Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Right, although unfortunately reason (or faulty application of it or insufficient facts) can fail us too.

This topic is frustrating because I think most of us agree that there is an objective standard for morality (at least with the biggies), but there is no good answer for how get there, mostly because we are humans and humas are falible.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

By "get away with it" what exactly do you mean, BTW? Is the only person you can't get away from God? Because, if so, that rather presupposes the answer you assert as true.


And that's not a very good reading of Rawls. First off, he would explain that cheating on taxes is legitimately punished as immoral, because it doesn't make the least well off better off. As for his "ridiculous" proposition, you've simplified it to the point of meaninglessness. It's a rhetorical device to establish what are "fair" rules. He postulates that it's only fair to set rules if one does not know which side of the rule one will be on. Otherwise, all rules are self-interested. In the original position, however, one cannot be self-interested, other than to ensure that any set of rules will seem fair once one knows one's position.

I don't think Rawls goes all the way to setting a "morality", but one could easily devine moral principles from the theory that would not be based on religion. E.g., the rich should aid bangladesh because one has no idea, in the original position, whether one might be bangladeshie.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

PI is a testable theory. The existence of a universal moral code is not. Morality is also not testable. You say that the Aztecs sacrificed people, but today, everyone seems to accept that human sacrifice is wrong. Very few people would say, it was OK for them to do it because that was part of their culture. But if we believe in cultural relativism, then if the the custom in India is to throw a widow on her husband's funeral pyre who are we to critisize that. For them that is what is right in their culture. But we don't do that.

As far as the Death Penalty is concerned, there is a difference of agreement over whether it is right or wrong. The european think it is wrong for them and us. But if both the Pro-life and Pro-Death penalty people did not believe in universal morality there would be no argument. People would just say it is OK in some cultures and not in others.

We all seem to agree on the existence of this universal moral code, but no one seems to be able to explain where it comes from.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I shouldn't have use the word ridiculous. His theory is interesting, but it does not address where morality comes from. Or why should people should follow it. If you steal from your neighbor and he never figures it out it was you, how is that wrong. Why is stealing per se wrong? I believe that stealing is wrong, even if no one ever finds out, but that is just my instinct. I have to have "faith" that my instincts are right and that I should do what I think is right even though there is no rational reason that I should follow my instincts. Without "faith" in this universal code why even get involved in politics (except to secure your own self interest).

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have the sense that more than one philosopher has made a religion-free justification for this, whereas all Christianity has is some clay tablets of legend. I'll go with the former.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have been looking for such a theory for a long time and I have never found it. Some have tried, but they always use faulty logic or reasoning or make some sort of leap of faith. If someone knows such a theory that is workable I would love to hear it.

If you have seen the Woody Allen movie, Hannah and her Sisters, Woody Allen plays a guy that has an existential crisis and looks for meaning in life. He reads all the philosphers and he concludes not one of them has a rational reason to be moral or ethical. In addition, none of them come up with a purpose for life. Crimes and Misdemeanors has a similar theme.

I believe the questions still stands: where is the source of morality and ethics in a Godless universe?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Why doesn't evolution/interdependence/survival of the species work for you?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

What is the source of morality and ethics in a universe with a God? The fact that your fellow humans are motivated by fear of divine retribution makes you feel better?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Because then morality is just an instinct that helps one survive. Kind of like opposable thumbs. Our instincts tell us to care about the downtrodden, because a society that is full of people that care about the downtrodden survive better than the people in a society that do not. So morality is not really about right or wrong, but just what helps us survive better. In certain Cat societies, if a female cat takes on a new mate, the new male cat will kill all the offspring of the prior mate. He does that because the children from the other mate do not carry his genetic line, so he does not want to waste his resources on an alternate genetic line. Throughout history people have often treated step children less well than their own children. How can you blame them if morality is simply based on survival? How can you critisize a parent that mistreats their step children? Your instinct that such activity is wrong is just an instinct that helps you survive, just like the step parents instinct to mistreat their step child, is an instinct that helps them survive. Who is to say whose instinct is more valid? I think there is a morality that is beyond the logic of survival or just carrying on your genetic line. I know that throwing widows on their dead husbands funeral pyre is wrong. I don't think that my feelings on the subject are just some misplaced survival instinct. And even though such activity does not effect me in any way I feel a responsibility to do something about it.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I come at it from a different angle. I instinctively know that there is a universal moral code. This code that seems to be instinctual in all men did not just randomly appear. It had to be created by someone or something. This higher power (and therefore smarter and more enlightened than us) determined a set of rules that sentient being should follow. Something inside me tells me these rules should be followed, and I have just assumed that I should follow those instincts. I just assume (or have faith) that my inclincation to do certain things (to be moral) is just what I should be doing. I don't know anything about retribution or anything like that, I just have faith that following ones moral instincts is what one should do.

Jefferson expressed this idea in the Declaration of Independance. Our rights do not come from man, or laws made by men, but that "we are endowed by our creator with certain inaleable rights". We have these rights no matter what the law says. My instincts tell me Jefferson was right. I can't rationally explain why, I just think he is right.

I have faith in a universal moral code.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Yeah, we get that. I know have no doubt that you are an R. I think Rove or the Christian right or something got to you and has been brainwashing you by playing tapes over and over again as you sleep.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Have you heard of Sam Harris? He believes that faith is the biggest cause of harm and conflict in our world.

His web page is: http://www.samharris.org/index.php/s...s/appearances/

His statements from the show of faith under fire are pretty interesting. The Video is on the link.

The problem is, no matter how well he critiques faith, he never seems to come up with an alternative source of morality.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

But doesn't the moral code change? And, if so, how do we account for the fact that the moral code changes? If the code is instinctive, why is the moral code of a person in 2005 (e.g., anti-slavery) different than the code of a person in 100 A.D. (slavery of one's enemies is OK)? Has our creator endowed the person of 2005 with different rights than the person of 100 A.D.

If this has been covered before in this discussion I apologize, I haven't read the full thread.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Translation: The world is confusing, with many inexplicable things. The only explanation is that there is a god.


I don't get it, and I certainly don't get what it proves, because it leaves nearly as much open. To wit, I've long believed that there is a god who at least go things started around the big bang. But I don't see what that tells me about anything since. There could be a heaven and a hell. Or there could not. I could take Pascal's wager, or I could not. But what you seem to be left with is "no human-developed moral code has sufficient teeth and I'm at such a loss as to why (most) humans act morally that the only explanation is god." That seems the least satisfying answer of all.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

What he said. Also, I would think that if there was a universal moral code of divine origin, it would be, well, more universal, and more constant over time and place.