McCulloch’s questions:
Is there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, often in opposition to religious morality?
Do believers really use the Bible as a source of their moral values?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117859#p117859
Is there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, often in opposition to religious morality?
Generally speaking, no, morality does not evolve.
In the previous chapter, Dawkins states:
“With corresponding minor differences, the Kuna show the same moral judgements as the rest of us” (page 225)
The Kuna have little contact with Westerners and no formal religion. Yet, they exhibit the same moral judgements. So, morality then would not be a function of a particular culture or society.
Do believers really use the Bible as a source of their moral values?
As I’ve mentioned in the previous chapter, following Biblical laws will not make anyone moral or good. So, though believers might use the Bible as their source of moral values, that would not be the purpose of the Bible. Rather, the purpose of the law is not to make us good, but to show that we are not good.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117873#p117873
bunyip wrote:The moral values of the Good Book have already depopulated entire continents.
Actually, I believe the opposite is more the case.
Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118005#p118005
I think perhaps we should first define what we mean by morality before debating about it.
I view morality as the concept of right and wrong, good and bad. A moral sense is our capability of choosing between right and wrong. Someone who is moral is considered to be good and right.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118201#p118201
bunyip wrote:It should read “Someone who is considered moral is one who performs what we view as good deeds or makes judgements we see as right.”
Who is “we”? Who decides what is moral? By what standard do they decide if something is right or good?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118428#p118428
QED wrote:Well, I think Confused already demonstrated how why we can rule out the bible as a source for such standards — because it is silent on many issues that are important for today’s civilization.
Before such statement can be made, a definition will need to be proposed on how the term morality is being used.
And actually, I’ve never argued that the Bible is the standard for morality (as I’ve defined it). Rather, what I believe is that morality is built-in to all humans. Humans have an innate ability to judge between right and wrong. It is not something learned or taught or even genetically inherited. It flows from a non-natural part of humans, the soul/spirit.
Let’s suppose that it is genetically inherited. Then it’s possible to genetically alter people so that they are not capable of judging between right and wrong after identifying those genes and removing them. When this is done, then it will show that morality can be explained genetically. (However, it might be considered wrong to even do this. 
)
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118521#p118521
Confused wrote:But I can not think of a single parent who didn’t have to reprimand their child for either taking a toy from another, hitting another child, yelling, screaming, talking back, etc
Certainly. Children under a certain age are not really capable of distinguishing what is right or wrong. And when they are old enough, it does not mean that even if they do know it that they will always choose to do the right thing. Even adults do not always choose to do the right thing, even though they know what would be right.
Basically, we teach children right vs wrong.
In a certain sense, yes, I agree. There are cultural standards in which society imparts on children on what is acceptable and unacceptable. Yet, at the same time, there is an innate understanding of what is right and wrong.
An example is a story I heard of Martin Luther King Jr. During his childhood, he played with some white kids. But later, the white kids’ parents told them that they could not play with each other because they were black. Society told them that it was unacceptable to mix the races. But King had an innate sense that this was wrong.
Another example is that I’ve never had to teach my children the concept of fairness. Though they don’t always act fair, they sense that being fair is right. I can easily appeal to them of being fair. And they don’t dispute that being fair is right.
If a child displays no characteristics of right or wrong, say by the age 9, do we say he lacks a soul? Did he make a conscious choice to murder? There are kids under the age of 14 that will never see life outside of prison again. What happened to these kids souls? Did they make a conscious choice at 9 to murder?
A simplistic answer cannot be given. There are many factors that go into a person’s actions. But usually there is some motivation for murder. Rarely will someone kill another for no reason. We have an innate belief that it is wrong to kill another person. But, conditions can become so severe that it overwhelms that belief and cause someone to do the wrong thing.
So is it not more likely to say that they are in fact a combination of many things. And that they do in fact, change over time, with society?
It is a combination of things, but I believe an innate understanding of right and wrong is part of it. If morality does change over time with society, then it would be hard to explain the universality of morality. As I’ve mentioned, Dawkins states in the previous chapter that the Kuna tribe “show the same moral judgements as the rest of us.” (page 225)
My issue comes into play when one says that if you are religious you are moral.
If a Christian says that just because they are religious then they are moral, then they have a flawed understanding of the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible teach this.
