First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society
or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ : Stanford
Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
"The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
expressions of our individual emotions?"
Source: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm : Internet Encyclopedia
Of Philosophy
According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy so I'll
use the terms interchangeably.
In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to first
look at what the source of morality is.
Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all) are
capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the existence of
Mirror Neurons in the brain.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few or no
mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute to the
concept of Morality?
When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of understanding what
they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that injury
isn't good.
Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that morality
isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of Empathy will
understand that injury isn't good.
I wouldn't say that it's absolute either because we have to account for
those who are incapable of Empathy. I think the term Universal would be
better because Universal Morality recognizes that injury isn't good for
anyone but it also recognizes that it's not a given.
Source: http://www.learnersdictionary.net/dictionary/universal (Definition
3a for Universal - Merriam Webster)
So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
animals.
Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of abstract
thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
Human reason also plays an important role.
Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species requires
that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective to
that extent.
They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the frame of
different references. IOW Context matters.
For example.
Lying is bad.
Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
So, A Moral is:
1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
animals.
2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual within a
given frame of reference.
Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested in
comments to refine and/or change this position.
On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Definition of Moralityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ > The term “morality” can be used either
> 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
Whatever the reasons that Islam requires the hijab, the woman can
claim as her own reasons. Isn't it possible that she could have come
up with these values independently of Islam? I believe the law is
about sexual repression of women in some way. Surely other cultures do
the same, yet site different sources for the "law"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Definition of Moralityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
> > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Definition of Moralityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
> > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
nothing to do with Morality.
It's a combination of Physiology, Environmental Necessity, Locality,
and Reason.
No gods required.
The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
immoral.
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Definition of Moralityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
> > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
nothing to do with Morality.
It's a combination of Physiology, Environmental Necessity, Locality,
and Reason.
No gods required.
The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
immoral.
> On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> society or,
> > > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> > religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> > that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
> Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
> nothing to do with Morality.
> It's a combination of Physiology, Environmental Necessity, Locality,
> and Reason.
> No gods required.
> The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
> without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
> immoral.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 2, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
> > > 1.1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > 1.2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> > religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> > that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
> Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
> nothing to do with Morality.
That wasn't a "complete definition"; it was a list of alternate
definitions.
> The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
> without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
> immoral.
According to the above definitions (1.1 and 1.2) of a moral,
1.1) if viewing hijabs as virtuous is part of a code of conduct, it is
a moral, and
1.2) if the mother accepts the hijab for her own behavior, then
viewing hijabs as virtuous is a moral.
ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> society or,
> > > > 1.1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > 1.2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> > > religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> > > that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
> > Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
> > nothing to do with Morality.
> That wasn't a "complete definition"; it was a list of alternate
> definitions.
I was referring to my Post.
> > The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
> > without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
> > immoral.
> According to the above definitions (1.1 and 1.2) of a moral,
> 1.1) if viewing hijabs as virtuous is part of a code of conduct, it is
> a moral, and
> 1.2) if the mother accepts the hijab for her own behavior, then
> viewing hijabs as virtuous is a moral.
Only if you ignore the rest of my post.
Which deals with what Morality actually is.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> > society or,
> > > > > 1.1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > > 1.2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> > > > religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> > > > that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
> > > Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
> > > nothing to do with Morality.
> > That wasn't a "complete definition"; it was a list of alternate
> > definitions.
> I was referring to my Post.
> > > The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
> > > without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
> > > immoral.
> > According to the above definitions (1.1 and 1.2) of a moral,
> > 1.1) if viewing hijabs as virtuous is part of a code of conduct, it is
> > a moral, and
> > 1.2) if the mother accepts the hijab for her own behavior, then
> > viewing hijabs as virtuous is a moral.
> Only if you ignore the rest of my post.
> Which deals with what Morality actually is.
I didn't say "according to what morality actually is". I said
"according to the above meaning of morality".
ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:24 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> > > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by
> a
> > > society or,
> > > > > > 1.1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > > > 1.2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > > Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> > > > > religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> > > > > that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
> > > > Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has absolutely
> > > > nothing to do with Morality.
> > > That wasn't a "complete definition"; it was a list of alternate
> > > definitions.
> > I was referring to my Post.
> > > > The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
> > > > without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
> > > > immoral.
> > > According to the above definitions (1.1 and 1.2) of a moral,
> > > 1.1) if viewing hijabs as virtuous is part of a code of conduct, it is
> > > a moral, and
> > > 1.2) if the mother accepts the hijab for her own behavior, then
> > > viewing hijabs as virtuous is a moral.
