionary tactic. I repeat, as far as this thread is concerned, GOD DOES NOT EXIST. So ano pa ang next diversionary tactic ng atheist na hindi marunong sumagot sa simpleng tanong?

[complicated8]

What this thread is about is to settle whether the MORAL CODE that GOD (according to theists) gave man is still relevant today. So whether God exists or not, as far as this thread is concerned is IMMATERIAL. There is a MORAL CODE that theists believe God gave man. This moral code exists, though the details may vary from interpretation to interpretation of the various religious sects. But let us agree, this moral code, can be summarized as thus "LOVE GOD, LOVE ONE ANOTHER".

 

It is my contention that without this code, man would be lost. And given that we have the technology to end our species, we would self-destruct. Atheists hate to admit it, but even as they hate the idea that God exists, they still reference their own morals based on the standards set by this code. They do not adhere to it, but they want to know how far from the straight and narrow they have strayed.

 

Without the God-given moral code, an atheist would need to build from the ground-up his own moral code. What would this code be like? Let us see, hmmmm... something like, it is illegal to k*ll dogs for meat, but abortion is legal; prayer in schools is illegal, but gay marriages are legal (do these people even know who invented "marriage" and what it means?) -- just two examples of purely random man-made "moral" standards.

 

Alright, that's the opening statement, tell me what's your take.

(For me) for an atheist, "love god" - is removed. Is man lost? Love one another can be evaluated and see if it serves a purpose - useful, economic, etc. For me, the atheist wouldn't need to build it from the ground-up. But edit it to remove the god portions and build on man's history as it's basis. Build on laws that have worked and improve on it or remove the ones that don't work.

 

Is this acceptable? How about the social scientific principle of reciprocity?

 

I think a wrong assumption is made that suddenly there are no laws/god given moral code because you are an atheist. You change/modify the laws/code because you don't believe in the God given one.

 

If that is the assumption that there are no God given code from the beginning, then you'll have to think back to early history and try to assume how man will develop/progress thru the years. Who knows maybe scientific discovery may have been more and man's progress in technology faster. Or the opposite that we could've killed each other and man is extinct or a lot less than the over production/high population of man.

[complicated8]

without morality man would have been extinct by now

which kind of morality? I believe the extinct civilizations have god/s and therefore have morality as well. They weren't extinct because they had no god.

[skitz]

Finally, a good answer! Yes complicated8, you make a very good point. And furthermore, I'd like to thank you for being the sole atheist (so far) who didn't squirm around the question.

 

But now let me try to punch some holes into your proposition (haha... discussion lang naman, ok?).

 

The God Moral Code (that theists believe in) is only true because "God says so therefore it is true". So without God, NONE of it will be true -- or rather, the foundation of the truth of the proposition is no longer valid. If you are going to change/modify, as you say, the God moral code sans God then rebuild from it your own moral code, it still lacks the foundation for it to be true. Refer to the Math analogy on the other post.

 

Why is killing another man (except in self defense) not good, true? That one appears to be an easy and very basic principle. But remember whatever FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH/ARGUMENT that you would apply on that specific example should apply to all other instances. How would the foundation you supply to that principle apply to abortion? How about in times of war?

 

I have a little trouble accepting "reciprocity" as a valid foundation. The US and USSR during the cold war had the mutually assured destruction policy. That worked. But if that is the case, killing someone who can not fight back is ok? This is the reason why abortion is ok? Because babies in the womb can not fight back? So exterminating the Jews in Nazi Germany was ok because they didn't have the means to reciprocate?

 

Alright, you've stated your moral code. Now supply the argument for it to be true.

[complicated8]

The God Moral Code (that theists believe in) is only true because "God says so therefore it is true". So without God, NONE of it will be true -- or rather, the foundation of the truth of the proposition is no longer valid. If you are going to change/modify, as you say, the God moral code sans God then rebuild from it your own moral code, it still lacks the foundation for it to be true. Refer to the Math analogy on the other post.