Instead, Dawkins addresses the fact that morality is subjective to the society in which it is being evaluated and it is relative to the time period in which it is being evaluated. He backs this up when he provides multiple examples throughout the chapter: womens right, slavery, racial integration, etc…
If morality is subjective, then it would mean that society can say that it is right for women to have no rights. Or it is right to have slavery. Or it is right for racial discrimination. If one is to state that these things are always wrong, regardless of what society thinks, then the morality of it would not be based on society and would not be subjective.
When we say something is right or wrong, we are judging by some sort of standard. If I say 4 times 4 equals 20 is wrong, then I’m judging it by the multiplication table. If there is no standard, then one cannot say that something is right or wrong. There would be nothing to judge by.
When we say is it right to be fair, by what standard are we judging by? There is no law or rules stating we must be fair. And the forces of natural selection is opposite to fairness. Rather, the “unfit” are eliminated and the “fit” survive. It would seem odd that a process that is unfair would result in a belief in fairness. The best explanation is that there is some higher standard that all humans seem to possess. And this is one argument that CS Lewis uses for the existence of the supernatural and what led Francis Collins to believe in the supernatural.
The concept of fairness is such a strong force that it is even used to challenge the belief in God. Atheists demand that God must be fair (God unfairly sends people to hell. God unfairly judges people who have not heard the gospel. God unfairly sends calamities on people). But, why the demand that God needs to be fair? What standard do they judge by that requires God to be fair?
Even among violent people we find the concept of fairness. One interesting work that mentions this is Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist. Rhodes talks about Mike Tyson biting off Holyfield’s ear. And one of the driving forces was fairness. It wasn’t simply some madman trying to win a fight at all costs. But, it was in response to Holyfield constantly headbutting Tyson. And when Tyson saw that the referee was going to do nothing about it, he bit off Holyfield’s ear.
Loyalty is another concept that we humans think is the right thing to do. Even in places where we think morality is nonexistent, we find that loyalty is still present. If prisoners snitch on each other, then it is not considered a good thing. If a mobster is disloyal to the family, then that person will usually be taken care of.
I cannot think of a society where disloyalty and unfairness are considered a virtue. If all societies think fairness and loyalty are right, then they cannot be a product of a moral zeitgeist that continually evolves.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118715#p118715
QED wrote:If that’s the case then I’m stunned. The process of natural selection can be very different from its products. It would be nothing short of a school-boy error to think otherwise… Some processes are violent yet result in delicate products, some involve large amounts of heat yet the product is frozen. It’s simply nonsense to expect the sort of connections you cite.
Not nonsense at all. Further, I’m not saying it’s a disproof of natural selection, but something that would be odd.
Sure the product and process can be different, but in the case of natural selection, the product is a feedback into the process. Only the fit continue to survive in each generation. The unfit are systematically removed.
Now suppose we take this principle to human evolution. We can simply allow natural forces to operate. Those that are disease ridden, weak, poor are simply considered unfit and we should just let natural courses let them be removed. Yet, our concept of fairness and injustice would not permit this. So, it would effectively stop the course of natural selection.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118746#p118746
bunyip wrote:> “Dawkins doesn’t even try to address what is good and what isn’t.”Of course he doesn’t. Anything as relative as that is meaningless to a zoologist.
Then this would effectively make this entire chapter meaningless. If there is no concept of good or bad, then there is no concept of morality. If there is no concept of morality, it’s useless to discuss the origin of it or if it even changes.
Dawkins has contended for decades that Nature is “amoral” [although he doesn’t promote that here] and recognises how hard it is for humans to accept that notion.
Actually, I would agree that nature is amoral. But, he certainly does not promote this idea in the book and actually seems to argue for the opposite.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118808#p118808
Confused wrote:As far as not having to teach your kids fairness, I say consider yourself fortunate.
No, I still have to teach my children. While they have an innate sense of fairness, they also have an innate sense of selfishness. I have to help them choose between good and bad. So, what usually happens is that they want to apply fairness to others, but greed to themselves. Like last night for example when I gave the kids ice cream. I tried to put the same amount of ice cream in each cup. They knew it is was the fair thing to do. But, they each also wanted to look for that cup that had that little bit more of ice cream. Then I had to intervene and stop them from looking for that little bit more.
If all kids were aware of fairness, then why do some kids who are bullies not see themselves as bullies?
Just because people knows something, it doesn’t mean they follow it. I’m sure that even bullies desire fairness. Let’s say that a 11 year old bully is tormenting the 9 year old kids. Then a 19 year old black belt karate expert beats the 11 year old bully to a pulp. Would not the concept of a fair fight enter the mind of the 11 year old?
