Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

viewtopic.php?p=710076#p710076

[_Bazooka]

It is clear that some people still find slavery as "good" in that it provides them with an income even though it is harmful to others.
Other people, also find it to be "good" because they buy the services these modern day slaves are offered for.

actually it is not clear, and your conclusion contradicts your own philosophy.
First
your conclusion here assumes that people will only behave in a manner that they perceive as being "good" - correct?
I would counter your assumption with the notion that people are capable of, and do, behave in a manner that they perceive, or even know, as "bad".
what say you?

Well, I think you may be trying to find black and white in a field of grey, but I would postulate (word of the day, according to my screen saver) that when people do thinks they know to be "bad" in order for them to gain something. Intrinsically they see that doing the "bad" thing is, in their eyes, a "good" thing.

Second
your philosophy on this matter seems to echo the notion that morality is whatever you make of it..that good and bad are merely "flavors" for any particular group or individual...at which case the idea that slavery is good or bad is irrelevant...it is rather like you presenting an argument over the taste of chocolate.

If you intend criticising Chocolate then you and I are going to fall out, big time. And you can leave cake the hell alone too!

Eventually your argument relies on violence for resolution...one can say, if you do not like the taste of chocolate then do not buy it...but what if someone insists that you buy it? that you eat it?....are you "right" in resisting? are they "bad" for imposing upon you?...if ultimately you are justified by believing whatever you want as being good then behaving however you "like" must be acceptable.
But what if the "majority" disagrees with you?......what if the majority insists that you eat the chocolate, that you savor the flavor, of which you truly despise?
Like i stated before, that position has no cohesive argument for, or against, morality...the honest atheist is amoral.

Bad example. If someone wants to force feed me chocolate then I'm all for helping them!

You seem to be mixing up Good/Bad with Right/Wrong and I'm not sure that works.
For example, killing is bad. But if I kill someone in defence of my family, then the bad thing becomes the right thing.

So "Good" can be either right or wrong depending on the circumstance or cultural moral system within which "it" happens.
Likewise "Bad" can be either right or wrong.

[_subgenius]

Well, I think you may be trying to find black and white in a field of grey, but I would postulate (word of the day, according to my screen saver) that when people do thinks they know to be "bad" in order for them to gain something. Intrinsically they see that doing the "bad" thing is, in their eyes, a "good" thing.

this sort of cognitive dissonance is impossible...one can not consider something as both good and bad....they are mutually exclusive conditions.
You are grasping at bad speculation here. Ultimately you are admitting that you believe that a person will never do anything that the consider to be "bad"...i disagree with you, i believe that people have the ability to choose otherwise. However, you are guilty of a bit of irony here...seems like you are of the position that only being able to do "good" is an inescapable human condition...a transcendent quality...universal.
But i appreciate your admittance that your position is basically a "field of gray"...which has been my point...muddy water it is for you.

If you intend criticising Chocolate then you and I are going to fall out, big time. And you can leave cake the hell alone too!

don't worry, you can have your cake........

Bad example. If someone wants to force feed me chocolate then I'm all for helping them!

but what if they take your chocolate from you?

You seem to be mixing up Good/Bad with Right/Wrong and I'm not sure that works.
For example, killing is bad. But if I kill someone in defence of my family, then the bad thing becomes the right thing.

no, think of it this way - killing is always bad...just because society does not punish you for killing in "self defense" does not magically make it good.
For example, let us say you tell someone a lie...they and anyone else never discover you lied...is what you did bad?...would you "feel" good?
Well, you might argue that the circumstances might merit the lie....really?...what circumstance would put you in the position to determine another person's deserving of the truth? How can reasonably explain that you are the one qualified to determine, for another adult, what is right and what is wrong?