I think my point was you don't live according to the code but according to laws. So the truth foundation actually isn't relevant anymore. So I don't have to reverse engineer the code from the man-made laws. But like I said modify the laws to remove God.

 

Why is killing another man (except in self defense) not good, true? That one appears to be an easy and very basic principle. But remember whatever FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH/ARGUMENT that you would apply on that specific example should apply to all other instances. How would the foundation you supply to that principle apply to abortion? How about in times of war?

I have a little trouble accepting "reciprocity" as a valid foundation. The US and USSR during the cold war had the mutually assured destruction policy. That worked. But if that is the case, killing someone who can not fight back is ok? This is the reason why abortion is ok? Because babies in the womb can not fight back? So exterminating the Jews in Nazi Germany was ok because they didn't have the means to reciprocate?

Alright, you've stated your moral code. Now supply the argument for it to be true.

Reciprocity - would you want anyone else to k*ll you? It's innate in everyone to survive/live. That's an instinct. Why would you want to k*ll another when you are taking away their chance for life when you don't want anyone else to take that chance from you. In times of war, do you follow a code or do you follow the law? The law says that this general/president/PM/commander-in-chief tells you to attack or to defend and k*ll.

 

Reciprocity simply states that people feel obliged to give back to others who have given to them. If you are a "bad" person who wants to beat other people, then you actually accept that it's ok to be beaten up by others.

 

The truth is based on man's nature. But I am not about proving the truth. Rather, the usefulness and applicability of it.

Edited September 2, 2010 by complicated8

[blah12345]

WRONG ANSWER na naman. See Sohryu? There is a wrong answer and the atheists have found it.

 

Typical ATHEIST diversionary tactic. I repeat, as far as this thread is concerned, GOD DOES NOT EXIST. So ano pa ang next diversionary tactic ng atheist na hindi marunong sumagot sa simpleng tanong?

I think it would help naman sir not brand people automatically with such posts I'm not an atheist. Just wanted to ask an question to be sure I was on the right page when reading other people's posts, basic forum ethics lang sir. =/

[vheRR]

Let me get this, ATHEISTS are not questioning the moral code which theists believe God gave man. In fact, they are owning it? Under the qualification that it is man-made (of course). I think this thread has turned a strange corner.

 

(still busy at the moment, will make more detailed posts at a later date)

 

Kung sa DIOS NYO NAGMULA ang MORALITY…

… at WALA KAYONG PATUNAY na TOTOO ang DIOS NYO,

… so WALA rin KAYONG PATUNAY na NAGMULA nga sa DIOS NYO ang MORALITY.

 

 

 

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na MAYROON ang TAO…

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na nasa UTAK na ng TAO…

 

… at ang ATHEIST, GAYA ng THEIST, ay "TAO" rin,

 

… so, KANINO ba, SINO nga ba ang "NAG-MA-MAY-ARI" sa MORALITY?

 

[vheRR]

If I can use a math/geometry analogy, if one is able to debunk/destroy the definition of a point or a line (by Euclid), then there is no more point in using/following Euclidean geometry. One has to develop an entirely different brand of math. God is the "point" of the "God moral codes", Without God, none of it will be true. And as an atheist, you should revisit ALL these moral codes that theists claim came from God. Is killing another human being bad, TRUE? Then why? Based on what? Theists say it is bad because God commanded so. IF it so happens that atheists are able to develop a similar moral code then well and good. But it has to based on something. You've removed God from the equation. All "truth" in the "God moral code" is now up reexamination.

 

 

Alright, let me attempt to clarify my point with a specific example.

 

To THEISTS, it's easy. Given a question whether abortion is right or wrong, we simply have to look at scripture and find out what God's commandment is on the matter is. For atheists, your decision making process should be based on something else other than God's commandment (since He does not exist). What is that? Economics? Politics? Pragmatism? Etc. Etc. So what atheists? On what do you base your moral code on?

