When a theist wants to checkmate a skeptic, all they have to do is ask, "where does morality comes from?".

It initially sounds like an impossible question but at second glance, you find you can explain morals and empathy through naturalistic means. How?

What is morals?, the ability to discern what is right or wrong! Some people claims that morals has to come from a super intelligence but I beg to differ and please hear me out.
Right and wrong is a human concept not a universal concept, it is subjective. A computer cannot know what is right or wrong because it wasn't built that way, even wild animals and bird hardly pay attention to what is right or wrong, Humans are the only species that take this topic seriously, why?

We know we are a bundle of chemicals that experience certain feelings; happiness, laughter, sadness, anger e.t.c and due to our big brains, we are aware of other peoples existence and can deduce that they must have this same feelings too. So its only logical that what makes us happy would also make another happy, and what makes us sad would make another sad.

That brings me to my main point, where does morals come from? Our Imagination, yes it would surprise you, but its true, we imagine ourselves in a situation, and find out if we would like the outcome or not,if we dont, then others won't, and we conclude its wrong and vice versa. In any decision making that involves morals, we always subconsciously imagine ourselves in that situation, and since we have similar makeup of emotions, we deduce that what would be good for us should be right and what's bad should be wrong.

Its all survival instinct, I dnt see any supernatural influence. So, to drive my point, I would ask some questions and please answer them and lets test our morals

A) a train lost its brakes and is about to collide with 5 people stuck on the end of the rail. John who is the rail attendant as the ability to divert the direction of the train to the left but by doing so,the train would hit a passerby!

Q Would it be moral for john to divert the train and kill one unlucky person or do nothing and kill five people?

B) Imagine the same scenario as (A) but this time John is on a bridge where a fat man is sitting, if John pushes the fat man down to the rail, the train would stop but kill the fat man!

Q. Would it be moral for john to push the fat man and stop the train or do nothing and kill five people?






cc Lalasticlala, Hahn, johnydon22, ichommy, hardmirror, cloudgoddess,freecocoa, menesheh

FTC!

It depends on what the drivers perceived worth of the people in the situations are. If the fat man happens to be Mr President of another country he may chose to do nothing and kill the five homeless people from his country in order to avoid war that may kill thousands from both countries as an aftermath of the accident. Things are very complicated with humans and morals. Often we will chose a course of action that will bring less overall pains in the long run.

Amplitron:
It depends on what the drivers perceived worth of the people in the situations are. If the fat man happens to be Mr President of another country he may chose to do nothing and kill the five homeless people from his country in order to avoid war that may kill thousands from both countries as an aftermath of the accident. Things are very complicated with humans and morals. Often we will chose a course of action that will bring less overall pains in the long run.

Assuming their identities are negligible

There is no complexity in this. In either case, murder will be involved... Because there is a deliberate choice between the life of one person and the life of others.

In the face of instinct, the driver is most likely going to sacrifice one person over many.

However,

In terms of morals, the driver will not take a deliberate action that will kill anyone. Murder is murder. No difference BTW killing one person or five.

However, whatever the case, the moral man will bear the guilt of his action. No position can be justified morally.

shadeyinka:
There is no complexity in this. In either case, murder will be involved... Because there is a deliberate choice between the life of one person and the life of others.

In the face of instinct, the driver is most likely going to sacrifice one person over many.

However,

In terms of morals, the driver will not take a deliberate action that will kill anyone. Murder is murder. No difference BTW killing one person or five.

However, whatever the case, the moral man will bear the guilt of his action. No position can be justified morally.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the example.

Given two tough choices, which would seem a bit less terrible and does that choice have anything to do with your religion?, since its widely claimed that those without religion have no morals...

However no action is still a deliberate action of murder, because he or she would be choicing to kill the 5people when it can be avoided...

The goal is to portray the complexity of morality and to shut down the hecklers that claim morality belongs only to religion.

donnffd:


You seem to misunderstand the point of the example.

Given two tough choices, which would seem a bit less terrible and does that choice have anything to do with your religion?, since its widely claimed that those without religion have no morals...

However no action is still a deliberate action of murder, because he or she would be choicing to kill the 5people when it can be avoided...

