Wanting to decide debates by allowing that side with the majority of public opinion to get their way is ok, as long as it is used consistently. Many people want to use public opinion when it supports their views and ignore it when it doesn't.

A great article, but unfortunately it will
be wasted on that minority of fundamentally
bigoted folk who have painted themselves so far
into a homophobic corner on this issue that it's
hard to imagine a way out.

"The best she can offer in support of the opinion
is that it happens to be her own, and that it expresses
a "fundamental" belief.
[...]
Moral fundamentalism of this kind is inherently irrational."

Absolutely. Which is why in all the endless discussion
about gay marriage in this and other forums I have yet
to see an argument against single sex marriage that isn't
based on fallacious logic, blind prejudice, religious dogma, or very
suspect factoids.

This debate on gay marriage is doing one good thing – it is exposing the fact that in a materialistic universe there is no objective, non-relativistic basis for any moral values.

If there is a God then it can be argued that God has stated that certain things are right or wrong.

But if there is no God then claims that one thing is right and another is wrong are completely subjective and relative.

Just because a majority of people may believe one thing or another goes nowhere to establishing the rightness or wrongness of something.

No, one day, and probably it is already happening, most people are going to wake up and realise that if materialism is true, then absolutely anything goes. Of course there are still laws but they have no absolute basis and they can be changed or ignored (see abortion).

If you can get away with it, just do it.

And it is going to be one wild and scary ride.

OLO only allows a 350 word limit - not enough space to discuss the philosophy of morality in any depth.

The way I see it, morals are simply values or beliefs constructed by man that serve a 'survival' purpose and give a foundation to human wellbeing and health (physical and mental). With education and civilisation comes learning and traditional 'moral' perceptions may change.

While there is a solid foundation for morality ie. do no harm, morals are not static and if there has been some long term wrong-doing (in the name of morality) such as that which discriminates against homosexuality, the nature of man is to be able to review, judge, adapt and change. That is what evolution is all about and it works on higher order as well as basic survival needs.

There are very good survival reasons for example to make incest illegal and wide agreement about 'thou shall not kill, steal, covet' (etc) as being important and essentially 'human' in valuing life and various human rights considered important for greater social wellbeing and freedoms (as much as those freedoms don't encroach on another's freedom).

Opinion is not morality but it can influence or inform the shape of morality (which may manifest differently between cultures).

The question of same-sex marriage is one of those areas where there is growing realisation that prejudice of this kind is no longer acceptable in a world that strives for equality and personal freedoms that involve two consenting adults.

The 'no harm' principle applies within the judicial framework (albeit not perfect-nothing is) and within most religious practices. Both are human constructs that provide a basis for morality and behaviour but concepts of morality should be reviewed where harm is being inflicted due to long held beliefs based on nothing more than prejudice and on morals constructed in ancient times in a very different cultural landscape.

Pelican, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You claim that “morals are simply values or beliefs constructed by man” but then you go on to say that “opinion is not morality”.

If we just make up or construct our moral values how is that they are not therefore simply our opinions? And why is one opinion about what is a good moral value any more or less valid than another?

You claim that moral values have a survival purpose – but why should anybody care that that is what you think? If someone believes it is in their interests to end your life, and they believe they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they? Why is your made up morality better than their made up morality?

You simply make raw assertions without any foundation to your claims. And the thing is, that is true for all moral claims that are made within a materialistic worldview.

The excuse given by the moderator for rejecting my discussion yet again was often "the subject has been done to death" or somesuch.

That does't seem to apply to same-sex marriage for some reason.

Nevertheless...

<<Sadly, what is missing in the Brandis/Shorten approach is any sense of concern for those ....>>

Sadly, what is missing in the Max Anderson approach is any sense of concern for those children who are deliberately deprived of their natural birthright of a mother and a father when two homosexuals decide to artificially create them for their own satisfaction.

The state should not give its sanction to this deliberate deprivation of a child's natural birthright.