Even adults are aware of fairness, but many do not practice it. And even more, it’s almost impossible to fully practice it. Is it fair that I have more money, better access to health services, more sanitary conditions than the majority of the world? If there was no concept of fairness, then such inequalities would not matter. And no one could argue that such inequalities was not right.
Sure, something so severe such as not realizing that they were killing someone because of diminished capacity or simply not knowing that it was wrong.
Most murderers are not able to get by with the insanity plea. Most murder are intentional and deliberate acts and they realize what they are doing.
Not long ago society accepted oppression of women and blacks. We evolved.
Yes, it was not long ago. Suppose we go back 50 years where Jim Crow laws were in effect. Since society accepted the discrimination of blacks, would it make it right and acceptable? I would say no. So, if one believes that discrimination by race is not right no matter what any society thinks, then it cannot evolve.
I think we have to distinguish between laws, societal acceptance, and morality. Certainly laws and societal acceptance can change. But morality does not.
We can only judge it based on the society in which it exists and the time period in which you are evaluating it.
So, depending on time and location, then slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination could be considered right?
Natural selection has never been fair. It just is.
Yes, natural selection is amoral. Good and bad cannot be applied to it.
However, like I’ve mentioned before, we do apply good and bad to human natural selection. If natural selection simply weeds out those that are not able to survive, then it should also be considered amoral when this is applied to humans. But it is not. It would be considered immoral to apply this to humans.
The best explanation of a higher standard is no explanation at all. What question does it answer that doesn’t create even greater questions? That is the “God works in mysterious ways” explanation that doesn’t answer anything.
We’ve covered this argument in chapter 4. Yes, it does raise more issues. But simply raising more issues does not nullify it as a viable explanation. What I do suspect is that there are certain raised issues that people would rather not face, so it would be easier to simply dismiss it all.
I don’t demand he be fair. But if He isn’t then I expect a reason just as my daughter expects a reason why my son gets away with X while she doesn’t. Is that so unreasonable?
I can’t recall anywhere in the Bible that says that God will promise everyone on Earth to have a fair life. So, to expect God to enforce fairness and equality on all would be an unreasonable expectation.
And this brings up another point. It’s been mentioned that natural selection has no concept of fairness. But even this world is not fair. Rarely are situations and events and circumstances around us fair. Yet, why the conviction within us for fairness?
Loyalty is earned, not an inherent right.
The question though is why is loyalty considered right? Suppose someone earned your loyalty, then broke that trust. If loyalty is not considered right, then nothing wrong has been done.
And as far as those unloyal and taken care of in prison, well, the survival of the fittest.
Well, if you or I are in prison, I would think we would not hope for that.
Yet they still happen. There are times police are disloyal in attempts to make undercover drug raids. Is this wrong?
Yes, they still happen. So isn’t it odd that though people are unfair and disloyal, yet it persists in all cultures that they are still considered virtues?
If anytime if anyone is disloyal, and disloyalty is not considered wrong, then the disloyal cannot be considered to be doing anything wrong.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118963#p118963
Confused wrote:But if one exception exists where the person doesn’t realize that what they are doing is wrong, can we say the the concept of right/wrong it innate, or simply the presence of it is makes it innate, not the concept itself?
I would not think that exceptions would invalidate it. Exceptions exist in many things and would not necessarily invalidate them. Invoking the insanity plea would not always mean they would not have known what was right or wrong. So, there are even exceptions to the exceptions.
But what we consider moral would change.
How do you define “moral” here?
If we went back to the days before the womens rights movement and asked most of those living then if they thought it was immoral to see women as property, I would be willing to bet more would say it wasn’t immoral than would say it was. The same for slavery. The fact is that it was acceptable at that time. Some may have seen it as wrong, but more saw it as right otherwise the movements would have happened long before they did.
I would disagree. During the times of slavery and womens rights, on what basis then could people argue that they were wrong? If morality depended simply on the law, then there would be no basis to argue that it was wrong.
Even the founding of the USA was based on moral law. If the law was the highest principal, then America would have no basis to usurp authority and become an independent country.
From the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … dependence
Here, they argued that there is a higher principle than the British laws. By appealing to the natural law, they argued that they have the right to become independent.
Confused wrote:otseng wrote:Confused wrote: Natural selection has never been fair. It just is.Yes, natural selection is amoral. Good and bad cannot be applied to it.
