Ultimately, this seems to be coming back to a basic question of what morality is. You say that "We know in our hearts what morality is, and this is able to be articulated without the appeal to God."
I would like to make sure that I understand what you are saying. It sounds to me as though you believe that each person can define morality for himself, if he honestly believes that he knows what is moral. That is, everybody can decide for himself what morality is. If person A believes that it is moral to steal from somebody if you believe that they have too much money and that you don't have enough, then theft can be moral. If person B believes that rape, under certain circumstances (think the October 7 attacks), is perfectly moral, then for him, it is indeed moral.
Which is to say, it's a matter of personal preference.
Is that what you believe? If not, what have I missed?
I can see how it sounds like that, and I should probably clarify. If you go back through the whole back and forth (which I won't blame you if you do not), I argue that morality is external, but that humans are born with an inherent sense of right (moral) and wrong (immoral). God very well may be the source of morality, or for all I know, it may have been something that evolved through millions of years of observing the consequences of actions (whether external consequences, or the impact it had on the person acting) that eventually got internalized and passed down. The only similar idea I can come up with is the natural aversion to snakes, that even babies respond faster to visual representations of snakes. Clearly that is something that has been passed down, and is inherent to humans, although it can be overcome.
This inherent understanding of morality needs to be nurtured, encouraged, and protected. It can easily be corrupted, as we see happen all the time. People can intellectually argue themselves info believing wrong to be right, or right wrong. Religions can supplant actual morality with false forms, and then use that to bring about all sorts of evil behavior (see Jihad, crusades, human sacrifice). The Bible, Talmud, Koran and any other number of religious texts can be used to both encourage and strengthen morality, or undermine it, as far as I can tell. I believe the most prudent way to go about managing this is to use these books as guides, while using your brain, reason and inherent sense of right and wrong, assuming that is still reliable and has not been completely wrecked, to make the best effort to act morally. We will all fail, but should keep on trying.
The external nature of morality comes from the fact that humans are social creatures, and morality must be able to serve the individual and society as a whole. It is enforced through laws and social norms (sometimes, these can also be perverted), and is generally understood, even by children. We keep coming back to an idea that I believe morality to be something like game theory, which is not the argument I made. I pointed out that even children, when playing, have an inherent understanding of "fair" and "cheating" and such, and enforce good behavior regarding these issues. Kids still cheat, but they try to hide it, and if caught, get called out and punished socially for the behavior. This is not wide morality, it is an example, in a simplified form, of how an idea is internally understood, and externally enforced, like morality. We may convince ourselves that our stealing is fine, but if someone steals from us, we understand this to be wrong and react accordingly. Stealing is, thus, always wrong.
I go back to the Golden Rule, of treats others how we would like to be treated. It is not an all encompassing morality, but is a decent starting point. Could we have reached a more advanced form of morality without God? I have no idea, but we did not. Religion absolutely played a massive roll in the spreading and acceptance of morality. That is not the question I am considering. For me the question is, in the moment we are living, must we appeal to God regarding morality. If so, what case do we make for those who do not believe in God? I believe we can make a case for morality outside of a religious context, and this may be the best approach for some cases. In others, by all means, appeal to God's law. If I am talking to a Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, Muslim or any other religious individual, I would probably appeal to their belief system.
Why not use all the tools we have, whether those come from God, evolution, or dumb luck? Scriptures? Use them when speaking to someone who will listen to that argument. Rational arguments? Use them when speaking to a rationalist. Simplified language and examples? Use them when talking to a child.
For me, the goal is a more moral world, with individuals acting in a more just way. That would be my preference, but the specific behavior is not my preference. I do not believe killing is wrong because I do not like it. I believe it is wrong because it ends another human life, and causes pain to those left behind, and very possibly leads to more killing. Cheating is wrong because it destroys families, trust and creates children of broken homes. Stealing is wrong because it deprives another of their property with all of the consequences of that, one of which may be death in extreme cases.
Preferences are things like, I wish people would get outside more and enjoy the world, which I believe would lead them to be kinder and healthier. I would prefer that we have stronger labor unions to try to better distribute wealth in our country. It would be nice, in my opinion, if more people took the time to thank each other when someone does a good job, even when they are doing their job (long story there as to why that popped into my head). These would all make the world a better place, in my view, but I do not view as moral issues.
We are surrounded with bastardized morality, and perhaps we cannot get back to actual morality without people accepting God as the source of it. Or perhaps we need to nudge people in the direction of acting justly and morally, and a virtuous spiral may form. But in a world actively running in the wrong direction, calling more evil things good and good things unjust, I think we may want to try to meet everyone where he is and coax in the right direction.