So "Good" can be either right or wrong depending on the circumstance or cultural moral system within which "it" happens.
Likewise "Bad" can be either right or wrong.

i have never denied that these "systems" can influence behavior...just as these systems can influence palate....but that does not negate the fundamentals...the transcendent aspects to all cultures..to all people. That is why one can say that "not killing" is intrinsic...because there are various flavors of that simple precept that adjust for climate...but the fundamental act remains....even if it is as simple as the common, and intrinsic, truth that no one is born with the desire to be killed...as the poster stated before....the first moral is survival.

[_Bazooka]

Bad example. If someone wants to force feed me chocolate then I'm all for helping them!

but what if they take your chocolate from you?

They can try....

You seem to be mixing up Good/Bad with Right/Wrong and I'm not sure that works.
For example, killing is bad. But if I kill someone in defence of my family, then the bad thing becomes the right thing.

no, think of it this way - killing is always bad...just because society does not punish you for killing in "self defense" does not magically make it good.
For example, let us say you tell someone a lie...they and anyone else never discover you lied...is what you did bad?...would you "feel" good?
Well, you might argue that the circumstances might merit the lie....really?...what circumstance would put you in the position to determine another person's deserving of the truth? How can reasonably explain that you are the one qualified to determine, for another adult, what is right and what is wrong?

Actually, I didn't say self defence would make it "good", I said it would make it "right".

So "Good" can be either right or wrong depending on the circumstance or cultural moral system within which "it" happens.
Likewise "Bad" can be either right or wrong.

i have never denied that these "systems" can influence behavior...just as these systems can influence palate....but that does not negate the fundamentals...the transcendent aspects to all cultures..to all people. That is why one can say that "not killing" is intrinsic...because there are various flavors of that simple precept that adjust for climate...but the fundamental act remains....even if it is as simple as the common, and intrinsic, truth that no one is born with the desire to be killed...as the poster stated before....the first moral is survival.

If the first moral is "survival" (and I agree with that) then what is good/bad or right/wrong will always be determined by the intrinsic imperative to survive.
No one is born with the desire to be killed, but everyone is born with the desire to survive (interestingly, there are people whose desire for "the group" to survive, supersedes their desire for their own personal survival. I don't pretend to understand how that really works except when I think of my children. My desire for them to survive absolutely supersedes my desire for me to survive) which also means we are born with the intrinsic ability to kill.

[_subgenius]

Actually, I didn't say self defence would make it "good", I said it would make it "right".

well then revise my post accordingly
"How can reasonably explain that you are the one qualified to determine, for another adult, what is good and what is bad?"

If the first moral is "survival" (and I agree with that) then what is good/bad or right/wrong will always be determined by the intrinsic imperative to survive.

so you disagree with those on this thread that claim there is no intrinsic, universal moral.
fair enough.
(for example, Steelhead noted that the first moral was survival when that suited his survival...but then recanted that claim when it suited his survival again...ultimately, and ironically, that strategy was his demise).

No one is born with the desire to be killed, but everyone is born with the desire to survive (interestingly, there are people whose desire for "the group" to survive, supersedes their desire for their own personal survival. I don't pretend to understand how that really works except when I think of my children. My desire for them to survive absolutely supersedes my desire for me to survive) which also means we are born with the intrinsic ability to kill.

But in the case of your children, as you stated above, this is simply "you" surviving is it not?....or would you sacrifice your life for your wife? your parents?...and if these sacrifices require you to contradict this alleged "first moral" then how can you accomplish such a contradiction? If that first moral is intrinsic, then by what magical power are you able to choose otherwise? If the first moral is survival, and it is intrinsic and imperative, then how can having children supersede that moral? Is this an intrinsic trait as well? a biological "switch"?...thus being a universal truth?
This would be tantamount to a person knowing what is good but choosing bad.

Truly the ability to kill is intrinsic...and the ability to preserve life is intrinsic as well...so...by what system do you resolve these two competing "abilities"...my detractors seem to subscribe to a system of "by the seat of our pants"...that the system is coincidence, incoherent, happenstance, and subjective...that is to say, not a system at all...amoral in fact.

