Existence of God

Moral Argument

Read 1345 times

FinbarMcGinn

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
Epistemology of morality
« on: May 16, 2019, 10:13:58 pm »
Hi, I am a young 15 year old believer however I have recently been struggling with how we establish the moral dimension that seems to be external to humans. I will concede that there seems to be some morals which usurp other people's morality and seem to unify many humans although there are still some exceptions such as sadists and so forth. I also seem to  think it is difficult to comprehend a morality that isn't contingent upon humans as morality seems to necessitate a moral agent. I wonder if someone could provide some help or give me some sort of thought experiment to assist me . I hope I have worded this correctly and my ideas don't appear too stupid to some as I am only young and learning :D

Thanks, Finbar.

1

jayceeii

  • **
  • 281 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Epistemology of morality
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2019, 09:40:46 am »
It isn't hard to begin listing standards which dwarf the humans. The reason these are not evident is that there are no examples in history. Men have declared themselves to be the only rational beings, but I prefer to emphasize what they also state, that they are the “rational animals,” meaning something more is possible. Unfortunately they have not even been rational enough to begin wondering about the standards the angels might follow in Heaven. To begin wondering about these, is to begin wondering why they are not making more efforts to make Earth more like Heaven now. Therefore no one asked.

The right foundation of morality is an appreciation that all are souls created by God, and rising to intelligence should have the wits to dwell in mutual joy. This is external to the human morality, which is based instead upon selfish interest, principally in each allowing the others to build a family, as they expect to be allowed to do so. God's demands for morality are largely answered in the self-awareness of the creatures, to support one another's joy in meaningful and increasingly profound ways. The good we seek is the good of all spirits. The good the humans seek is the good of themselves only, in competition.

To give an example that topples the human realm, imagine that my role is a corn farmer, and I have large stockpiles in my granary. An angelic male comes by, let us say Tom Welling if you've heard of him, since he impresses me as such a one. So Tom comes up and he is hungry. If I am a human I say, “Where is the money? You can have food, but only by trading something that I value, otherwise I laugh and tell you to go get a job.” If I am outside the human morality and perceive the direct joy of spirit I say, “You look hungry, I have food, let's put two and two together and discuss our plans for society.”

Money is exploitive of a friend. It appears almost friendly so long as everyone has money, but if there is no money you discover the deal they are offering is based on prior denial of your needs and joys. If there is money there can be no true friendship, for a friend wants his friend to be joyful and does not deny him. Such ideas are wildly beyond anything revealed in the religions, or dreamt of by the philosophers, and it is because the “rational animals” are bound to dualism and body-identification. Christians might admit there is no money in Heaven; but would never part from it while upon Earth.

Humans are also not truly moral agents. Human morality is derived externally, typically beginning in childhood where the parents set limits using forceful speech and actions. All human morality traces around to self-interest, in one way or another. They do not truly rejoice at another's joy, or sorrow at his sorrow. Even when some of them seem stricken by great guilt or compunction, their thoughts are really upon their reputation in society, not upon the woe they've caused. The true morality sees directly and acts directly, in a very responsive process where money would only get in the way. In general the laws humans write are meant to aid self-interest, and are nothing like God's laws; but angels need no laws.

2

jayceeii

  • **
  • 281 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Epistemology of morality
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2019, 02:01:38 pm »
I can offer another answer in case you are a “storm chaser,” which is to say a young person keenly bent on finding all truth and optimizing life on the planet. I think you are at the exact or traditional age when consciousness begins to turn inward for those ancient in wisdom across many lifetimes, with an urge to know oneself, so that one knows what is occurring, as one claims to know others. If so, there are no structures yet ready to receive you. The religions have not contained truth, man has no existential paradigm, and I think Judgment draws near lest humanity destroy the chance for all future civilization on Earth.

You say you believe in Jesus, but Jesus never finished His sentences. A key example is saying to love the neighbor as yourself, which properly finished should add, “treat them at least as well as your children,” for this is where humans, in practice, really treat others like themselves. Had Jesus finished this sentence it might have revolutionized Christian charity. Instead of expecting one meal a day and a cot on the coldest nights, the poor could expect all of life’s essentials, food, clothing, housing, medical and dental care, and education. Christian charity as it evolved, is not much better than how we care for a dog.

If Christians really loved the neighbor as themselves, even Christian neighbors, then joining a church one’s economic worries should be over. Even small groups joining forces like that, can readily ensure none are in poverty, but it means none are in wealth either and this the humans would never bear. In the churches each prays to the Father for respite, when the true friends should have been alongside them the whole time, in the nearby pews. Religion is not what it appears to be, for men do not love their fellow man and are unable to rise to Christ’s standards, as He knew while He withheld information.