> > Only if you ignore the rest of my post.
> > Which deals with what Morality actually is.
> I didn't say "according to what morality actually is". I said
> "according to the above meaning of morality".
True. But I chose to respond to the question in the context of the OP and
not in the context of the definition you chose to restrict it to since the
thread is about the OP.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 2:24 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 2, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <
>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
>> > > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
>> > > > > > The term “morality” can be used either
>> > > > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by
>> a
>> > > society or,
>> > > > > > 1.1. some other group, such as a religion, or
>> > > > > > 1.2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
>> > > > > Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
>> > > > > religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
>> > > > > that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
>> > > > Given the complete definition that I provided Religion has
>> absolutely
>> > > > nothing to do with Morality.
>> > > That wasn't a "complete definition"; it was a list of alternate
>> > > definitions.
>> > I was referring to my Post.
>> > > > The hijab is cultural requirement and can not be justified morally
>> > > > without establishing the inequality of women as a principle which is
>> > > > immoral.
>> > > According to the above definitions (1.1 and 1.2) of a moral,
>> > > 1.1) if viewing hijabs as virtuous is part of a code of conduct, it is
>> > > a moral, and
>> > > 1.2) if the mother accepts the hijab for her own behavior, then
>> > > viewing hijabs as virtuous is a moral.
>> > Only if you ignore the rest of my post.
>> > Which deals with what Morality actually is.
>> I didn't say "according to what morality actually is". I said
>> "according to the above meaning of morality".
> True. But I chose to respond to the question in the context of the OP and
> not in the context of the definition you chose to restrict it to since the
> thread is about the OP.
Let me elaborate a bit.
You took one definition of the word, Morality and asked people to make a
moral judgment based on the definition of the word you provided.
I'm examining the concept of Morality and it's source which is much more
than just defining the word.
Putting your question within the framework of the concept allows a moral
judgment to be made.
Simply using the definition of the word limits it to the point where there's
no moral judgment that can be made.
All you're doing is pointing out the weakness of using a definition of a
word to explain a concept.
Something that wasn't done in the OP.
The only relevance of the definition in the OP was to make the point that
Ethics and Morality are the same thing.
The intent was to forestall arguments about ethics and morality being
different.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as a
> sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> There is also another discussion happening on another group to which I
> posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback as
> well.
> What is a Moral?
> I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic interests
> me.
> First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008
> The term “morality” can be used either
> 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society
> or,
> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> Source:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/: Stanford
> Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
> defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
> subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> expressions of our individual emotions?"
> Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm: Internet Encyclopedia
> Of Philosophy
> According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy so I'll
> use the terms interchangeably.
> In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to first
> look at what the source of morality is.
> Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all) are
> capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the existence of
> Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few or no
> mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
> Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute to the
> concept of Morality?
> When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of understanding what
> they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that injury
> isn't good.
> Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that morality
> isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of Empathy will
> understand that injury isn't good.
> I wouldn't say that it's absolute either because we have to account for
> those who are incapable of Empathy. I think the term Universal would be
> better because Universal Morality recognizes that injury isn't good for
> anyone but it also recognizes that it's not a given.
> Source:http://www.learnersdictionary.net/dictionary/universal(Definition > 3a for Universal - Merriam Webster)
> So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> animals.
> Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of abstract
> thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> Human reason also plays an important role.
> Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species requires
> that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective to
> that extent.
> They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the frame of
> different references. IOW Context matters.
> For example.
> Lying is bad.
> Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> So, A Moral is:
> 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> animals.
> 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual within a
> given frame of reference.
> Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested in
> comments to refine and/or change this position.
On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> expressions of our individual emotions?"
With regard to epistemological first principles, I like how Aristotle
has famously articulated:
"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
follows from them."
So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
non-solipsistic and non-humanistic argument. So a modification to his
position, that I believe is better (though of course, it isn't
Aristotle's):
* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.
> In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to first
> look at what the source of morality is.
Starting by identifying first principles is a good idea ...
> Recent studies on the brain
But why start with the human brain?
> So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> animals.
What makes a standard "universal"?
> These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective to
> that extent.
Which extant is that?
> So, A Moral is:
> 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> animals.
What makes any such standard "universal"?
> 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual within a
> given frame of reference.