Thanks for reading! I am curious if this responded to your question sufficiently.
Thanks. I had had the impression that that was your position, but I don't recall you explaining it as clearly before.
I think I you're overlooking something basic. You start by describing things as universal truths, and offer gravity and pi as examples. Now one very important things that they have in common is that both are observable and testable. If someone claimed, for example, that heavier things fell faster, we could check that by dropping heavier and lighter objects and measuring their movements. If somebody asserted that pi was 15, we could measure the diameter of a circle and its circumference, divide them, and demonstrate that 15 wasn't even close.
You also speak of children learning at least the basics about gravity - that things consistently fall to the floor when dropped, and not the ceiling. That doesn't result in them understanding quantification, of course, but the directionality is easily observed.
You then suggest that morality is similarly understood, and here you are making a giant leap. Children certainly learn that certain actions have consequences, and learn to conceal behaviors that they understand will lead to punishment. It does not follow, though, that what they are learning is morality, so much as approval and disapproval.
You mentioned cheating, and the idea that children learn that cheating is wrong. I would argue otherwise: that what children learn, once again, is consequences. They learn that if they break the rules too badly, that other children will refuse to play with them, but I would not call that morality.
And that is why understanding what morality is, is essential to have this discussion. The dictionary doesn't actually help, mostly just indicating how the word is used.
Talk of pizza and sushi has been cute, but ultimately seems to me to have become forced - and to conceal a basic problem. I think the two of you are actually talking past one another.
And this comes down to the question of what morality is, and why it matters. I do not think that it is measurable. I am skeptical that there is any physical test that can be made to determine if something is moral. You can, in theory, measure whether particular behaviors are likely to lead to certain outcomes - assume the case you are examining is relatively simple. That doesn't tell you, of course, whether those outcomes are necessarily desirable.
And this is why I find problematic your claim that people know morality in their hearts. That seems to me based more of a hope than any possible observation. One can argue, as Stephen Pinker has in his "The Better Angels of Our Nature," that human society has become better - but I don't see how that is anything more than a value judgement.
In the extremely recent past, we have seen Russian forces and Hamas fighters deliberately murdering civilians. Those actions are clearly intended to bring about results that those actors believe will be desirable. Does it follow, though, that they have been acting morally? Do they really know morality in their hearts? And if you suggest that they actually know it, but are deliberately acting immorally, how would you test that without substituting your opinion for theirs?
Morality vs gravity is a valid point. To clarify, I think the very basic level of morality is understood, and it is then on their parents and others in society to deepen that knowledge and understanding. They may know they feel bad about something, but often need help understanding why that is, how to act, etc. Children know that hitting another causes that other child to cry, and will feel some guilt. They may also feel punishment, but I have never seen one of my children not respond to knowing they made another child cry with anything other than remorse, even if there was no punishment (accidents happen in wrestling). That is shallow, it needs to be nurtured and explained and grown. But that is the instinct at work.
As for the rest, I pretty much fully agree. You will notice, beyond shoe horning a reference to a pizza shaped object, and the lazy title, I dropped the premise. As for the talking past each other, I believe I even referenced that fact in the post prior to this. There is not much point saying the Oxford dictionary or Webster's or any other is better or worse. Words describe things, explaining and identifying. But words are abstract, it is the thing that matters. Language evolves, meanings change. The thing itself is what it is. If we started calling hands feet, the things I am typing with would still be what they are. The very nature of morality, that it is not something that can be measured or quantified with certainty, is why I believe it is so important to be able to speak to every person in a way that applies to them. Trying to split hairs over words seems an odd choice.
Mathematical equations can be universal in how they are utilized, explained, etc. Laws of physics are also in this category. You can debate something, but all you have to do is prove it, and the debate ends. Someone says "gravity is fake" and you drop something, or encourage them to fly by willing it. Great, debate over.
Morality, however, is not like this. You can believe as strongly as you like, but so can anyone else. And while I believe we are born with that ability and knowledge, it is subverted constantly. The question is, how to undo that? And that, to me, requires an ability to communicate about it, describe it, explain it, etc, in a way that reaches people where they are, not where the discusser wants them to be.
I do believe that at some point in their life, yes, an individual knew killing civilians was wrong. But humans are wonderfully adept at convincing themselves of the rightness of their actions, or cause, or ends. We also are quite good at convincing ourselves that others are the opposite of our just, good selves.
I suspect if you ask any child, before there instincts have been corrupted, if killing another child is ok, they will tell you NO. That shifts at some point, and corruption probably occurs at different ages depending on upbringing. They did know it, at some point. Do they still know it in their hearts? I cannot truly answer that. I suspect that many do, and some may have gone so far it may be too late.
As for the last question, I do not believe I can prove this. Hence why I think claiming absolutist views is not a productive activity. I also suspect it is why scriptures encourage us to leave that kind of judgment to God, and to practice humility. I could be wrong, but that makes sense to me. I can judge whether an individual is someone I wish to associate with, that is totally appropriate. I cannot judge their inner thoughts, desires, etc.
The earlier history of humanity rather calls into question the idea that individuals would necessarily have known that killing civilians was wrong. Before humans invented agriculture, there was no slavery, as best I have been able to tell; when one group of humans defeated another, they ate the losers. Cannibalism was simply a way to stay alive. Slavery was actually a leap forward in morality.
It is oh so easy to look at our cultural assumptions, and not realize that most of our ideas of right and wrong originate in Judaism and were spread by Christianity - and that's only going back a few thousand years ago. The idea that murder was wrong, and that a state shouldn't simply kill people they disliked probably doesn't go back all that much further than the code of Hammurabi - and that's less than four thousand years old.
In many parts of the world, people of low status could simply be killed if they were in some way inconvenient to the rulers. That society largely believes such a thing today does not in any way demonstrate that the mass of humanity came to it automatically.
The Western world would probably not exist if it weren't for Judaeo-Christian morality and the logical worldview that derives from it. These are not innate.
You are correct, it does not mean it was arrived at automatically. It may have been handed down, or evolved through millennia of observation, social evolution, and growth. As for the current state of society, I suspect you are correct. We are now entering a period where that is on the decline, although I suspect that may be cyclical, as it seems many trends in history are. Whether we continue to become less inclined to Judeo-Christian values or more remains to be seen.
As a separate aside, I find moral certainty about unprovable ideas to be dangerous, when carried to its logical extremes. I believe treating unprovable things as unfalsifiable can lead to some of the very issues described. If you can hijack a person's morality, individuals will do absolutely horrific things believing themselves just.
Which is why I don't think adopting someone else's moral claims without reflection, pondering, and your best effort at keeping your own morality as clean as possible is advisable.
Ultimately, this seems to be coming back to a basic question of what morality is. You say that "We know in our hearts what morality is, and this is able to be articulated without the appeal to God."
I would like to make sure that I understand what you are saying. It sounds to me as though you believe that each person can define morality for himself, if he honestly believes that he knows what is moral. That is, everybody can decide for himself what morality is. If person A believes that it is moral to steal from somebody if you believe that they have too much money and that you don't have enough, then theft can be moral. If person B believes that rape, under certain circumstances (think the October 7 attacks), is perfectly moral, then for him, it is indeed moral.
Which is to say, it's a matter of personal preference.
Is that what you believe? If not, what have I missed?
I can see how it sounds like that, and I should probably clarify. If you go back through the whole back and forth (which I won't blame you if you do not), I argue that morality is external, but that humans are born with an inherent sense of right (moral) and wrong (immoral). God very well may be the source of morality, or for all I know, it may have been something that evolved through millions of years of observing the consequences of actions (whether external consequences, or the impact it had on the person acting) that eventually got internalized and passed down. The only similar idea I can come up with is the natural aversion to snakes, that even babies respond faster to visual representations of snakes. Clearly that is something that has been passed down, and is inherent to humans, although it can be overcome.
This inherent understanding of morality needs to be nurtured, encouraged, and protected. It can easily be corrupted, as we see happen all the time. People can intellectually argue themselves info believing wrong to be right, or right wrong. Religions can supplant actual morality with false forms, and then use that to bring about all sorts of evil behavior (see Jihad, crusades, human sacrifice). The Bible, Talmud, Koran and any other number of religious texts can be used to both encourage and strengthen morality, or undermine it, as far as I can tell. I believe the most prudent way to go about managing this is to use these books as guides, while using your brain, reason and inherent sense of right and wrong, assuming that is still reliable and has not been completely wrecked, to make the best effort to act morally. We will all fail, but should keep on trying.
The external nature of morality comes from the fact that humans are social creatures, and morality must be able to serve the individual and society as a whole. It is enforced through laws and social norms (sometimes, these can also be perverted), and is generally understood, even by children. We keep coming back to an idea that I believe morality to be something like game theory, which is not the argument I made. I pointed out that even children, when playing, have an inherent understanding of "fair" and "cheating" and such, and enforce good behavior regarding these issues. Kids still cheat, but they try to hide it, and if caught, get called out and punished socially for the behavior. This is not wide morality, it is an example, in a simplified form, of how an idea is internally understood, and externally enforced, like morality. We may convince ourselves that our stealing is fine, but if someone steals from us, we understand this to be wrong and react accordingly. Stealing is, thus, always wrong.
I go back to the Golden Rule, of treats others how we would like to be treated. It is not an all encompassing morality, but is a decent starting point. Could we have reached a more advanced form of morality without God? I have no idea, but we did not. Religion absolutely played a massive roll in the spreading and acceptance of morality. That is not the question I am considering. For me the question is, in the moment we are living, must we appeal to God regarding morality. If so, what case do we make for those who do not believe in God? I believe we can make a case for morality outside of a religious context, and this may be the best approach for some cases. In others, by all means, appeal to God's law. If I am talking to a Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, Muslim or any other religious individual, I would probably appeal to their belief system.
Why not use all the tools we have, whether those come from God, evolution, or dumb luck? Scriptures? Use them when speaking to someone who will listen to that argument. Rational arguments? Use them when speaking to a rationalist. Simplified language and examples? Use them when talking to a child.
For me, the goal is a more moral world, with individuals acting in a more just way. That would be my preference, but the specific behavior is not my preference. I do not believe killing is wrong because I do not like it. I believe it is wrong because it ends another human life, and causes pain to those left behind, and very possibly leads to more killing. Cheating is wrong because it destroys families, trust and creates children of broken homes. Stealing is wrong because it deprives another of their property with all of the consequences of that, one of which may be death in extreme cases.
Preferences are things like, I wish people would get outside more and enjoy the world, which I believe would lead them to be kinder and healthier. I would prefer that we have stronger labor unions to try to better distribute wealth in our country. It would be nice, in my opinion, if more people took the time to thank each other when someone does a good job, even when they are doing their job (long story there as to why that popped into my head). These would all make the world a better place, in my view, but I do not view as moral issues.
We are surrounded with bastardized morality, and perhaps we cannot get back to actual morality without people accepting God as the source of it. Or perhaps we need to nudge people in the direction of acting justly and morally, and a virtuous spiral may form. But in a world actively running in the wrong direction, calling more evil things good and good things unjust, I think we may want to try to meet everyone where he is and coax in the right direction.
Thanks for reading! I am curious if this responded to your question sufficiently.
Thanks. I had had the impression that that was your position, but I don't recall you explaining it as clearly before.
I think I you're overlooking something basic. You start by describing things as universal truths, and offer gravity and pi as examples. Now one very important things that they have in common is that both are observable and testable. If someone claimed, for example, that heavier things fell faster, we could check that by dropping heavier and lighter objects and measuring their movements. If somebody asserted that pi was 15, we could measure the diameter of a circle and its circumference, divide them, and demonstrate that 15 wasn't even close.
You also speak of children learning at least the basics about gravity - that things consistently fall to the floor when dropped, and not the ceiling. That doesn't result in them understanding quantification, of course, but the directionality is easily observed.
You then suggest that morality is similarly understood, and here you are making a giant leap. Children certainly learn that certain actions have consequences, and learn to conceal behaviors that they understand will lead to punishment. It does not follow, though, that what they are learning is morality, so much as approval and disapproval.
You mentioned cheating, and the idea that children learn that cheating is wrong. I would argue otherwise: that what children learn, once again, is consequences. They learn that if they break the rules too badly, that other children will refuse to play with them, but I would not call that morality.
And that is why understanding what morality is, is essential to have this discussion. The dictionary doesn't actually help, mostly just indicating how the word is used.
Talk of pizza and sushi has been cute, but ultimately seems to me to have become forced - and to conceal a basic problem. I think the two of you are actually talking past one another.
And this comes down to the question of what morality is, and why it matters. I do not think that it is measurable. I am skeptical that there is any physical test that can be made to determine if something is moral. You can, in theory, measure whether particular behaviors are likely to lead to certain outcomes - assume the case you are examining is relatively simple. That doesn't tell you, of course, whether those outcomes are necessarily desirable.
And this is why I find problematic your claim that people know morality in their hearts. That seems to me based more of a hope than any possible observation. One can argue, as Stephen Pinker has in his "The Better Angels of Our Nature," that human society has become better - but I don't see how that is anything more than a value judgement.