Homosexual "marriage" would be the ultimate seal of approval on this travesty.

And Dawn Stefanowicz at least had a mother:
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/

Great article. Thank you.

I enjoyed this airing of the conflict between 'right' and 'popular'. However I think it's a little unfair to both the politicians mentioned to say that they are ignoring fairness. They both claim to value fairness, but defer to the current political difficulties in delivering it (they *are* politicians, after all). This is a great contrast to Janet Albrechtson, who places her own discomfort with same-sex marriage above any considerations of fairness or morality.

Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker argues that we are born with a moral instinct similar in operation to Chomsky's Universal Grammar. He says that expanding our knowledge of where our sense of morality comes from will help us to find commonality with people whose moral views differ from ours:

>> “Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral
>> sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the
>> illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with
>> and to focus on goals we can share and defend.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

If he's right, then it can be predicted that given sufficient education and debate, the majority view will tend towards the moral one. Shining a light on a problem will enable human beings to draw moral conclusions consistent with their moral instincts.

This, I believe, is happening now with respect to same-sex marriage, and it explains the current shift in popular views. Open and honest debate is showing that the opposition to same-sex marriage, essentially grounded in a distaste for male homosexuality, is irrational and unfair.

---

Also of interest is this summary of opinion polls on the topic: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/12/06/public-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/

>> What we see is that those folks less educated, older,
>> childless, male and on lower incomes either not working
>> or working in blue collar occupations are more likely
>> to oppose,

or as television presenter Monique Shafter put it on Twitter today:

>> Dumb, old, poor, childless men oppose gay marriage.
>> Smart, young, cashed up chicks dig it?

http://twitter.com/#!/moniqueschafter

A clever piece of legerdemain.
Seamlessly shifting from moral relativism to the moral highground.
How is deliberately depriving children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father a moral act?

<<Open and honest debate is showing that the opposition to same-sex marriage, essentially grounded in a distaste for male homosexuality, is irrational and unfair>>

"Open and honest debate?"

Honest like the 10% lie?
Honest like the homosexual gene lie?
Open like not addressing the natural birthright of children?

"Irrational and unfair?"

What could be more unfair than deliberately depriving children of their natural birthright?
What could be more irrational than claiming a child is just as well-served by two homosexual males as "parents" as that child would be by their mother and father?

JP
Phew...where to start. I ventured that opinion is not morality but can shape it should there be strong support in a community to effect change on an issue that might be perceived as grossly unfair. People now clearly believe slavery to be an abomination but mention freedom for slaves historically this would be met with strong censure and words like 'morality' and 'God' bandied around many times. Clearly in this case commonsense and goodness eventually won the day over an outdated and grossly unfair 'moral construct' about white supremacy for political and financial purposes.

Burning dissenting women as 'witches' was also considered morally just under a religious regime and eventually was seen to be a gross miscarriage of justice and ended up with large numbers of innocent women being removed for nothing other than malicious purposes.

"And why is one opinion about what is a good moral value any more or less valid than another? "

It isn't other than a belief that human beings do naturally possess a need and desire to do the 'right thing'. What is the difference between a moral opinion espoused by religion or one espoused by the judiciary or through 'the people' in a democracy? Religion does not always lead people to do the 'right thing' so it is all relative, ultimately we depend on our faith in human beings, even with their failings, to see a mutual and communal benefit in doing no harm.

Cont/...

Cont/...

"You claim that moral values have a survival purpose...someone believes it is in their interests to end your life, and they believe they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they? Why is your made up morality better than their made up morality?"

See the previous paragraph. How does the religious 'made up' morality work differently? There will always be a minority of people who may not care about the life of another human being. Many people have also killed or died in the name of religion - often used as a means for control as well as a moral basis. The morality that protects life is better for human survival and wellbeing than one that does not. I don't think the majority of people feel comfortable about killing another or stealing from another.