 

 

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na MAYROON ang TAO…

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na nasa UTAK na ng TAO…

 

 

 

Reposting,

 

(1)

 

ANO nga ba ang PUMIPIGIL sa isang HAYOP na PATAYIN ang KANYANG ANAK?

 

Ano nga ba ang pumipigil sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na patayin ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

 

 

ANO nga ba ang NAG-UUDYOK sa isang HAYOP na IPAGTANGGOL ang KANYANG ANAK?

 

Ano nga ba ang nag-uudyok sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na ipagtanggol ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

 

 

Moral Judgments Can Be Altered: Neuroscientists Influence People's Moral Judgments by Disrupting Specific Brain Region

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329152516.htm>

 

"Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people's intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions -- for example, a failed murder attempt -- was impaired."

 

 

 

Emotions Key to Judging Others: New Piece to Puzzle of How Human Brain Constructs Morality from Study of Harmful Intent

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324121008.htm>

 

"Patients with damage to this brain area, known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), are unable to conjure a normal emotional response to hypothetical situations in which a person tries, but fails, to k*ll another person. Therefore, they judge the situation based only on the outcome, and do not hold the attempted murderer morally responsible."

 

 

 

Moral Judgment Fails Without Feelings

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070321181940.htm>

 

The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual -- a prospect that usually generates strong aversion.

 

"Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They lack empathy and compassion," said Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.

 

"In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," said co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC.

 

 

 

Sleep Deprivation Affects Moral Judgment, Study Finds

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070301081831.htm>

 

"The findings suggest that continuous wakefulness has a particularly debilitating effect on judgment and decision making processes that depend heavily upon the integration of emotion with cognition, said Killgore, adding that the results provide further support to the hypothesis that sleep loss is particularly disruptive to the ventromedial prefrontal regions of the brain, which are important for the integration of affect and cognition in the service of judgment and decision making."

 

 

 

Is Morality Innate and Universal?

 

Pasted from

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=0>

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=1>

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=2>

 

What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?

 

Let's take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it's going to run over and k*ll five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will k*ll one but save the five. Most people think that's morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, "Doctor, we've got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?" No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they're identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, people even with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection.

 

 

What is the evidence that infants already have a moral code ingrained in their brains?

 

I don't think we're ready to say. Studies have shown that infants as young as 15 months are*sensitive to the beliefs of others—true versus false beliefs. That's crucial to the moral domain.*

 

There's also this from the work of Elliot Turiel [a cognitive scientist at the University of California at Berkeley]. He said, Look, there's a very important distinction between a social convention and a moral rule. Children by at least the age of 3 or 4 understand that distinction. Here is a simple way of putting it. If a teacher comes into a classroom and says, "Today, class, instead of raising your hand when you want to ask a question, just ask your question. Don't raise your hand." If you ask kids, "Is that OK?" kids will say, "OK, fine." If you tell them, "In our class, we raise our hands to ask questions, but in France they never raise their hands. Is that OK?" "OK." So it's basically open to authority; it's culturally variable.*

 

So that's a social dimension. But now imagine the following situation. The teacher comes into the class and says, "If you're annoyed by a child sitting next to you, just punch him!" You're going to have moral outrage. You can't say that! If you say, "But in France they do," they'd say, "Well, the French are weird; the French can't say that." So it's completely not open to authoritarian override, in a sense, and it's not culturally variable. So you get this kind of fundamental distinction that's coming on fairly early. But first the question is: How does the kid know that it's in the moral zone as opposed to merely the social zone? We don't know.

 

 

Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?

 

One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here's an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother's body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: "I'm terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he's unconscious and in terrible health. He's in kidney failure, and I hope you don't mind, but we've plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him."*

You ask people, "Is that morally permissible?" They're like: "No, it's insane. Of course not." Well, that makes [Thomson's] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, "Sure, I love this guy's playing; plug him in." But she's not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, "Yes, I love this guy's violin playing!" Two months into it, she goes: "You know what? This really is a drag," and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that's less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.

