The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
It looks like my above example starts around page 255 in a section titled "A case study in the roots of morality"

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
There is no "eternal moral code". Even religionists agree with that. There are as many interpretations in Biblical moral injunctions as there are religionists. Many Catholics do not agree abortions are wrong. They fight like cats and dogs over capital punishment, and gay marriage, and almost every other question. What gets "written on the heart" are learned values and behaviors.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-01-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 12:01 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  So can you clarify this difference between "intrinsic moral obligations" to "plain morals"?

Plain morals:
I don't like hurting people, I only like helping people. When people hurt other people, I think that's bad, when people help other people I think that's good.

Moral Obligation:
I have a duty not to hurt people, but only to help people.

Intrinsic Moral Obligation:
This duty is written in my heart, weaved into my DNA. When I listen to my heart, and hear my conscious speaking to me, I see a law telling me "thou shall not hurt people, only help people".

Intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.
synonym: inherent, innate

As opposed to extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

Crap. That's a closed theory. You can't measure what people feel because you can never know what they actually feel. You can only speak for yourself and, even then, are you acting out of altruism, conditioning or fear?

And that's even before you consider psychopathy....

So, a poor hypothesis, with no hope of a proof.

A better hypothesis would be there are advantages to social behaviour, but we must have already covered that at least seven pages back...

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 12:01 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  So can you clarify this difference between "intrinsic moral obligations" to "plain morals"?

Plain morals:
I don't like hurting people, I only like helping people. When people hurt other people, I think that's bad, when people help other people I think that's good.

Moral Obligation:
I have a duty not to hurt people, but only to help people.

Intrinsic Moral Obligation:
This duty is written in my heart, weaved into my DNA. When I listen to my heart, and hear my conscious speaking to me, I see a law telling me "thou shall not hurt people, only help people".

Intrinsic: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.
synonym: inherent, innate

As opposed to extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

There are no intrinsic moral obligations. Obligations are between people and are a social construct.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
I actually agree with Tomsia in a bit of defending of him because he isn't trying to argue in favor of these Moral obligations or their merits. (I would say his ways of wording especially the in the heart nonsense doesn't help him demonstrate his idea well)

Part of his overarching point here, which was his point in other threads, is about how in his view... atheists will resort to act like there is a moral obligation in things being right/wrong such as when they condemn the ideas of God being bad... or of other cultures like Islam being bad. His runs into problems though when he tries to box in and generalize groups. He'll have said things like he did in this thread like, based on my experience with talking to atheists, which isn't a point of merit as it is a very limited scope and he'll try to weave ideas based on these things. They become assertions that dont come out as valid because of this.

He isn't trying to say moral obligations are real... but he gets in some jumble because he wants to assert he knows things about perceptions of morals by other people. I would say I don't know how firmly he understands evolved senses of morality and social bondings impacts on it. Or especially social contract theories and how they relate to many of the ideas people have that he thinks of as somewhat contradictory where h can lead them to see that trap.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-01-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 02:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  ]Okay, let me put it this way, in post #83 on this thread, your comments are suggestive of arguing from the point of this "eternal moral code" being a real thing.

No, I was not. If you keep thinking this, and then proceed to argue with this assumption it’s going to end up being entirely out of sync with what I in fact was saying, and I really don’t want to keep addressing points you make that are founded on this misunderstanding, like all your subsequent post.

My suggestion is, that if at any point, you feel you can’t make sense of something I said without assuming I’m arguing that an eternal moral code is real, that you step back and ask me to clarify what I mean, as you did here.

So let’s clear up some of these points for you:

Quote:For instance "You can’t be dismissive of beliefs, by appealing to these preceding biological instincts. Because we all know that beliefs can have a great deal of influence in shaping how we actually behave. "

I can be dismissive of beliefs when they are based on an unsupported presupposition. You are suggesting a belief in an "eternal moral code" is something that is 1) uniquely human and 2) something that (at the very least) humans have always had.

Try and read the first sentence this way, “you can’t be dismissive of true or false beliefs, by appealing to these preceding biological instincts.”

You seemed to have thought I was saying you can’t be dismissive of the validity of these beliefs. But I wasn’t. What I was saying was, you can’t be dismissive of the role of beliefs in shaping our behavior.

This point was made even clearer by what I said preceding this: “Our beliefs shape our individual behavior, a point argued ad nauseam by unbelievers who speak about the harmfulness of religious beliefs.”