"You simply make raw assertions without any foundation to your claims. And the thing is, that is true for all moral claims that are made within a materialistic worldview."

How can any of us do anything but make raw assertions on such a complex subject. The foundation is staring us in the face, it all depends on your view of human nature. With or without religion as the foundation, human beings will always rely on their natural altruism, natural proclivity to form strong bonds and to give and receive love.

These are essentially of the 'human' not of the supernatural.

I cannot give you the 'evidence' you so strongly seek because morality is a human construct. There is no supernatural being, only an internal nature that guides humans along the way, sometimes stumbling for sure, but ultimately we are all solely responsible for our actions. We cannot blame a God or a Devil for when we do good or when we do wrong.

I too liked the fresh approach of this article, although it has resulted in a very deep and meaningful discussion on morality :)

One person's morality is another person's debauchery I think!

While we may still have a vocal minority damning us all to hell for even thinking of gay marriage, there are probably enough of them in parliament to stop the change going through for now.

Unfortunately, I really don't think we will see legal gay marriage allowed during this Government's term anyway.
The Prime Minister has made that very clear.

suzeonline, "Unfortunately, I really don't think we will see legal gay marriage allowed during this Government's term anyway.
The Prime Minister has made that very clear."

The Greens will see the government into opposition. The election is the one poll that matters and unlike opinion surveys is not so easily rigged for a desired outcome.

The Greens went how in the recent Victorian election?

* ""concern for those children who are deliberately deprived of their natural birthright of a mother and a father when two homosexuals decide to artificially create them for their own satisfaction.
* "The state should not give its sanction to this deliberate deprivation of a child's natural birthright.
* "Homosexual "marriage" would be the ultimate seal of approval on this travesty.""

Posted by Proxy, Monday, 6 December 2010 6:51:38 PM

In an article about gay marriage, the introduction of children engineered in such marriages is red herring fallacy and strawman fallacy.

It denies many gays might have considerations for children's rights.

Pelican – You throw terms, eg, unfair, ‘right thing’, responsibility, good, wrong, around with cheerful abandon, as if they have some definable, absolute meaning.

If human beings are the source of moral values as you claim, then one human being’s belief that slavery is ‘good’ is as legitimate as another human being’s belief that slavery is ‘bad’.

Or in the context of this article, one human being’s belief that same sex marriage is ‘bad’ is as valid as another human being’s belief that same sex marriage is ‘good’.

One belief is as valid as another because they are both constructs by human beings and, in the absence of any source of moral value that is above human opinion, there is no non-arbitrary way to give one belief priority over the other.

You want to believe that your moral values are better than the moral values of those whom you disagree with, but you are unable to provide any grounds for making that judgment. Doesn’t that, by definition, make you a bigot?

I know that you make a vague reference to ‘an internal nature that guides humans along the way’, but just what is that and how is it supposed to help? Do you think that somehow you have been able to tap into this ‘internal nature’ better than others and that therefore that makes you a more moral person than them?

What makes you so certain that the moral values you have made up, or constructed, are ‘right’ while their made up moral values are ‘wrong’?

moral relativism always shows how flawed secularism is. You can be sure some secularist will be absolutely sure that they are right. They fail to see how flawed their arguement is.

runner, it generally doesn't matter what individuals think; it is what the collective thinks - that is how societies or any civil organisation like a church works.

There is a moral relativism amongst the various churches, anyway.

Wrong, JP...

<<One belief is as valid as another because they are both constructs by human beings and, in the absence of any source of moral value that is above human opinion, there is no non-arbitrary way to give one belief priority over the other.>>

Morality is simply about maximizing wellbeing. We don’t need a god to answer to because we are answerable each other and our communities.

<<You [pelican] want to believe that your moral values are better than the moral values of those whom you disagree with, but you are unable to provide any grounds for making that judgment.>>

Secular morality is superior to religious morality in every respect aside from the fact that religious morality is simplistic. Secular morality requires thought and effort, whereas religious morality is for the lazy and thoughtless; those who are fooled into thinking that something becomes right or wrong for them, just because of an edict attributed to some other being.