Agreed
otseng wrote:However, like I’ve mentioned before, we do apply good and bad to human natural selection. If natural selection simply weeds out those that are not able to survive, then it should also be considered amoral when this is applied to humans. But it is not. It would be considered immoral to apply this to humans.You lost me here.
When any animal kills another animal, it would simply be natural selection at work. Good or bad cannot be applied to it. It is just how things are. But, when humans kill other humans, nobody says that it is simply natural selection at work. Or if a human dies as a result of getting drunk and running into a tree, we don’t say that nature has selected out those with the inclination to drive under the influence. When we go to war, we don’t say that nations are trying to terminate the weaker nations and select them out.
I see it this way, if God exists, he should represent what man should strive for. He should be the benevolent, all-loving entity. If such is true, then His standards should be higher than natural selection. He should represent fairness. Is He not the model for man just as parents are the model for their children?
In a way, yes, he does represent fairness.
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
However, he also represents other things – love, justice, goodness, power, mercy. And these things are mentioned much more often than fairness in the Bible. So, fairness is not really a concept strongly emphasized in the Bible.
Loyalty isn’t always right. It can be misplaced easily.
I’m not arguing that being loyal to any particular person would always be the right thing to do. But, I’m saying that we consider being loyal is the right thing to do. We all frown on disloyalty.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=119873#p119873
Confused wrote:Exceptions invalidate that certain reflexes are innate if one person is born without it.
Rather than pointing to exceptions, I would rather think an indication of innateness would be that it is not something that is acquired or taught during one’s lifetime. If it is not learned from someone else, then it must be innate.
At the time, they couldn’t argue it was morally wrong because the majority didn’t see it at morally wrong. It isn’t the law that made it morally wrong or right. It was the mindset of the society of the times.
If the mindset of the times is what dictates whether something is right or wrong, then the majority would always be considered to be right. There would be no basis for the minority to say that the majority is wrong. Because by your definition they would then always be right.
If all had practiced it, then women and slaves wouldn’t have been oppressed, but they were. Because it was the accepted practice then. Slaves weren’t seen as men. Women were seen as property.
So, during that time, slavery and female discrimination was the right thing to do then. They didn’t do anything wrong by holding slaves and mistreating women.
There is nothing natural about a human killing another human. That isn’t nature, that is man. When animals kill, it is usually for food. They usually choose the weakest in the pack. Hence it is survival of the fittest. Is it good that one animal kills another to eat? Is it bad? No, it isn’t even related to natural selection, rather self preservation. Natural selection is merely a by product.
Natural selection says nothing that being killed for food is a requirement. It’s simply for some organisms that are better adapted to the environment to reproduce more than those less adapted. If one country is better adapted to the environment of war, then they will be able to reproduce than those less adapted.
Is there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, often in opposition to religious morality?
I’d like to summarize my position by stating that morality does not evolve in society. Morality is derived from the natural law and not from the the beliefs of the majority of the population at any particular time.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=120782#p120782
Confused wrote:otseng wrote:Confused wrote: At the time, they couldn’t argue it was morally wrong because the majority didn’t see it at morally wrong. It isn’t the law that made it morally wrong or right. It was the mindset of the society of the times.If the mindset of the times is what dictates whether something is right or wrong, then the majority would always be considered to be right. There would be no basis for the minority to say that the majority is wrong. Because by your definition they would then always be right.
How else can we evaluate the events in history? We can’t consider an action from X amount of years ago, that is related to that generation/society, as if it had the same mindset we have now. Social evolution applies heavy here.
You can’t judge events in history. Because whatever happened to be the majority position at the time, it would be right at that time. There’d be no way to say that any majority position was wrong at that particular time.
otseng wrote:Confused wrote:If all had practiced it, then women and slaves wouldn’t have been oppressed, but they were. Because it was the accepted practice then. Slaves weren’t seen as men. Women were seen as property.So, during that time, slavery and female discrimination was the right thing to do then. They didn’t do anything wrong by holding slaves and mistreating women.
Much as I hate to say it, based on the societal norms and values for that time, they did nothing wrong.
That would be the only logical conclusion based on moral relativity.
I don’t think we will agree with this finality.
Of course I don’t expect many to agree with my conclusion.
But of curiosity, which from of natural law are your referring to? Aristotle, Stoic, Christian, Hobbes, Liberal, Contemporary Catholic? I am assuming Christian. If so, then I am correct, we will never agree.
Why would you disagree if I would say Christian? Would you potentially agree if I said any of the others?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=120867#p120867