[_Themis]

It is clear that some people still find slavery as "good" in that it provides them with an income even though it is harmful to others.
Other people, also find it to be "good" because they buy the services these modern day slaves are offered for.

actually it is not clear, and your conclusion contradicts your own philosophy.
First
your conclusion here assumes that people will only behave in a manner that they perceive as being "good" - correct?
I would counter your assumption with the notion that people are capable of, and do, behave in a manner that they perceive, or even know, as "bad".
what say you?

I wouldn't make your poor assumption he is saying everyone acts in accordance to what they define as good. He only states that people define what is good differently as with slavery, but there are so many other areas as well like fornication or masturbation. People have differently as bad or good. It doesn't mean the LDS teenager doesn't feel bad about masturbating because he thinks it is bad but wants to do it anyway.

[_Themis]

so you disagree with those on this thread that claim there is no intrinsic, universal moral.

I have no idea what you think is the intrinsic, universal moral. Maybe I missed it, but I have never seen you define what you think it is.

I am not sure our instinct for survival should even be called a moral. Morals are created by humans regarding the survival of the individual and group. They differ from group to group, and different moral codes can work for a groups survival.

I think you are caught up in the false idea of the light of Christ giving everyone the knowledge of right and wrong. We have provided many examples showing just how much people disagree about what is right and wrong. All you are left with that we see you keep doing is just asserting they know what is really right but choose to do otherwise. It's a substance-less assertion.

[_Bazooka]

well then revise my post accordingly
"How can reasonably explain that you are the one qualified to determine, for another adult, what is good and what is bad?"

One can't. The only person qualified to determine what is good/bad for me, is me. Clearly the law defines what is right/wrong with regards to behaviour within a society, but I can still choose that it is better for me to ignore or even flagrantly disobey those laws.

so you disagree with those on this thread that claim there is no intrinsic, universal moral.
fair enough.
(for example, Steelhead noted that the first moral was survival when that suited his survival...but then recanted that claim when it suited his survival again...ultimately, and ironically, that strategy was his demise).

I don't remember inviting you to put words in my mouth.
Is survival an intrinsic, universal "moral" or is it a genetic "instinct"? I would say they are different things and that survival is an "instinct".

But in the case of your children, as you stated above, this is simply "you" surviving is it not?....or would you sacrifice your life for your wife? your parents?...and if these sacrifices require you to contradict this alleged "first moral" then how can you accomplish such a contradiction? If that first moral is intrinsic, then by what magical power are you able to choose otherwise? If the first moral is survival, and it is intrinsic and imperative, then how can having children supersede that moral? Is this an intrinsic trait as well? a biological "switch"?...thus being a universal truth?
This would be tantamount to a person knowing what is good but choosing bad.

I would sacrifice my life for those people within the group I deem "important".

Truly the ability to kill is intrinsic...and the ability to preserve life is intrinsic as well...so...by what system do you resolve these two competing "abilities"...my detractors seem to subscribe to a system of "by the seat of our pants"...that the system is coincidence, incoherent, happenstance, and subjective...that is to say, not a system at all...amoral in fact.

The system, or thought process one uses to determine wether or not to kill is underpinned by that survival instinct. It's inescapable.
What we are left to discuss, is wether survival instinct is a "moral" or not.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)

Instinct. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.

I think, for me, those two descriptions capture the essence of how I differentiate.
A moral is something that is learned. An instinct is something that is genetically inbuilt.

(On a related note, thank you for starting this thread. I'm enjoying the discussion and find it quite thought provoking)

[_subgenius]

well then revise my post accordingly
"How can reasonably explain that you are the one qualified to determine, for another adult, what is good and what is bad?"