Sounds open to the danger of the lawlessness of piracy:
Keep to the code! (more like guidelines)
> Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested in
> comments to refine and/or change this position.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> With regard to epistemological first principles, I like how Aristotle
> has famously articulated:
> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
> points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
> follows from them."
> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> starting points.
They can and where possible should be provable starting points based on
justified belief (knowledge) and this is a much stronger starting point than
an a-priori, unprovable starting point based on intuitive knowledge.
> Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
> non-solipsistic and non-humanistic argument. So a modification to his
> position, that I believe is better (though of course, it isn't
> Aristotle's):
> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.
> > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
> first
> > look at what the source of morality is.
> Starting by identifying first principles is a good idea ...
I have done so.
The first principle where the concept of morality is concerned is:
Morality is founded in both physiology and reason.
Scientific research provides a foundation for this belief even though it
hasn't been fully scientifically proven and there is still a lot of work to
do.
> > Recent studies on the brain
> But why start with the human brain?
Starting with the human brain gives us insight into whether this is a
physiological issue or an abstract concept which exists independent of
physiology.
> > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > animals.
> What makes a standard "universal"?
It can applied to the majority of human beings.
> > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective
> to
> > that extent.
> Which extant is that?
To the extent that physiology allows. That is, Empathy as a physiological
process can't take into consideration frame of references and social and
cultural needs. This is where reason comes into play.
The statement:
Injuring people is bad is an objectively moral statement because it's
founded in Empathy and all those who are capable of Empathy will universally
believe that injuring people is bad.
However, sometimes, injuring people is necessary to meet a higher moral
need.
So, if a woman is attacked by a rapist, injuring the rapist to end the
attack and enable her to flee is moral and she might have to do that
irrespective of the fact that she believes, based on Empathy that injuring
people is bad.
> > So, A Moral is:
> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > animals.
> What makes any such standard "universal"?
See above.
> > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
> within a
> > given frame of reference.
> Sounds open to the danger of the lawlessness of piracy:
Only if you negate Empathy. In the case of Sociopaths this is exactly what
happens because they are amoral and incapable of empathy.
> Keep to the code! (more like guidelines)
Sounds like the obedience manual you call the bible ;-)
There is no code. Re-read my OP.
> > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested
> in
> > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as a
> > sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> > There is also another discussion happening on another group to which I
> > posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback as
> > well.
> > What is a Moral?
> > I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic
> interests
> > me.
> > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008
> > The term “morality” can be used either
> > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> society
> > or,
> > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> > conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> > Source:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/: Stanford
> > Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> > "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
> > defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> > Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
> > subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> > Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm: Internet
> Encyclopedia
> > Of Philosophy
> > According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy so
> I'll
> > use the terms interchangeably.
> > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
> first
> > look at what the source of morality is.
> > Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all) are
> > capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the existence of
> > Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> > Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few or
> no
> > mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
> > Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> > So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute to
> the
> > concept of Morality?
> > When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of understanding
> what
> > they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that
> injury
> > isn't good.
> > Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that morality
> > isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of Empathy
> will
> > understand that injury isn't good.
> > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > animals.
> > Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of abstract
> > thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> > Human reason also plays an important role.
> > Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species requires
> > that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective
> to
> > that extent.
> > They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the frame
> of
> > different references. IOW Context matters.
> > For example.
> > Lying is bad.
> > Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> > So, A Moral is:
> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > animals.
> > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
> within a
> > given frame of reference.
> > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested
> in
> > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> > --
> > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > God Is A Ribbon!
> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I like the way Robert Heinlein put it:
> > "Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to
> > survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual
> > level."
> I've been giving this some thought and wondering why he doesn't think that
> morality exists at the individual level?
> In addition he seems to restrict morality to the instinct to survive.
> Or am I misunderstanding his comment?
> Maybe you could explain it further.
> I'm working on developing my points so it's good to explore other angles
> taken by other people.
It's not that morality doesn't exist in the individual level, it is
that morality has the interests above the individual level (which
necessarily include the individual level; you can't have society
without individuals).
Think of it this way: If there was only one person, would there be
morals?
> > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as a
> > > sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> > > There is also another discussion happening on another group to which I
> > > posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback as
> > > well.
> > > What is a Moral?
> > > I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic
> > interests
> > > me.
> > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008
> > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> > society
> > > or,
> > > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> > > conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> > > Source:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/:Stanford > > > Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> > > "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
> > > defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> > > Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
> > > subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> > > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> > > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> > > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> > > Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm:Internet > > Encyclopedia
> > > Of Philosophy
> > > According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy so
> > I'll
> > > use the terms interchangeably.
> > > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
> > first
> > > look at what the source of morality is.
> > > Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all) are
> > > capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the existence of
> > > Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> > > Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few or
> > no
> > > mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
> > > Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> > > So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute to
> > the
> > > concept of Morality?
> > > When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of understanding
> > what
> > > they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that
> > injury
> > > isn't good.
> > > Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that morality
> > > isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of Empathy
> > will
> > > understand that injury isn't good.
> > > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > > animals.
> > > Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of abstract
> > > thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> > > Human reason also plays an important role.
> > > Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species requires
> > > that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> > > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> > > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective
> > to
> > > that extent.
> > > They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the frame
> > of
> > > different references. IOW Context matters.
> > > For example.
> > > Lying is bad.
> > > Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> > > So, A Moral is:
> > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > > animals.
> > > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
> > within a
> > > given frame of reference.
> > > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> > > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested
> > in
> > > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> > > --
> > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:20 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I like the way Robert Heinlein put it:
> > > "Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to
> > > survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual
> > > level."
> > I've been giving this some thought and wondering why he doesn't think
> that
> > morality exists at the individual level?
> > In addition he seems to restrict morality to the instinct to survive.
> > Or am I misunderstanding his comment?
> > Maybe you could explain it further.
> > I'm working on developing my points so it's good to explore other angles
> > taken by other people.
> It's not that morality doesn't exist in the individual level, it is
> that morality has the interests above the individual level (which
> necessarily include the individual level; you can't have society
> without individuals).
> Think of it this way: If there was only one person, would there be
> morals?
Ah okay got it.
But why does he restrict it to just survival instincts or is he saying that
survival instincts encompass the social, cultural factors, etc.?
> > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as
> a
> > > > sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> > > > There is also another discussion happening on another group to which
> I
> > > > posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > What is a Moral?
> > > > I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic
> > > interests
> > > > me.
> > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> > > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > > First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11,
> 2008
> > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> > > society
> > > > or,
> > > > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> > > > conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> > > > Source:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/:Stanford > > > > Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> > > > "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
> > > > defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> > > > Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
> > > > subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> > > > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and
> what
> > > > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more
> than
> > > > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> > > > Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm:Internet > > > Encyclopedia
> > > > Of Philosophy
> > > > According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy
> so
> > > I'll
> > > > use the terms interchangeably.
> > > > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
> > > first
> > > > look at what the source of morality is.
> > > > Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all)
> are
> > > > capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the
> existence of
> > > > Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> > > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> > > > Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few
> or
> > > no
> > > > mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
> > > > Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> > > > So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute
> to
> > > the
> > > > concept of Morality?
> > > > When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of
> understanding
> > > what
> > > > they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that
> > > injury
> > > > isn't good.
> > > > Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that
> morality
> > > > isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of
> Empathy
> > > will
> > > > understand that injury isn't good.
> > > > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to
> some
> > > > animals.
> > > > Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of
> abstract
> > > > thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> > > > Human reason also plays an important role.
> > > > Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species
> requires
> > > > that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> > > > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally
> and
> > > > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them
> objective
> > > to
> > > > that extent.
> > > > They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the
> frame
> > > of
> > > > different references. IOW Context matters.
> > > > For example.
> > > > Lying is bad.
> > > > Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> > > > So, A Moral is:
> > > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to
> some
> > > > animals.
> > > > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > > > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
> > > within a
> > > > given frame of reference.
> > > > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in
> the
> > > > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and
> interested
> > > in
> > > > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> > > > --
> > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > --
> > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > God Is A Ribbon!
> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With regard to epistemological first principles, I like how Aristotle
>> has famously articulated:
>> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
>> points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
>> follows from them."
>> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
>> starting points.
> They can and where possible should be provable starting points based on
> justified belief (knowledge)
So you would argue that all knowledge is demonstrable? I don't agree,
and like how Aristotle put it:
"Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the
contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of
demonstration. ... in addition we maintain that besides scientific
knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to
recognize the definitions."
> and this is a much stronger starting point than
> an a-priori, unprovable starting point based on intuitive knowledge.
Seems like we agree on that point, as I noted:
>> Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
>> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
>> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
>> subjective.
The answer in fact makes clear that humanism fails similarly.
>> > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
>> > first
>> > look at what the source of morality is.
>> Starting by identifying first principles is a good idea ...
> I have done so.
> The first principle where the concept of morality is concerned is:
> Morality is founded in both physiology and reason.
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> Scientific research provides a foundation for this belief even though it
> hasn't been fully scientifically proven and there is still a lot of work to
> do.
Then it is clear your statement:
> Scientific research provides a foundation for this belief
... is not a scientific statement. I love to hear people talk about
their faith! ;D
>> > Recent studies on the brain
>> But why start with the human brain?
> Starting with the human brain gives us insight into whether this is a
> physiological issue or an abstract concept which exists independent of
> physiology.
At the cost of omitting the rest of reality. :)
>> > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
>> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
>> > animals.
>> What makes a standard "universal"?
> It can applied to the majority of human beings.
Then its not universal.
>> > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
>> > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective
>> > to
>> > that extent.
>> Which extant is that?
> To the extent that physiology allows. That is, Empathy as a physiological
> process can't take into consideration frame of references and social and
> cultural needs. This is where reason comes into play.
But here you presume and adequacy for physiology and reason that is not tenable.
> The statement:
> Injuring people is bad is an objectively moral statement because it's
> founded in Empathy and all those who are capable of Empathy will universally
> believe that injuring people is bad.
> However, sometimes, injuring people is necessary to meet a higher moral
> need.
> So, if a woman is attacked by a rapist, injuring the rapist to end the
> attack and enable her to flee is moral and she might have to do that
> irrespective of the fact that she believes, based on Empathy that injuring
> people is bad.
Or perhaps it simply means that the statement "injuring people is bad"
requires additional context.
>> > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
>> > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
>> > within a
>> > given frame of reference.
>> Sounds open to the danger of the lawlessness of piracy:
> Only if you negate Empathy. In the case of Sociopaths this is exactly what
> happens because they are amoral and incapable of empathy.
So clearly your standard is not universal.
>> Keep to the code! (more like guidelines)
> Sounds like the obedience manual you call the bible ;-)
Why say that?
> There is no code. Re-read my OP.
Ok, you here seem to concede as false any statement you made above
about a "universal" standard.
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 5:20 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I like the way Robert Heinlein put it:
> > > > "Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to
> > > > survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual
> > > > level."
> > > I've been giving this some thought and wondering why he doesn't think
> > that
> > > morality exists at the individual level?
> > > In addition he seems to restrict morality to the instinct to survive.
> > > Or am I misunderstanding his comment?
> > > Maybe you could explain it further.
> > > I'm working on developing my points so it's good to explore other angles
> > > taken by other people.
> > It's not that morality doesn't exist in the individual level, it is
> > that morality has the interests above the individual level (which
> > necessarily include the individual level; you can't have society
> > without individuals).
> > Think of it this way: If there was only one person, would there be
> > morals?
> Ah okay got it.
> But why does he restrict it to just survival instincts or is he saying that
> survival instincts encompass the social, cultural factors, etc.?
Because that's all morals are: survival instincts of society. Yes,
they may get abstracted and twisted beyond all comprehensible
recognition, but that's what they are.
Sorry for such short replies. Toddler's demand a lot of attention.
> > > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as
> > a
> > > > > sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> > > > > There is also another discussion happening on another group to which
> > I
> > > > > posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback
> > as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > What is a Moral?
> > > > > I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic
> > > > interests
> > > > > me.
> > > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> > > > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > > > First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11,
> > 2008
> > > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a
> > > > society
> > > > > or,
> > > > > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > > 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> > > > > conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> > > > > Source:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/:Stanford > > > > > Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> > > > > "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
> > > > > defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> > > > > Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
> > > > > subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> > > > > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and
> > what
> > > > > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more
> > than
> > > > > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> > > > > Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm:Internet > > > > Encyclopedia
> > > > > Of Philosophy
> > > > > According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy
> > so
> > > > I'll
> > > > > use the terms interchangeably.
> > > > > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
> > > > first
> > > > > look at what the source of morality is.
> > > > > Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all)
> > are
> > > > > capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the
> > existence of
> > > > > Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> > > > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> > > > > Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few
> > or
> > > > no
> > > > > mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
> > > > > Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> > > > > So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > concept of Morality?
> > > > > When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of
> > understanding
> > > > what
> > > > > they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that
> > > > injury
> > > > > isn't good.
> > > > > Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that
> > morality
> > > > > isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of
> > Empathy
> > > > will
> > > > > understand that injury isn't good.
> > > > > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > > > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to
> > some
> > > > > animals.
> > > > > Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of
> > abstract
> > > > > thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> > > > > Human reason also plays an important role.
> > > > > Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species
> > requires
> > > > > that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> > > > > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally
> > and
> > > > > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them
> > objective
> > > > to
> > > > > that extent.
> > > > > They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the
> > frame
> > > > of
> > > > > different references. IOW Context matters.
> > > > > For example.
> > > > > Lying is bad.
> > > > > Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> > > > > So, A Moral is:
> > > > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to
> > some
> > > > > animals.
> > > > > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > > > > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
> > > > within a
> > > > > given frame of reference.
> > > > > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in
> > the
> > > > > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and
> > interested
> > > > in
> > > > > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> > > > > --
> > > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > > --
> > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> With regard to epistemological first principles, I like how Aristotle
> >> has famously articulated:
> >> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
> >> points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
> >> follows from them."
> >> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> >> starting points.
> > They can and where possible should be provable starting points based on
> > justified belief (knowledge)
> So you would argue that all knowledge is demonstrable? I don't agree,
> and like how Aristotle put it:
> "Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative:
That's what knowledge is. Justified true belief.
> on the
> contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of
> demonstration.
Example?
> ... in addition we maintain that besides scientific
> knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to
> recognize the definitions."
How does infinite regress apply to what I'm saying?
> > and this is a much stronger starting point than
> > an a-priori, unprovable starting point based on intuitive knowledge.
> Seems like we agree on that point, as I noted:
> >> Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> >> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> >> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> >> subjective.
> The answer in fact makes clear that humanism fails similarly.
How so?
> >> > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to
> >> > first
> >> > look at what the source of morality is.
> >> Starting by identifying first principles is a good idea ...
> > I have done so.
> > The first principle where the concept of morality is concerned is:
> > Morality is founded in both physiology and reason.
> Humankind is not the measure of all things.
At this stage human kind is the easiest place to start.
Indications are that animals also have empathy.
(Yes I'm ignoring the actual point you're making by making that statement
and I'm sure you know why ;-)
> > Scientific research provides a foundation for this belief even though it
> > hasn't been fully scientifically proven and there is still a lot of work
> to
> > do.
> Then it is clear your statement:
> > Scientific research provides a foundation for this belief
> ... is not a scientific statement. I love to hear people talk about
> their faith! ;D
It is a statement based on justified belief :-) no faith required.
> >> > Recent studies on the brain
> >> But why start with the human brain?
> > Starting with the human brain gives us insight into whether this is a
> > physiological issue or an abstract concept which exists independent of
> > physiology.
> At the cost of omitting the rest of reality. :)
It's all there just keep on reading to the end.
> >> > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> >> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> >> > animals.
> >> What makes a standard "universal"?
> > It can applied to the majority of human beings.
> Then its not universal.
The definition I provided for the word universal says it is.
> >> > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally
> and
> >> > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them
> objective
> >> > to
> >> > that extent.
> >> Which extant is that?
> > To the extent that physiology allows. That is, Empathy as a physiological
> > process can't take into consideration frame of references and social and
> > cultural needs. This is where reason comes into play.
> But here you presume and adequacy for physiology and reason that is not
> tenable.
It's more tenable than an imaginary god and 2000 year old doctrine :-).
> > The statement:
> > Injuring people is bad is an objectively moral statement because it's
> > founded in Empathy and all those who are capable of Empathy will
> universally
> > believe that injuring people is bad.
> > However, sometimes, injuring people is necessary to meet a higher moral
> > need.
> > So, if a woman is attacked by a rapist, injuring the rapist to end the
> > attack and enable her to flee is moral and she might have to do that
> > irrespective of the fact that she believes, based on Empathy that
> injuring
> > people is bad.
> Or perhaps it simply means that the statement "injuring people is bad"
> requires additional context.
As I point out next.
> >> > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> >> > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual
> >> > within a
> >> > given frame of reference.
> >> Sounds open to the danger of the lawlessness of piracy:
> > Only if you negate Empathy. In the case of Sociopaths this is exactly
> what
> > happens because they are amoral and incapable of empathy.
> So clearly your standard is not universal.
According to the definition I provided it is.
> >> Keep to the code! (more like guidelines)
> > Sounds like the obedience manual you call the bible ;-)
> Why say that?