Luckily though, religious people realise the superiority of secular morality and have been applying the moral views of the secular societies that surround them for a long time now as grounds for making judgments on what parts of their holy books are good, and which are bad - a necessity when their holy books contain so much conflicting ‘morality’.

There’s nothing moral about religion. It is simply ‘blind obedience to authority’ masquerading as morality and anyone who requires an imagined higher authority to prevent them from raping and pillaging, is an immoral person.

Besides, none of your points about the need of a higher moral authority mean much until you can demonstrate the existence of this authority. Until then, you haven’t provided place for your god in society; just a very flimsy reason to invent one with a total disregard for the truth.

Mc Real - the single point I am making is that, if there is no God who has made humanity, then there is no non-arbitrary means by which humans can establish what, if anything, is right or wrong. Clearly you don’t like this conclusion but there is nothing in your post that refutes it.

You assert that ‘Morality is simply about maximizing wellbeing’. The bank robber presumably thinks he is maximising his wellbeing by robbing banks and if he gets away with it, maybe he is. Who are you to say that he isn’t?

But of course you also claim that ‘we are answerable each other and our communities’. So your ‘morality’ seems to boil down to one of might makes right – whatever most people want becomes what is ‘right’. The claim that majority rule establishes what is right is itself a subjective, unvalidated claim and besides you don’t even believe it yourself anyway.

Or do you say that if most people are against same sex marriage that it is therefore 'wrong'?

You say that ‘secular morality requires thought and effort’, but it doesn’t matter how much thought and effort you put in, you cannot validate whatever conclusions you happen to draw.

If you can validate them, if you can say why one human beings moral values are superior to another human being’s moral values, please show us on what basis that is established.

JP, I think you were addressing AJ Phillips.

However, you caught my attention

" if there is no God who has made humanity, then there is no non-arbitrary means by which humans can establish what, if anything, is right or wrong."

That is wrong - if there is no god, there is still means by which humans establish right or wrong. If there is God, the means are still arbitrary as the various religious organisations differ.

The morality between or amongst the various churches and religious organisations are arbitrary, particularly as the premises upon which they base their morality are arbitrary or unfounded.

In any case, if Man created God,
which is a far more rationally defensible
position than the reverse, then it follows
that anything that God purportedly decreed
was actually devised by people.

The entire line of argument is redundant,
if one doesn't subscribe to religious faith
in God. In other words, it's just more sophistry.

The churches are good at it, probably because
they have to be.

I assume most of that was addressed to me, JP.

<<...the single point I am making is that, if there is no God who has made humanity, then there is no non-arbitrary means by which humans can establish what, if anything, is right or wrong.>>

So if two people are stuck on a deserted island, what would be the more moral action to take:

-Cooperate in order to survive, or;
-bash each other’s heads in with rocks?

According to you, there is no way to determine which of the above is more moral without flicking through an old book to consult the opinion of a higher being - specifically one that created the universe.

Like McReal pointed out, it’s not about the individuals so much as what is good for the collective as a whole.

Besides which, your assumption here is that if a god created the universe, then what that god says is automatically right. If this god asked you to kill your children, does that make it right? Saying that god wouldn’t do that is beside the point, by the way.

<<Clearly you don’t like this conclusion but there is nothing in your post that refutes it.>>

In fact, there was. And if the above doesn’t make that as clear as day, I don’t know what will.

<<You assert that ‘Morality is simply about maximizing wellbeing’.

I don’t assert that. That’s demonstrable.

The only assertions here are coming from yourself as you are unable to demonstrate why a higher being’s instructions are moral for any reason other than, ‘they said so and they’re the creator’, and that’s not a reason because is says nothing about the wellbeing of ourselves and others.