One can't. The only person qualified to determine what is good/bad for me, is me. Clearly the law defines what is right/wrong with regards to behaviour within a society, but I can still choose that it is better for me to ignore or even flagrantly disobey those laws.

which concurs with my earlier position that you have no real cohesive moral system, that you are really not concerned with moral questions about good/bad (amoral)...but rather you are only concerned with yourself.
Took a while, but thanks for agreeing with my original premise from several pages ago.

so you disagree with those on this thread that claim there is no intrinsic, universal moral.
fair enough.
(for example, Steelhead noted that the first moral was survival when that suited his survival...but then recanted that claim when it suited his survival again...ultimately, and ironically, that strategy was his demise).

I don't remember inviting you to put words in my mouth.

i did not put words in your mouth, i simply noticed that you and Steelhead stated the same idea.

Is survival an intrinsic, universal "moral" or is it a genetic "instinct"? I would say they are different things and that survival is an "instinct".

Compare, rather contrast, your statement here with your statement there (just a few posts above):
If the first moral is "survival" (and I agree with that) then what is good/bad or right/wrong will always be determined by the intrinsic imperative to survive.
viewtopic.php?p=710103#p710103
first you agree that survival is a moral, then you do not...first it is intrinsic, then maybe not...goalposts are moving just as Steelhead moved them.
again, i repeat my assertion that your "morality" is not cohesive...bordering on not coherent.

I would sacrifice my life for those people within the group I deem "important".

we established that...but you have not reasoned how this "importance" can override your admitted instinct to survive.

Truly the ability to kill is intrinsic...and the ability to preserve life is intrinsic as well...so...by what system do you resolve these two competing "abilities"...my detractors seem to subscribe to a system of "by the seat of our pants"...that the system is coincidence, incoherent, happenstance, and subjective...that is to say, not a system at all...amoral in fact.

The system, or thought process one uses to determine wether or not to kill is underpinned by that survival instinct. It's inescapable.
What we are left to discuss, is wether survival instinct is a "moral" or not.

you first admitted that it was (as did Steelhead), do you wish to retract?
I never claimed nor agreed that survival was a moral per se.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)

Instinct. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.

I think, for me, those two descriptions capture the essence of how I differentiate.
A moral is something that is learned. An instinct is something that is genetically inbuilt.

yes, and if you recall...i based my premise on universal morality on the idea that there are intrinsic and transcendent behaviors and feelings for humans...and that these were the foundation for morality...only later to be diluted or influenced by culture, geography, etc...yet unyielding in basic form.
Hunger is the instinct, eating is the moral, taste is the expression.

(On a related note, thank you for starting this thread. I'm enjoying the discussion and find it quite thought provoking)

ditto, it has been an expanding experience for me.

[_Bazooka]

Subby, a couple of things.

Firstly, you seem to portray my "ground moving" as a bad thing. I don't see it that way. As I said, I'm finding this subject thought provoking which in turns leads me to dvelop my thinking. "Original Sin" and it's principles and moral implications is not something that enters every day conversation or thought. So if you see my thinking and opinions evolving, that's a good thing and a compliment to the nature of the discussion we are having. Wouldn't it be pretty damning on the individual if, when discussing, exploring, debating, learning through others etc they didn't evolve their opinion? That would make them entrenched and stubborn, surely?

(note: I am not prepared to change my views on chocolate, cake or biscuits)

Secondly, to say I have no cohesive moral compass is nonsense. You don't know me, you have a few words from me in a discussion about principles and morals etc. how I operate in "real life" has to involve a moral compass for me to be a normally functioning adult in an evolved society (which I am!). I don't normally think of my daily process as being driven by a survival instinct. It's only when one has and adult discussion like this that the brain spends the time exploring.


In the first day of its life a baby has no cultural or social influences, but it knows instinctively what it needs to do to survive. Does the baby have a view on right/wrong, good/bad? No. If that baby was born to a French speaking mother who immediately gave it for adoption to a German speaking family, what language would the baby grow up to speak?

So some things are hard wired and some things are learnt, influenced.

What do we know is specifically hard wired into the human species? Survival. That, by definition, makes it an instinct.
However, that definition is something we have determined. The bigger question is if God agrees with us!