You mentioned a code. I'm not talking about a code but the concept of
morality.
On the other hand the Bible does reflect a code which must be obeyed.
> > There is no code. Re-read my OP.
> Ok, you here seem to concede as false any statement you made above
> about a "universal" standard.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:56 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 5:20 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > I like the way Robert Heinlein put it:
> > > > > "Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to
> > > > > survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual
> > > > > level."
> > > > I've been giving this some thought and wondering why he doesn't think
> > > that
> > > > morality exists at the individual level?
> > > > In addition he seems to restrict morality to the instinct to survive.
> > > > Or am I misunderstanding his comment?
> > > > Maybe you could explain it further.
> > > > I'm working on developing my points so it's good to explore other
> angles
> > > > taken by other people.
> > > It's not that morality doesn't exist in the individual level, it is
> > > that morality has the interests above the individual level (which
> > > necessarily include the individual level; you can't have society
> > > without individuals).
> > > Think of it this way: If there was only one person, would there be
> > > morals?
> > Ah okay got it.
> > But why does he restrict it to just survival instincts or is he saying
> that
> > survival instincts encompass the social, cultural factors, etc.?
> Because that's all morals are: survival instincts of society. Yes,
> they may get abstracted and twisted beyond all comprehensible
> recognition, but that's what they are.
> Sorry for such short replies. Toddler's demand a lot of attention.
> > > > > On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about
> morality as
> > > a
> > > > > > sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> > > > > > There is also another discussion happening on another group to
> which
> > > I
> > > > > > posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get
> feedback
> > > as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > What is a Moral?
> > > > > > I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic
> > > > > interests
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > > The Definition of Moralityhttp://
> > > > > plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> > > > > > First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb
> 11,
> > > 2008
> > > > > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > > > > > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by
> a
> > > > > society
> > > > > > or,
> > > > > > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > > > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > > > 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
> specified
> > > > > > conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> > > > > > Source:
> > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/:Stanford > > > > > > Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> > > > > > "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves
> systematizing,
> > > > > > defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> > > > > > Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three
> general
> > > > > > subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> > > > > > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from,
> and
> > > what
> > > > > > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve
> more
> > > than
> > > > > > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> > > > > > Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm:Internet > > > > > Encyclopedia
> > > > > > Of Philosophy
> > > > > > According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral
> Philosophy
> > > so
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > use the terms interchangeably.
> > > > > > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have
> to
> > > > > first
> > > > > > look at what the source of morality is.
> > > > > > Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not
> all)
> > > are
> > > > > > capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the
> > > existence of
> > > > > > Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> > > > > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> > > > > > Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have
> few
> > > or
> > > > > no
> > > > > > mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of
> Empathy.
> > > > > > Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> > > > > > IMO, Empathy (physiological) is the base foundation for Morality
> and
> > > > > > Altruism (abstract concepts).
> > > > > > This base foundation, Empathy, has been demonstrated to exist in
> some
> > > > > > animals as well as most human beings.
> > > > > > Source:
> > > > > > So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy
> contribute
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > concept of Morality?
> > > > > > When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of
> > > understanding
> > > > > what
> > > > > > they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief
> that
> > > > > injury
> > > > > > isn't good.
> > > > > > Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that
> > > morality
> > > > > > isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of
> > > Empathy
> > > > > will
> > > > > > understand that injury isn't good.
> > > > > > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > > > > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to
> > > some
> > > > > > animals.
> > > > > > Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of
> > > abstract
> > > > > > thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> > > > > > Human reason also plays an important role.
> > > > > > Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species
> > > requires
> > > > > > that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> > > > > > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative,
> culturally
> > > and
> > > > > > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them
> > > objective
> > > > > to
> > > > > > that extent.
> > > > > > They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the
> > > frame
> > > > > of
> > > > > > different references. IOW Context matters.
> > > > > > For example.
> > > > > > Lying is bad.
> > > > > > Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> > > > > > So, A Moral is:
> > > > > > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to
> > > some
> > > > > > animals.
> > > > > > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > > > > > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group,
> individual
> > > > > within a
> > > > > > given frame of reference.
> > > > > > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and
> > > interested
> > > > > in
> > > > > > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups
> > > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as a
> sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> There is also another discussion happening on another group to which I
> posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback as
> well.
> What is a Moral?
> I'm not a philosopher but I'll give this a shot because the topic interests
> me.