The goal is to portray the complexity of morality and to shut down the hecklers that claim morality belongs only to religion.

If at this stage u are already trying to convince yourself and someone else about the lack of credible reasoning in this your thread then know that your thread makes absolutely zero sense.

I must commend your efforts on trying to explain morality by naturalistic means. You did well.
But there are certain flaws in your submission and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

donnffd:
.
Right and wrong is a human concept not a universal concept, it is subjective.

You started by saying morality is subjective, and in one breath you are trying to merge subjectivity into objectivity.
Subjectivity entails the personal opinion of each Individual.
So if one decides to kill every persons involved in your question below, it might be his subjective opinion and he is fully entitled to it.

donnffd:
We know we are a bundle of chemicals that experience certain feelings; happiness, laughter, sadness, anger e.t.c

Mere chemicals, no matter how bundled, do not express emotions of any sort.
No one speaks of happy blood, sad water, frustrated amino acids etc.
In my opinion, there is something that controls these bundled chemicals (man) that you speak of, there is something that reflects these feelings in us. And this "something" never gets old even when the body does.
This "something" in man remains aware of its environment till it leaves the body and never returns.
Ill like to call this "something" a special sense of self which never grows old even when the body does.

Let me post an excerpt from "32 reasons why I will continue to believe in God";
If life was simply biological chemicals as atheists claim, we should be able to resolve the problem of death with an operation. Yet when doctors pronounce someone dead, they acknowledge that something has left the body and no amount of treatment or equipment can bring them back.

Living tissues are like vehicles and that something is what expresses feelings through living tissues.

donnffd:
due to our big brains, we are aware of other peoples existence and can deduce that they must have this same feelings too.

We are not aware of our environment because of our big brains. Dolphin's have the same brain size and they cant perform half as intelligently as man.

The brains of sperm whales and elephants are far larger than that of man and they many not make better deductions.

Our self awareness is not due to our big brains. There is something else responsible.

donnffd:
So its only logical that what makes us happy would also make another happy, and what makes us sad would make another sad.

You have diverted from subjectivity to objectivity here.

Some people derive maximum satisfactions from things such as rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and it makes them very happy. Yet, if good and bad is based on our individual subjective opinions, then what makes one happy may not necessarily make another happy.

Looting public funds, for example, may not make me happy. But it obviously makes Nigerian politicians happy. And if morality is based on personal opinion (subjective), then I cant condemn them. I can only stick to my opinions.

donnffd:
That brings me to my main point, where does morals come from? Our Imagination, yes it would surprise you, but its true, we imagine ourselves in a situation, and find out if we would like the outcome or not,if we dont, then others won't, and we conclude its wrong and vice versa.

Our imaginations are subjective.
I may like outcome A, you may prefer outcome B.

donnffd:
since we have similar makeup of emotions, we deduce that what would be good for us should be right and what's bad should be wrong.

Here, you have dived deep into objectivity.
But still, what is good for people may not always be right.
As a matter of fact, in our world today. What people feel is good for them is not right 80% of the time.

Some people feel happy using hard drugs, yet many society condemns it.

donnffd:
A) a train lost its brakes and is about to collide with 5 people stuck on the end of the rail. John who is the rail attendant as the ability to divert the direction of the train to the left but by doing so,the train would hit a passerby!
Q Would it be moral for john to divert the train and kill one unlucky person or do nothing and kill five people?
B) Imagine the same scenario as (A) but this time John is on a bridge where a fat man is sitting, if John pushes the fat man down to the rail, the train would stop but kill the fat man!
Q. Would it be moral for john to push the fat man and stop the train or do nothing and kill five people?

Good questions but flawed.

You have presupposed that John should think like you, and that your thinking should be right.

Actually, John may do anything based on his personal opinions and we may still not be able to Judge him using our own personal opinions.



People should understand that morality is innate, not subjective. Everyone has an inbuilt moral code and I will like to prove it with these two analogies I once read in a book. I want people to follow me on each.


The Little Old Lady Francis

Schaeffer used to tell the story of a little old lady crossing the street.