Like I said: ‘Blind obedience to authority’ masquerading as morality.

<<The bank robber presumably thinks he is maximising his wellbeing by robbing banks and if he gets away with it, maybe he is. Who are you to say that he isn’t?>>

Because if every one - or even just the occasional person - robbed a bank, then that’s not good for us as a collective.

Continued...

...Continued

It’s about balancing an individual’s wellbeing with that of their community’s as a whole.

Yes, yes, it requires one to think; something unimaginable for some theists, I know.

<<But of course you also claim that ‘we are answerable each other and our communities’. So your ‘morality’ seems to boil down to one of might makes right – whatever most people want becomes what is ‘right’.>>

And a society that doesn’t choose that which maximizes the wellbeing of every one in general, is going to die-out or dissipate fairly quickly.

So there’s very little about it that’s subjective...

<<The claim that majority rule establishes what is right is itself a subjective, unvalidated claim and besides you don’t even believe it yourself anyway.>>

Did I mention you one can validate it as well?

<<Or do you say that if most people are against same sex marriage that it is therefore 'wrong'?>>

No, again, it goes by whether or not it maximizes the wellbeing of the community as a whole, not just by what someone says and that includes a god. The method we'd apply to determine if our actions are moral or not would still apply to the rules of a god.

'He said so', doesn't cut it and like I said, it's for the thoughtless and lazy.

There was a time when most thought slavery was okay, but it didn’t maximize wellbeing because black people suffered.

<<You say that ‘secular morality requires thought and effort’, but it doesn’t matter how much thought and effort you put in, you cannot validate whatever conclusions you happen to draw.>>

Oh dear...

AJ Phillips I concur with your well articulated response.

JP: "One belief is as valid as another because they are both constructs by human beings and, in the absence of any source of moral value that is above human opinion, there is no non-arbitrary way to give one belief priority over the other."

There is - human wellbeing and survival are best served by 'do no harm' community outlook.

"You want to believe that your moral values are better than the moral values of those whom you disagree with, but you are unable to provide any grounds for making that judgment. Doesn’t that, by definition, make you a bigot?"

JP
What is the foundation or legitimacy to just make up stuff to obtain a framework of 'morality' (human wellbeing). What foundation or evidence do you provide that defines morality?

As AJ Phillips wrote, it is about maximising human wellbeing. We don't need folklore to aspire to that purpose although folklore or a belief in the supernatural worked to achieve the same end (at it's best interpretation, control at the worst).

Other than on some issues like treatment of homosexuals, non-believers and the way women are regarded in the Bible, my morals are pretty much in step with Christian ideas of morality - because it is also a human construct. Why are so many people scared of this possibility?

This is unsurprising as Christian ideals were written and perpetuated by man. Even in primitive times, on available evidence, tribes worked to protect the wellbeing of their members (albeit with some primitive rituals at times) which eventually with population movement and advancement grew to include all people, including those outside the 'tribe'.

I don't believe myself to be a bigot but I do have a strong set of values and I would argue that the value (for example) in not approving of random murder is a better one than those who believe in killing indiscriminately. Murder is not conducive to the advancement or wellbing of human beings.

How is that belief a bigoted one?

My apologies; yes my last comments were in response to A J Phillips more so than to McReal but probably apply to you both and to pelican also.

You all want to say that morality is about the collective’s interests rather than the interests of the individual. But again this is simply an assertion you make without providing any rationale to try and justify the claim.

Who says that morality is about the collective’s interests? You do. But who are you to make this pronouncement? What makes your claim right as opposed to the person who says that morality is not about the collective’s interests?

Again I would ask, if the majority of the population believe that same sex marriage is wrong, would you say, ‘Yes same sex marriage must be wrong because a majority of the people believe that is the case’? Really?

I don’t think you would, yet your philosophy would require you to do so. Can you justify your inconsistency?