> First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Feb 11, 2008
> The term “morality” can be used either
> 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society
> or,
> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
> Source:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/: Stanford
> Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
> "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing,
> defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
> Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general
> subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
> Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> expressions of our individual emotions?"
> Source:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm: Internet Encyclopedia
> Of Philosophy
> According to the above definitions Ethics is simply Moral Philosophy so I'll
> use the terms interchangeably.
> In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to first
> look at what the source of morality is.
> Recent studies on the brain indicate that most human beings (not all) are
> capable of Empathy which is believed to be the result of the existence of
> Mirror Neurons in the brain.
> Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy
> Note that studies indicate that Sociopaths (aka Psychopaths) have few or no
> mirror neurons and appear to be physiologically incapable of Empathy.
> Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599127
> So what exactly does the physiological emotion of Empathy contribute to the
> concept of Morality?
> When we observe a person being injured, we are capable of understanding what
> they may be feeling. That understanding leads us to the belief that injury
> isn't good.
> Since Empathy is physiological, to some extent we can say that morality
> isn't completely relative in that all those who are capable of Empathy will
> understand that injury isn't good.
> I wouldn't say that it's absolute either because we have to account for
> those who are incapable of Empathy. I think the term Universal would be
> better because Universal Morality recognizes that injury isn't good for
> anyone but it also recognizes that it's not a given.
> Source:http://www.learnersdictionary.net/dictionary/universal(Definition > 3a for Universal - Merriam Webster)
> So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> animals.
> Now, since human beings are social animals and are capable of abstract
> thought and concepts we can't limit our definition to that.
> Human reason also plays an important role.
> Human beings appear to recognize that our survival as a species requires
> that we provide ourselves with social guidelines.
> These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective to
> that extent.
> They can also vary between individuals and it can vary within the frame of
> different references. IOW Context matters.
> For example.
> Lying is bad.
> Protecting others from injury by lying is good.
> So, A Moral is:
> 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> animals.
> 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual within a
> given frame of reference.
> Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested in
> comments to refine and/or change this position.
On Nov 3, 3:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed a lot of discussion in various threads about morality as a
> sub-topic to the threads or in the context of the threads.
> There is also another discussion happening on another group to which I
> posted the following. I thought I'd duplicate it here to get feedback as
> well.
> What is a Moral?
Morals are the behavioural rules you follow because all the other
monkeys do, and if you buck the trend your grooming privileges will be
rescinded.
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what
> > they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
> > expressions of our individual emotions?"
> With regard to epistemological first principles, I like how Aristotle
> has famously articulated:
> "Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-
> points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what
> follows from them."
> So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
> starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
> justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
> disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
> subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
> divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
> non-solipsistic and non-humanistic argument. So a modification to his
> position, that I believe is better (though of course, it isn't
> Aristotle's):
> * Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
> starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
> what follows from them.
> > In order to answer the question, What is a moral? I think we have to first
> > look at what the source of morality is.
> Starting by identifying first principles is a good idea ...
> > Recent studies on the brain
> But why start with the human brain?
> > So, getting back to the question, What is a Moral?
> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > animals.
> What makes a standard "universal"?
> > These social guidelines are, generally speaking relative, culturally and
> > regionally based, but are still founded in Empathy making them objective to
> > that extent.
> Which extant is that?
> > So, A Moral is:
> > 1. A Universal standard based on Empathy and can be applicable to some
> > animals.
> What makes any such standard "universal"?
> > 2. A Social guideline which benefits the survival of the species.
> > 3. A Social guideline which benefits the society, group, individual within a
> > given frame of reference.
> Sounds open to the danger of the lawlessness of piracy:
> Keep to the code! (more like guidelines)
> > Okay this is just my starting point and I should mention that I'm in the
> > process of working this out as I write this and so am open and interested in
> > comments to refine and/or change this position.
> Interesting read.
> Regards,
> Brock
Congratulations Brock, it's nice to see you not sprouting
the Confession.
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:01 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Definition of Moralityhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ > > The term “morality” can be used either
> > 1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
> > 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> Given the above meaning, is it possible to teach morality without
> religion? If so, how would a mother go about teaching her daughter
> that she must wear a hijab, without teaching her daughter Islam?
I tell you when you're trying to teach a toddler not to do certain
things (e.g. putting dirty hands in mouth) it's sometimes tempting to
invoke something to scare the bejeezus out of her with.
|