You’re walking down the street and see a little old lady trying to cross a busy intersection. If truth is relative, then you have 3 equally valid options.

1. You can try not to make eye contact and hope she doesn’t ask you for help.

2. You can stop and help her cross the street

3. You can push her in front of a car.


There is absolutely no reason to choose any one of these options over the other if morality is relative. But the fact that 33% of the time people don’t push Ethel in front of a car seems to indicate that they think that pushing little old ladies in front of cars is wrong.

And the fact that almost everyone in every culture at every time considers murder to be bad would seem to demonstrate that human beings were created with a universal moral law that tells us that some things are right and others are wrong.



The 5-Year Old
Think about that nagging question that 5-year-olds ask. They ask it constantly, and drive their parents crazy when they ask it.

“Why?” they ask.
“Timmy, don’t play with matches.”
“Why?”
”Because I said so.”
“Why?”
“Because you could start a fire, and we don’t want that.”
“Why?”
“Because it could burn down our house, and we don’t want that.”
“Why?”
“Because we’d have to live outside, which wouldn’t be good.”
“Why?”
“Because we might get sick, which isn’t good.”
“Why?”
“Because sickness can kill you, and you don’t want to kill anybody.”
“Why?”
“Because it’s bad to kill people.
“Why?”
“Because…. Because God said so.”

Ultimately every question goes back to a grounding in God. Why is it wrong? Why right? Why prefer one course of action over another?

If we keep a mind as open as that of the 5-year old, we ultimately have to start with God? or everything is absurd. Either God is and has spoken, or nothing really matters



Its cool to find open-minded atheists and ill like to post some of their eye-opening quotes;

The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:
“There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” “The hard answer is that moral decisions is a matter of opinion”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claimed “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”. Nietzsche went on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Atheist philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority (i.e. if there is no God, then) we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments that it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.

Philosopher Michael Ruse notes by claiming that our “sense” of morality is a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:
“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race”.


These are honest quotes from some people who were open-minded to an extent.



Moral values and duties can only be grounded in God and If these young atheists on Nairaland will be open-minded and honest, then they will agree with atheist philosopher Richard Taylor who said:

“to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.


Ill like to conclude with this assertion of an Atheist writer for American Thinker John Steinrucken, who believes that atheists should do some self-reflection: “Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!”.

We agree on alot of the points you raised, infact in some cases, you were repeating what i was saying, but somethings dont bond well

winner01:

You started by saying morality is subjective, and in one breath you are trying to merge subjectivity into objectivity.
Subjectivity entails the personal opinion of each Individual.
So if one decides to kill every persons involved in your question below, it might be his subjective opinion and he is fully entitled to it.

Yes, i said that morality is subjective, but one thing you fail to realize is that subjectivity can also be objective. I would give you an example; Consciousness, Nothing is as subjective as consciousness. i am only aware of my own, i cant be sure of yours, and likewise you are only sure of your own and cant be sure of mine, but every human being presently on earth has some form of consciousness which makes it objective in a manner of general speaking.

Something so subjective can be objective also.

Mere chemicals, no matter how bundled, do not express emotions of any sort.
No one speaks of happy blood, sad water, frustrated amino acids etc.
In my opinion, there is something that controls these bundled chemicals (man) that you speak of, there is something that reflects these feelings in us. And this "something" never gets old even when the body does.
This "something" in man remains aware of its environment till it leaves the body and never returns.
Ill like to call this "something" a special sense of self which never grows old even when the body does.

On this we disagree, your idea of chemicals bundled together is misleading, let me elaborate, when you are happy, you are happy because a mixture of dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin has been released in your brain which makes you feel good, relax, rewarded. Your feelings are owed to the way Neurochemicals interact with your brain. So, yes, bundled chemicals trigger responses which are termed emotions and not "something" that never gets old.

We are not aware of our environment because of our big brains. Dolphin's have the same brain size and they cant perform half as intelligently as man.

The brains of sperm whales and elephants are far larger than that of man and they many not make better deductions.

Our self awareness is not due to our big brains. There is something else responsible.

