Blind ignorance

[Biochemist]

...if we were to abstract out a set of 'goods', would you consider that divine?

No, that would either be one person's opinion or the majority opinion of a particular social group. There is no defintiion of "good" without an external reference standard (see the discussion in posts 40 through 53).

Also, a moral code would not exist prior to identifying "conscience" and "manners", right? But I would think that a moral code would only make sense after you abstracted out the similarities within a cross section of many peoples' "conscience" and "manners".

This is the majority opinion model. I think this is not morality, it is a set of social norms, and they wander significantly over time.

 

Buffy and Fishteacher have made the argument that socially acceptable "good" behaviors resonate over time around a mean set of "morals" that are "selected for" because they are good for the survival of the group. I don't agree, but it is a defensible argument.

What the hell is a moral code, anyway? What is its intent? Being an invention of man, it must have an intended use.

My point is that there is no such thing as a man-invented moral code. A preferred set of behaviors is not a moral code.

Is it to guide human action? If so, all human action?

I don't think a moral code is a guide to human action. Laws and manners are guides to human actions. Moral codes are guides to human attitudes.

And where does blind ingorance plop down

Anyone can behave thoughtlessley, irrespective of their moral framework. Most people do not think most of the time.

[BEAKER]

What the hell is a moral code, anyway? And where does blind ingorance plop down (other than in my chair). :xx:

"...That deaf dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball!":eek:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I don't think a moral code is a guide to human action. Laws and manners are guides to human actions. Moral codes are guides to human attitudes

.

 

BIO, thanks for helping to nail down the terms. I see it a little differently. Laws limit human action and guide it only in the sense that a fence guides me away from someone elses yard. Wandering aimlessly, as long as I don't trespass is all I'd get from laws. I hope it's obvious that I'm in favor of clearly defined laws, that isn't the issue. The issue is what I do when I'm not trespassing.

 

This ties in to free will and means we need to choose what we are going to do. We have to do something or we simply die. So the implication behind non-random action is that it's oriented toward life. If we choose to live, we choose to act. But if our actions are random, the outcome is certainly not rosy. And I, for one, want rosy.

 

I think this is where a moral code comes into play. At least in my mind it should. Oh, and the other thing is that without a moral code it would be pretty darn hard to clearly define a law limiting our actions. A moral code gives us a reason behind why a law limits our actions.

 

The causal chain here is just very hard to nail down. I'm assuming it isn't arbitrary. Maybe I'm wrong.

[BEAKER]

.without a moral code it would be pretty darn hard to clearly define a law limiting our actions. A moral code gives us a reason behind why a law limits our actions...The causal chain here is just very hard to nail down. I'm assuming it isn't arbitrary. Maybe I'm wrong.

This is exactly the problem / solution. There must be a moral code; without one there is no objective target to aim at. But who's moral code should be the selected as the ultimate authoratative guide? As BIO has so eloquently eluded to; It cannot come from such a subjctive source as the mind of man or even a group of men; not without offending another group. It must be external; outside the parrameters of oppinion and personal prefference. - How can that be if we are the ultimate authority?

[Buffy]

This is exactly the problem / solution. There must be a moral code; without one there is no objective target to aim at. But who's moral code should be the selected as the ultimate authoratative guide? As BIO has so eloquently eluded to; It cannot come from such a subjctive source as the mind of man or even a group of men; not without offending another group. It must be external; outside the parrameters of oppinion and personal prefference. - How can that be if we are the ultimate authority?

And how can we know that that dude who came down the hill with a couple of bricks *actually* talked to God? That nice man with the golden calf seemed a lot smarter and said things so much more eloquently... That is the question: *who* is the authority?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

And how can we know that that dude who came down the hill with a couple of bricks *actually* talked to God? ... That is the question: *who* is the authority?

Yes, but there is no reason to have that discussion unless one were to decide there is a basis for the search. Your contention (if I understand it) was that there is no authority. Did I misunderstand you?

[Queso]

there is, but who's to say who it is?

[Buffy]

Yes, but there is no reason to have that discussion unless one were to decide there is a basis for the search. Your contention (if I understand it) was that there is no authority. Did I misunderstand you?

