Kohlberg\'s Stages
 

To the OP: I do believe in God, but it is not my belief in God that defines my morality (I'm not afraid of being punished by God if I'm bad).

That said:

People get their morality by being in one of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Doing what's right because of what God tells you to do is stage 1.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

I don't believe the existence the concepts of morals proves or disproves god. I believe that is is possible (maybe unlikely, but I'm not sure) that moral ideas could have developed without god.

I don't believe the OP said anything about morals proving god. If I'm reading the questions right it's asking how someone can justify their moral views. You seem to agree that one can't. I don't know where other considerations entered in.

While we're on the subject... you suggest in PG&L (from what I've heard... I've been meaning to pick it up) that it is morally contemptible to follow laws only because of the danger of being caught. I take this to mean that there is a purely moral dimension to the situation entirely apart from practical considerations. From what I've read you do seem to indicate that god, if god exists, could be interested in moral issues. Does Sklanskyanity justify your moral assertions or something else?

The question is less a challenge and more curiosity.

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong."

You are repeating a Not Ready Post and I'll answer it the same way. We'll see if you can add something he didn't.

Basically I said "OK you can't. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of a supreme being."

And this time I'll add "Suppose there were only animals. Now it is certain that there is no intrinsic right or wrong for them since they can't understand God's commandments. Does that decrease the possibilty that a supreme being created them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals were not given the thought process and ability to choose between right and wrong. Your argument is moot since there *are* people who can distinguish between what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong. If there were no humans that could distinguish this, your argument is valid. However, the existance of additional creatures that cannot has no impact on the argument.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but can't think of any good ones. Here's an attempt though.

Gravity pulls objects towards the large body of mass that is the Earth. This is always true. Now assume someone bounces a ball, and it bounces up into the air because of the force when it hits the ground. Does this mean gravity no longer exists? No it doesn't.

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Why should the brain be designed by evolution to make moral judgments? If one considers the currently accepted evolutionary model the brain should have been designed to conduct itself in such a way as to preserve its host body with no "moral" consideration at all.

Society is a very new thing. Why does right and wrong have any benefit for survival? What was right and wrong before there was any society to apply it to? The only factors in evolution should be 100% pragmatic. If right and wrong happen to coincide with the correct practical survival decision then fine, but otherwise it's useless complication and I don't see why evolution would design it in... you'd think evolution would design it out just as quickly as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your whole post is entirely factually incorrect. I am not lying to you about this.

If you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue or Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Animals were not given the thought process and ability to choose between right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you." The Golden Rule, one of the first lessons we learn as children, is at the heart of many of the world's religions, political systems and societies- and not just human societies.

In "Chimps Getting Along," Alan Alda and renowned primate behaviorist Frans de Waal observe a group of chimps who live by the Golden Rule at the Yerkes Regional Primate Center in Atlanta, GA. The alpha male, Jimoh, and dominant female, Peony, keep the peace, while other adult chimps make sure the young ones know what's acceptable behavior in chimp society and what's not. It's not much different from a human tribal society.

When adolescent Georgia steals food from the group, she's left alone to eat in peace. But, according to de Waal, the chimps keep track of who's selfish and who's generous. Hoarders like Georgia will be rejected in times of need, while chimps who share are paid back with reciprocal sharing or grooming sessions. De Waal likens these behaviors to human morality.

Yet, there's hope for young Georgia; she's still learning. Reprimanded by Jimoh, Georgia sees the error of her ways and extends her hands in apology.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1108/segments/1108-3.htm

(For much more detail on chimp morality, see de Waal's book, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.)

Memo to management
 

Matt, can we lose the stupid censorship rule that blanks the word "homo", please?

It renders Homo Sapiens a dirty word, you crypto-creationist!

Robinson Crusoe was lost
 

[ QUOTE ]
When adolescent [chimp] Georgia steals food from the group, she's left alone to eat in peace. The chimps keep track of who's selfish and who's generous. Hoarders like Georgia will be rejected in times of need, while chimps who share are paid back with reciprocal sharing or grooming sessions. De Waal likens these behaviors to human morality.





[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that, just as the case has been for all other animals, social necessity begat human morality?

Is that all ?

Re: Robinson Crusoe was lost
 

[ QUOTE ]
So are you saying that, just as the case has been for all other animals, social necessity begat human morality?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what "social necessity" is, but a sense of morality would not have evolved in non-social organisms.

Are you familiar with the TIT-for-TAT strategy described in Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation? Something like that is probably the initial basis for the favorable selection of genes promoting reciprocal altruism (which, along with kin-selection, is the root of moral behavior).

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole post is entirely factually incorrect. I am not lying to you about this.

If you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue or Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, well I think I led this down a path that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. Hopefully I can sum up what I'm trying to say...

I won't argue that the belief in moral absolutes does not have practical benefit. Also, I will not argue whether belief in moral absolutes could have been evolved (at least not in this thread anymore because it has nothing to do with this). There are definite reasons why people could say this could and should have happened. That's fine.

The only thing I'm asking is for you to prove to me is that things have purely intrinsic moral value. If you don't think they do then that's fine.

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I'm asking is for you to prove to me is that things have purely intrinsic moral value. If you don't think they do then that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just so this doesn't get bogged down in semantics (what's "intrinsic"?, etc.), I'll ask this question as an analogy: Can you prove that Shana Hiatt is intrinsically hot?

I think moral judgments are very much like hotness judgments. There are very many easy cases on which pretty much everyone agrees (torturing innocents for pleasure is wrong, Shana Hiatt is hotter than Kathy Liebert, etc.), and this agreement is explained very well by evolutionary theory. There are also harder cases that people will disagree on (abortion is wrong, Shana Hiatt is hotter than Courney Friel).

I would say that torturing innocents for pleasure is objectively wrong to the same extent that Shana Hiatt is objectively hotter than Kathy Liebert. When we understand why our sense of morality evolved -- the sorts of problems it is designed to handle -- we can see why any correctly-functioning moral sense would judge such torture to be wrong. (Someone who tortures innocents for pleasure lacks the kind of empathy and sense of fairness that we look for in people we are willing to trust.) Similarly, if we understand that our sense of physical attractiveness is designed to make us desire partners who will produce healthy offspring, we can see why a correctly-functioning sexual desire would prefer traits that signal fertility (e.g., a smaller jaw on females, or the existence of boobs, or the absence of rough facial hair) and health (e.g., facial symmetry, a smooth skin complexion) over traits that don't.