We are aware of our environment precisely because of our big brains. I am sure you have heard something called the Encephalization quotient which is the measure of relative brain size defined as the ratio between actual brain mass and predicted brain mass for an animal of a given size. it is hypothesized to be a rough estimate of the intelligence or cognition of the animal.

Guess what? Rabbit has an EQ of 0.4, Mouse - 0.5, cat - 1.0, Dog - 1.2, Monkey - 2.1,Elephant - 2.2, chimpanzee - 2.5, dolphin - 4.14, Humans - 7.6...

What does this tell you?, it is no surprise what so ever that humans are this intelligent, and it also tell us where this intelligence is coming from, our brains.

so why go anywhere else?

You have diverted from subjectivity to objectivity here.

Like i said before something subjective can also be objective in a general sense.

Some people derive maximum satisfactions from things such as rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and it makes them very happy. Yet, if good and bad is based on our individual subjective opinions, then what makes one happy may not necessarily make another happy.

Looting public funds, for example, may not make me happy. But it obviously makes Nigerian politicians happy. And if morality is based on personal opinion (subjective), then I cant condemn them. I can only stick to my opinions.

Yes, i totally agree... Like i said before, Morality is subjective and everyone has their own take on it, but heres the thing, we are social animals, we live in tribes and communities, and why do we do that?, it increases our chances of survival, it was an evolutionary advantage. Now if we are to survive together, we must agree to work together and have a beneficial relationship. You wont do things that wont harm me and i wont do things that wont harm you. A pretty descent agreement if you would ask me for us to survive in this harsh reality we became awakened into.

If we have someone going about killing people, raping or stealing, that obviously is not in the groups interest and should be eradicated or removed for the group to survive. its simple survival instincts.

Our imaginations are subjective.
I may like outcome A, you may prefer outcome B.

I agree with you there

Here, you have dived deep into objectivity.
But still, what is good for people may not always be right.
As a matter of fact, in our world today. What people feel is good for them is not right 80% of the time.

Some people feel happy using hard drugs, yet many society condemns it.

Like i explained earlier, the group have a beneficial working relationship that would maximize the survival of every member thereby overriding some few individuals subjective morals to ensure a safe and surviving community.

You have presupposed that John should think like you, and that your thinking should be right.

Actually, John may do anything based on his personal opinions and we may still not be able to Judge him using our own personal opinions.

i ddnt presuppose anything, i was asking what you would do if you were in john's scenerio.

People should understand that morality is innate, not subjective. Everyone has an inbuilt moral code and I will like to prove it with these two analogies I once read in a book. I want people to follow me on each.

But you just agreed earlier on that some people enjoy raping, is that part of the inbuilt moral code

If we keep a mind as open as that of the 5-year old, we ultimately have to start with God? or everything is absurd. Either God is and has spoken, or nothing really matters

@bolded, thats absolutely not true, our survival matters and thats what we have been doing since the first life arose 3.8 billion years ago.

Its cool to find open-minded atheists and ill like to post some of their eye-opening quotes;

The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman says:
“There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions….” “The hard answer is that moral decisions is a matter of opinion”.

Atheist nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would also claimed “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system”. Nietzsche went on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted”.

Atheist philosopher Julian Baggini captures this best: “If there is no single moral authority (i.e. if there is no God, then) we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments that it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error”.

Philosopher Michael Ruse notes by claiming that our “sense” of morality is a byproduct of socio-biological evolution:
“In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race”.


These are honest quotes from some people who were open-minded to an extent.

I agree totally with every quote above, i dont want a morality that is based on an universal authority, rather i want a morality that it thought out, reasoned, debated and evaluated over and over again as we find out new truths about the world and our place in it.

Moral values and duties can only be grounded in God and If these young atheists on Nairaland will be open-minded and honest,then they will agree with atheist philosopher Richard Taylor who said:

“to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.

Like i said before, Right and wrong is not a universal concept, rather it is a human concept. An animal doesnt know what is right or wrong, an intelligent computer cannot understand the concept of right and wrong because it is a concept that originated from the human mind and like every other excuse for religion, claiming that God has the absolute right to it is just a cop out way of avoiding to deal with its complexity.