To illustrate the point even further. Imagine hearing someone talking about some violent campaign committed by ISIS. Imagine this person being dismissive of the role religious beliefs plays in the actions of ISIS, by appealing to fact that chimpanzees do similar heinous shit. It’s all in their biology and nature. This person is being dismissive of the role of such beliefs, in shaping how people behave, beyond just their biological dispositions.

Quote:On point 1, how would you demonstrate the lack of a belief in an "eternal moral code" in other organisms?

The same way atheists would argue we’re all born atheists. How would other organisms, conceptualize and distinguish between concepts such as eternal vs non-eternal, intrinsic vs extrinsic? Obligations from non-obligations?

Quote:The fact that animals act immorally no more demonstrates they lack morals as a whole, than some humans acting immoral means humanity (as a whole) has no morality.

No one said they lacked morality.

Quote: Person 1 who was commanded to do so, is doing good but not because of his own morality. = amoral

Unless of course he’s a deontologist, then what he did was moral.

Quote:Person 2 who is trying to "score brownie points" is doing good for a selfish reason, which is a big part of the reason we all do good things (I do good things because it makes me feel good). Assuming his intent is to help, then he is acting morally (we are animals after all, so doing good to feel good and impress a mate is not a crime or immoral, as this is not deception).

I said person 2 did it to curry favor with a girl he was trying to sleep with. I’m not sure why you wanted to assume an additional level of intent with him, at the same time not being as generous to person 1. Assuming person 2’s only reason was to curry favor with this girl, then I’m guessing you would say he acted amorally.

It’s still not very clear to me what standard you base your judgements of amoral and moral on. In the person 3 example, I implied he fed the poor, out of fear, fear of them going around robbing people, but you stated he acted morally.

You also stated: “I do good things because it makes me feel good”. But i’m guessing the good things you do are acts you consider “moral”, rather than amoral?

My assumption is that, the difference between amoral and moral acts for you, is that moral acts are inspired by empathy, and compassion (altruistic reasons), rather than purely out of fear of death, or personal harm, or economic benefit, or a desire for prestige, or brownie points with a girl you like. Is this what you’re suggesting?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 08:03 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  There are no intrinsic moral obligations. Obligations are between people and are a social construct.

Can you explain to me the difference between intrinsic moral obligations, and just regular old morals?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 08:21 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 08:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  There are no intrinsic moral obligations. Obligations are between people and are a social construct.

Can you explain to me the difference between intrinsic moral obligations, and just regular old morals?

You're kidding right ? He just told you the two categories you claim exist, do not exist. You have not demonstrated these two categories exist. You failed to provide a reference to anyone other than your opinion that anyone other than you holds your categories to be a useful description.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 10:46 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 10:52 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Intrinsic Moral Obligation:
This duty is written in my heart, weaved into my DNA. When I listen to my heart, and hear my conscious speaking to me, I see a law telling me "thou shall not hurt people, only help people".

You have said multiple times that there are “eternal moral laws” and now claim there are “intrinsic moral obligations”.

In post #101 I said:
"Altruism is an evolved trait.
Morality is subjective.

There are NO moral laws, much less eternal ones.”


I stand by this but for the sake of argument how else could I refute your assertion?

What if there were examples that totally contradicted your definition of morality?

If that were the case and people acted in ways contrary to your morality that would mean that “eternal moral laws” are neither eternal nor fit your definition of morality and “intrinsic moral obligations” are subjective.

So let us look at your “eternal moral laws” and “intrinsic moral obligations” within the context of the Asmat, Citak, Carib, Tupí, Mundurukú and Jívaro peoples. All are, or were, headhunters and cannibals. It is/was their tradition and way of life.

With these examples your definition of:

Intrinsic Moral Obligation:
This duty is written in my heart, weaved into my DNA. When I listen to my heart, and hear my conscious speaking to me, I see a law telling me "thou shall not hurt people, only help people".


goes right out the window, can’t have eternal or intrinsic laws with exceptions. Case closed.

[Image: 5615_3562b.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2015, 06:48 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 08:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Can you explain to me the difference between intrinsic moral obligations, and just regular old morals?

You're kidding right ? He just told you the two categories you claim exist, do not exist. You have not demonstrated these two categories exist. You failed to provide a reference to anyone other than your opinion that anyone other than you holds your categories to be a useful description.

No. I was being serious I wanted to hear how Chas would articulate the difference between them.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for me between a unicorn and a leprechaun?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: