Why Our Children Don’T Think There Are Moral Facts

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I understand, that allows a great deal of room to maneuver around the facts. Until you are a victim of course. And I think that was the authors point. If everything is an opinion, the result is a lawless society. 

 

Barry

 

And if facts are imposed by fiat, the result is a tyrannical society.

[Eagledad]

And if facts are imposed by fiat, the result is a tyrannical society.

Ah yes, the big stick. If the big stick is God, then the fact is equal to all including community leaders and elitist. Most important the leaders and elitist.

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ah yes, the big stick. If the big stick is God, then the fact is equal to all including community leaders and elitist. Most important the leaders and elitist.

 

Barry

 

 

 

But gods never show up -- it's always people who insist they represent their god.

[JoeBob]

So what is murder?  Justifiable Homicide, aka Trayvon Martin; Abortion to some people, and the Death Penalty to others.

Murder is not a fact.

 

About the only Moral Fact that I hope we can agree to is that Morals are a good thing to have.

 

Even better is being able to stick to your Morals.

[Eagledad]

 

The closest things to facts that I can think of actually, to me, are closer to fundamental 'truths' because of their importance such as the laws of thermodynamics. 

So in that spirit, I would venture an opinion that most of us would agree that given the choice, it is usually better to attain greater efficiency as opposed to lesser efficiency. 

And combined with the thermodynamic laws it is easy to derive a 'moral' code in which all sorts of behavior which result in less-efficient social interactions would be labeled as 'immoral'. Again, because of the vastly different environments and resulting social contexts around the world, it is easy to understand that while the concept of 'morality' itself might be the same for everyone, the codes aren't necessarily the same.

I don't think the author would disagree, but the problem is excepting a code that all will agree is fact. When we suggest there isn't a moral code of facts from a philosophical point of view and that is taken to the working level of the environment , we open the door to a general understanding of no moral codes of facts. So where does it stop? Merlyn says to have a strict code of morals, or suggests them as facts, results in tyranny (I think I said that right). But I think the author is saying without a concept of moral facts, tyranny will be the final result to prevent chaos. 

 

Barry

 

Barry

[Eagledad]

But gods never show up -- it's always people who insist they represent their god.

Better than man taking on the biggest stick. Even for atheist. Fairness is when the meek can hold the elitist equally accountable. 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Better than man taking on the biggest stick.

 

 

I don't agree.

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

Edited May 6, 2015 by Merlyn_LeRoy

[Eagledad]

I don't agree.

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

Yes, but the difference is man does it more often and more discretely because there are no hard set standards that are known by all that don't change with time. Man is fickle and changes at the drop of the hat. Man is not moral, God is. 

 

Barry

[DuctTape]

Society agreeing on a moral code does not make those morals "fact"in the sense they are absolute for all societies and cultures at all times. Thus the concept of moral relativism does not require no codes or laws, just the understanding that those codes and laws are not absolute and may be changed by future or other societies and cultures.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes, but the difference is man does it more often and more discretely because there are no hard set standards that are known by all that don't change with time. Man is fickle and changes at the drop of the hat. Man is not moral, God is. 

 

Barry

 

But what you have are people saying what they say their god wants.  Some people mistake this for knowing what their god wants, thus Pascal's quote.

 

I prefer people who are a good deal more circumspect about being absolutely sure they know who their god wants to kill.

 

And if you think there aren't such people, check out Theodore Seeber's comments here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/michaelnovak/2015/05/turnabout-questions-for-atheists/

He quite plainly says he would kill people if he thought his god wanted him to kill people, and that killing all the children in Jericho was a moral act.

[Eagledad]

I take Pascals quote as meaning even godly men can be self-serving; not confused or misunderstanding. But either way, God will always be the reference even a 1000 years later. That is not possible with man. Man is naturally corrupt, which means they as a source start out corrupt. It gets no better than God, It gets a lot worse without God.

 

Barry

Edited May 6, 2015 by Eagledad

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 God will always be the reference even a 1000 years later. That is not possible with man.

Barry

 

Your god, nor anyone else's is "the reference".  Like I said in another thread, you always have humans in the loop saying what god(s) want.

[Eagledad]

Your god, nor anyone else's is "the reference".  Like I said in another thread, you always have humans in the loop saying what god(s) want.

Man is corrupt, God is not. So long as that is understood first by all, then at worst mans corruptness is temporary. But God as a consistent starting place is forever. I'm speaking pragmatically of course.

 

Barry

[AZMike]

I think the natural law that we are born with recognizes the verities of what the objective moral code is. There will be gray areas (I shouldn't take another human life, as life is precious, but may do so in defense of my own life), but most people and most healthy societies respect them as broad principles, even as they may disagree on the details. 

 

- Human life is precious and should be preserved. 

 

- One should honor and respect the Creator and holy things.

 

- One should help and give to others who are in need.

 

- One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience.

 

- One should not take what is not their own.

 

- One should not be needlessly cruel to another.

 

- One should not take a life without good cause.

 

- One should not force another into having sex.

 

- Children are uniquely worthy of protection.

 

and there are more. C.S. Lewis included a list of them, along with cites from the religious writing of different times and cultures, as an appendix to his book Men Without Chests, a very worthwhile examination of the idea that all moral values are relative.

 

That this a rudimentary sense that we are born (and as a Christian, I say imbued) with, reflects that we are different than other animals, some of whom may share some aspects of that natural law (as fellow creations), but not to the extent that humans do. 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Man is corrupt, God is not. So long as that is understood first by all, then at worst mans corruptness is temporary. But God as a consistent starting place is forever. I'm speaking pragmatically of course.

 

Barry

 

What's pragmatic about a starting place that necessarily has humans in it, yet you want to give it the cloak of certainty?