As for foreign charity, this is done mainly to flatter God and try to win Heaven for the families, not as a true sympathetic response to poverty at home or abroad. If the problems at home are cured the way that I say, the problems in foreign lands will also dissolve. The key about charity as practiced by men is that the recipient is regarded to be inferior and therefore unable to grab his piece of the pie of resources and money. Enough is given to allay starvation, like throwing food to a dog in the street, but not enough to seriously help them. The situation is complicated, for an expanding population defeats any attempts to end poverty, as Malthus noted. Based on grabbing, the human system is dysfunctional.

Anyway you are at the perfect age to turn inward and establish your mind in self-awareness as spirit or soul, but as I say there are no structures in place to receive you. One of the faults I’ve seen at this forum is an inability to incorporate other religious teachings, as if they don’t exist and there is only Christianity. Each religion is a part of a symphony presented by God and His agents, intended to befuddle humanity, to lead them in the way they can be led, not to lead them truly. If you’re beginning a serious inward quest you won’t find help anywhere. These were meant for those who cannot be serious.

3

Tom Paine

  • **
  • 210 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Epistemology of morality
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2019, 09:11:44 pm »
Hi, I am a young 15 year old believer however I have recently been struggling with how we establish the moral dimension that seems to be external to humans. I will concede that there seems to be some morals which usurp other people's morality and seem to unify many humans although there are still some exceptions such as sadists and so forth. I also seem to  think it is difficult to comprehend a morality that isn't contingent upon humans as morality seems to necessitate a moral agent. I wonder if someone could provide some help or give me some sort of thought experiment to assist me . I hope I have worded this correctly and my ideas don't appear too stupid to some as I am only young and learning :D

Thanks, Finbar.

This may not be what you are looking for, but I would explain morality thusly:

Morality is the product of human (and possibly other sentient) biological and social evolution. Humans survive better as members of social groups than as "lone wolves."  Humans survive better as members of thriving social groups.  Social groups survive better (as societies) and thrive better when they inculcate in their members the value of reciprocity (one expression of which is the "golden rule"). As such human societies have evolved to share this value, and that is what we identify as morality. It is morally right to obey the principle of reciprocity and morally wrong to violate it. That I believe is the origin of morality.

Notice a few things: morality is determined by a social evolutionary imperative. It is not a matter of personal opinion or even social fashion. That means that epistemically speaking it is objectively true that harming another person without justification is morally wrong. At this sort of basic level morality is epistemically objective, which simply means, not a matter of personal opinion or fashion. Like all tautologies it is "eternally true. " quotes because I think that's a somewhat misleading term. Also notice that as a value morality is ontologically subjective. That is just to say that it is mind-dependent. A value requires an evaluation and that requires sentient beings (minds) to make the evaluation. If there were a world with no sentient beings in it there would certainly be no such thing as morality.

4

jayceeii

  • **
  • 281 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Epistemology of morality
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2019, 01:53:13 pm »
This may not be what you are looking for, but I would explain morality thusly:

Morality is the product of human (and possibly other sentient) biological and social evolution. Humans survive better as members of social groups than as "lone wolves."  Humans survive better as members of thriving social groups.  Social groups survive better (as societies) and thrive better when they inculcate in their members the value of reciprocity (one expression of which is the "golden rule"). As such human societies have evolved to share this value, and that is what we identify as morality. It is morally right to obey the principle of reciprocity and morally wrong to violate it. That I believe is the origin of morality.

Notice a few things: morality is determined by a social evolutionary imperative. It is not a matter of personal opinion or even social fashion. That means that epistemically speaking it is objectively true that harming another person without justification is morally wrong. At this sort of basic level morality is epistemically objective, which simply means, not a matter of personal opinion or fashion. Like all tautologies it is "eternally true. " quotes because I think that's a somewhat misleading term. Also notice that as a value morality is ontologically subjective. That is just to say that it is mind-dependent. A value requires an evaluation and that requires sentient beings (minds) to make the evaluation. If there were a world with no sentient beings in it there would certainly be no such thing as morality.
Only the lower morality of the sense-bound entities is described here. A higher morality is derived for those who can see themselves and others as living spiritual entities. This higher morality also requires awareness of and agreement with God’s purpose of universal joy for all souls. In such stages the souls provide direct social support for one another, not from reciprocity but from selflessness, which is to say truly objective interest in the universal joy-state. Higher skills come along with this morality, so that it becomes possible to enhance joy-states and diminish sorrow-states in others. Unfortunately this must fail among those blind to spirit, because ideas of what brings joy are selfish and impure souls do not experience joys the way God intends for the more advanced souls.