Well, my own theology is actually irrelevant here. I do argue that its only other humans who can say who the authority is, and how can you possibly tell whether or not to believe this guy or they guy down the street who says something different? And if you grant that there's no way to conclusively tell which religion is the right one, morality all of a sudden does become mushy and transmogrifies over time. Kinda like laws and manners...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

I think that we have to try to decide whether or not morals are absolute and unchanging. If we accept that a moral action is, was, and always will carry the same moral significance then we have to accept that there is something beyond humans that provides us with morality. However, if we accept that what is right is merely what is popular, or what benefits the most people at any given time, then we can accept that morality can be defined by humans.

[BEAKER]

And if you grant that there's no way to conclusively tell which religion is the right one, morality all of a sudden does become mushy and transmogrifies over time. Kinda like laws and manners...

"...Like a wave of the sea tossed to and fro with every wind (of doctrine)."

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think that we have to try to decide whether or not morals are absolute and unchanging. If we accept that a moral action is, was, and always will carry the same moral significance then we have to accept that there is something beyond humans that provides us with morality

Thanks, pgmrdave.

 

Have you ever stared at just a few lines of code knowing that there was a problem hidden within? Having tracked a problem back to those lines you either re-write it or stare at it until you get it. Well I have. The worst problems are syntax problems. And I have a feeling that I'm looking at the same sort of thing here. And it always seems to end up being something bonehead simple.

 

My gut tells me that it is related to the

something beyond humans that provides us with morality

statement.

 

I think you're right. And I think it has to do with 'beyond'. It has to do with an ideal, something outside ourselves but better than we are. Something to look up to and measure ourselves against. That to me means it's a concept, something abstracted out and idealized and used as a standard of measure.

 

Personally, i find absolutely nothing wrong with abstracting out an image of the ideal human or the ideal societal moral code. The truth is that all Gods are derived that way and so are moral codes, although the accuracy in the formulations are sometimes suspect. The intentions were good I believe.

[Biochemist]

... how can you possibly tell whether or not to believe this guy or they guy down the street who says something different? And if you grant that there's no way to conclusively tell which religion is the right one, morality all of a sudden does become mushy and transmogrifies over time. Kinda like laws and manners...

I take your point. I do think there are other issues than what the "guy down the street" says to figure out what God has in mind. I think this is the wrong forum for that discussion. But most of the core argument is pretty well represented in Francis Schaffer's He is There and He is Not Silent. Just if you are interested.

[pgrmdave]

Have you ever stared at just a few lines of code knowing that there was a problem hidden within? Having tracked a problem back to those lines you either re-write it or stare at it until you get it. Well I have. The worst problems are syntax problems. And I have a feeling that I'm looking at the same sort of thing here. And it always seems to end up being something bonehead simple

 

I was in class a few days ago programming in C++ and the student next to me couldn't run their program. A bunch of people, including myself, looked at it for a long time, trying to see what was wrong when I noticed that she had written

 

#include <iostream,h>

 

instead of

 

#include <iostream.h>

[Biochemist]

...i find absolutely nothing wrong with abstracting out an image of the ideal human or the ideal societal moral code. The truth is that all Gods are derived that way and so are moral codes, although the accuracy in the formulations are sometimes suspect. The intentions were good I believe.

Emphasis added. Hmmmm. I can accept this as a opinion. You might consider being open to the notion that God might not agree with you.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Emphasis added. Hmmmm. I can accept this as a opinion. You might consider being open to the notion that God might not agree with you.

You are correct, if God exists. And I will personally apologize to him/her if that is true. Assuming of course I'm not a crispy critter by then.

 

Sweet response, by the way. :Alien:

[Biochemist]

.. And I will personally apologize to him/her if that is true. Assuming of course I'm not a crispy critter by then.

I sincerely hope you do not end up in crispy status. Within your previous point, there was an item of real value. Incontrovertibly, most of the stuff about God is "made up" by man. Either intentionally or unintentionally, we characterize our understanding of God in such a way as to misrepresent the facts. We do this with physicis and biology as well. But in the case of God, the misunderstanding is potentially more important. We should not let the fact that there is so much shallow discussion about God offset the fact that some discussion is not shallow. Nor should we let the fact that so many misunderstand God lead to a presumption that He does not exist.