In the extremely recent past, we have seen Russian forces and Hamas fighters deliberately murdering civilians. Those actions are clearly intended to bring about results that those actors believe will be desirable. Does it follow, though, that they have been acting morally? Do they really know morality in their hearts? And if you suggest that they actually know it, but are deliberately acting immorally, how would you test that without substituting your opinion for theirs?
Morality vs gravity is a valid point. To clarify, I think the very basic level of morality is understood, and it is then on their parents and others in society to deepen that knowledge and understanding. They may know they feel bad about something, but often need help understanding why that is, how to act, etc. Children know that hitting another causes that other child to cry, and will feel some guilt. They may also feel punishment, but I have never seen one of my children not respond to knowing they made another child cry with anything other than remorse, even if there was no punishment (accidents happen in wrestling). That is shallow, it needs to be nurtured and explained and grown. But that is the instinct at work.
As for the rest, I pretty much fully agree. You will notice, beyond shoe horning a reference to a pizza shaped object, and the lazy title, I dropped the premise. As for the talking past each other, I believe I even referenced that fact in the post prior to this. There is not much point saying the Oxford dictionary or Webster's or any other is better or worse. Words describe things, explaining and identifying. But words are abstract, it is the thing that matters. Language evolves, meanings change. The thing itself is what it is. If we started calling hands feet, the things I am typing with would still be what they are. The very nature of morality, that it is not something that can be measured or quantified with certainty, is why I believe it is so important to be able to speak to every person in a way that applies to them. Trying to split hairs over words seems an odd choice.
Mathematical equations can be universal in how they are utilized, explained, etc. Laws of physics are also in this category. You can debate something, but all you have to do is prove it, and the debate ends. Someone says "gravity is fake" and you drop something, or encourage them to fly by willing it. Great, debate over.
Morality, however, is not like this. You can believe as strongly as you like, but so can anyone else. And while I believe we are born with that ability and knowledge, it is subverted constantly. The question is, how to undo that? And that, to me, requires an ability to communicate about it, describe it, explain it, etc, in a way that reaches people where they are, not where the discusser wants them to be.
I do believe that at some point in their life, yes, an individual knew killing civilians was wrong. But humans are wonderfully adept at convincing themselves of the rightness of their actions, or cause, or ends. We also are quite good at convincing ourselves that others are the opposite of our just, good selves.
I suspect if you ask any child, before there instincts have been corrupted, if killing another child is ok, they will tell you NO. That shifts at some point, and corruption probably occurs at different ages depending on upbringing. They did know it, at some point. Do they still know it in their hearts? I cannot truly answer that. I suspect that many do, and some may have gone so far it may be too late.
As for the last question, I do not believe I can prove this. Hence why I think claiming absolutist views is not a productive activity. I also suspect it is why scriptures encourage us to leave that kind of judgment to God, and to practice humility. I could be wrong, but that makes sense to me. I can judge whether an individual is someone I wish to associate with, that is totally appropriate. I cannot judge their inner thoughts, desires, etc.
The earlier history of humanity rather calls into question the idea that individuals would necessarily have known that killing civilians was wrong. Before humans invented agriculture, there was no slavery, as best I have been able to tell; when one group of humans defeated another, they ate the losers. Cannibalism was simply a way to stay alive. Slavery was actually a leap forward in morality.
It is oh so easy to look at our cultural assumptions, and not realize that most of our ideas of right and wrong originate in Judaism and were spread by Christianity - and that's only going back a few thousand years ago. The idea that murder was wrong, and that a state shouldn't simply kill people they disliked probably doesn't go back all that much further than the code of Hammurabi - and that's less than four thousand years old.
In many parts of the world, people of low status could simply be killed if they were in some way inconvenient to the rulers. That society largely believes such a thing today does not in any way demonstrate that the mass of humanity came to it automatically.
The Western world would probably not exist if it weren't for Judaeo-Christian morality and the logical worldview that derives from it. These are not innate.
You are correct, it does not mean it was arrived at automatically. It may have been handed down, or evolved through millennia of observation, social evolution, and growth. As for the current state of society, I suspect you are correct. We are now entering a period where that is on the decline, although I suspect that may be cyclical, as it seems many trends in history are. Whether we continue to become less inclined to Judeo-Christian values or more remains to be seen.
As a separate aside, I find moral certainty about unprovable ideas to be dangerous, when carried to its logical extremes. I believe treating unprovable things as unfalsifiable can lead to some of the very issues described. If you can hijack a person's morality, individuals will do absolutely horrific things believing themselves just.
Which is why I don't think adopting someone else's moral claims without reflection, pondering, and your best effort at keeping your own morality as clean as possible is advisable.