 

 

Do other species have any form of moral faculty?

 

Certainly sympathy, caretaking, cooperation;*those things*are there in some animals. The crucial questions are, "Do animals have any sense of what they ought to do?" and "To what extent will animals judge transgressions of others as being wrong in some way?" How we'd ever understand that, I don't know.*

 

 

 

Whose Life Would You Save?

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

 

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

 

Pasted from <http://forums.mukamo.com/grey-areas/12006-can-morality-exist-without-religion-8.html>

 

 

 

So, SAAN naka-BASE ang MORALITY ng ATHEIST…

… naka-BASE ito sa "UTAK",

… sa "UTAK", sa "ISIPAN" ng BAWAT TAO.

[skitz]

I think it would help naman sir not brand people automatically with such posts I'm not an atheist. Just wanted to ask an question to be sure I was on the right page when reading other people's posts, basic forum ethics lang sir. =/

I think it would help too that before someone posts in a thread asking a question containing contentious words like "flying spaghetti monster" one would backread first. There was a genuine effort put into the posts explaining what the thread is all about. The thread is only 3 pages. What? We should all go over that again for your benefit? Since backreading is beneath you?

[skitz]

vherr,

 

I know I am going to regret this but...

 

So nasa utak ang morality. Ayon na rin yan sa post mo. Pag nasa utak, ito ba ay totoo o hindi?

 

 

complicated8,

 

I did not ignore your last post. I just need more time to frame a better response. Ok.

Edited September 3, 2010 by skitz

[skitz]

I think my point was you don't live according to the code but according to laws. So the truth foundation actually isn't relevant anymore. So I don't have to reverse engineer the code from the man-made laws. But like I said modify the laws to remove God.

The truth foundation isn't relevant? Follow laws that aren't true to begin with? But hey, add the qualifier "remove God" while your at it, willya. That's the whole point isn't it? Whatever law it is, be it true or false, just as long as God has nothing to do with it, is fine by you.

 

Reciprocity - would you want anyone else to k*ll you? It's innate in everyone to survive/live. That's an instinct.

 

But there are 6 billion "yous" and counting. So which "you" will outweigh another "you" when their "want" come into conflict? I don't think anyone would want to have been aborted, but some women feel their "want" is being infringed upon if you ban abortion. Which weighs more?

 

Reciprocity simply states that people feel obliged to give back to others who have given to them.

Ah, so useless people who can not "give" anything do not count?

 

If you are a "bad" person who wants to beat other people, then you actually accept that it's ok to be beaten up by others.

And what do we do with people like this? There are many people like this, you know. What kind of reciprocity do we inflict upon them? Beat them up?

 

The truth is based on man's nature. But I am not about proving the truth. Rather, the usefulness and applicability of it.

 

Pragmatism? Reciprocity is "pragmatic"? And it doesn't matter if this statement is true or false, right?

 

 

Let me help you out.

 

First state an axiom we can all agree is true (axioms are accepted to be true by convention which is ultimately nothing more than an agreement between men). From this axiom start building your case. State a starting premise (again that we can all agree upon). Then from there, form your moral code.

 

For example, the US constitution is primarily founded upon the premise which is the Bill of Rights. The framers of the US constitution agreed between themselves that all items on that list is true. Tis the reason that no law in the US can ever be passed that supersedes or contradicts any item on that list. But as I have stated before, the US constitution was framed by men who are mostly (if not entirely) believers in God. So as an atheist, this does not bother you (given that the Philippine Constitution was patterned after the US Constitution)? The laws of the land, currently, is still the same law (more or less), we theists believe was handed by God Himself. So what good is your atheism then? Ah, yes, just remove God from the credits and it is all fine by you. Fine then. God does not exist, end of story.

Edited September 5, 2010 by skitz