Pelican – you simply assert that maximising the wellbeing of the collective and their survival are absolute objective moral values. Obviously plenty of people disagree with you (those in jail for example, as well as all those who have not been caught) so you need to justify your claims if you want to be taken credibly.

Why should any individual care about the survival interests of the collective if the collective’s interests should be in conflict with the individual’s personal interests?

The best you all seem to be able to come up with is an implied, might makes right: the collective can force dissenters to comply.

But should you be the dissenters (as perhaps above), then somehow you don’t want the rules to apply to you. You have no solid basis for your moral philosophy.

You must be skimming our posts, JP. I already answered your same sex marriage question, and all the answers and clarifications to your to you last post (without any assertions) can be found in our responses too.

Perhaps you should re-read them, but with the understanding that there is very little subjectiveness in defining wellbeing and maximising it for everyone overall.

You rights end where mine start.

But since you still don’t understand, I’ll put it another way by introducing you to a little thing called The Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is what god commands right because god commands it, or is it right in and of itself and god just informs us of it?

If it’s the former, then god could change his mind tomorrow (as he’s supposedly done before) and morals would be as arbitrary as what you claim secular morals to be.

If it’s the latter, then god is a redundant middle-man that can be skipped.

Most Christians will say it’s the latter, but that the good morals are inherent in god’s nature.

The problem for Christians here though, is that if god created himself (and therefore the laws) then, again, they’re just as arbitrary as what you claim secular morals to be. If god didn’t create himself, then he is just the middle-man and can, again, be discarded.

Another point...

If our point about maximising wellbeing doesn’t work, then how do you know god is the good one and Satan is the bad one? What yardstick do you have to measure each of their claims?

What if god is evil and Satan is sitting around waiting to see if you’ll ever figure out that what god was saying, was wrong all along?

Think about it.

So JP, we have demonstrated, in many ways, why our ideas work, and now I’ve shown why yours don’t. Now it’s time for you to demonstrate why your god is the source and authority of our morality because - just as with Creation and evolution - even if you had already discredited our claims, that doesn’t mean that yours win by default.

Morality surely is about the rights and being of people,to live their lives as to whom they are, without hinderance to themselves or others.

As a long-time observer of the relentless juggernaut of homosexual activism I often like to speculate on the next stage of the ongoing travesty.
What claim will they come up with that's wilder and whackier than the current one?
How much further can they erode civilisation?
For example, when they started demanding the "fundamental human right" to marry anyone they want to (only them mind you, no other sexual preferences need apply, lest the useful idiots wake up) I amused myself by wondering about what other human rights they might invent.
Well they've outdone themselves yet again, imaginative little buggers!
How about the "fundamental human right" not to reveal your HIV status to your latest sexual partner, anonymous or not!
"You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status."
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf
Aahhh...
The transcendental morality of it all.
That's what you call progress!

Not just collective or community interests and wellbeing JP but an individual one as well. Individal wellbeing and community wellbeing are often linked. The reason why many people are in jail is because their actions infringed on another's rights in some way.

Sometimes, as in this case, individual rights outweigh community opinion where there is no harm to others and where there is only remnants of historical prejudice dictating to a minority on sexual preference. If the act of homosexuality was to do harm then the community interest is not served by legalisation, however there is no harm. There is no infringement of another's rights by allowing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults.

Homosexuality has existed throughout history, it is not a new trend or 'choice' for many who are born a certain way and who have no 'choice' in their sexual preference.

How is your morality formed? You have not answered this to any degree other than saying it has to be dictated from a higher power other than human.

<<There is no infringement of another's rights by allowing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults>>

This statement is a blatant lie.

The child artificially created by homosexuals is deliberately deprived of a mother and a father.

This is an infringement of its natural birthright.

But no price is too big for an innocent child to pay so that homosexuals can share in the "rich moral and symbolic meaning which marriage bestows on the commitment to a loving union".

It's enough to make one throw up.

Proxy, what the hell does this:
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf
have to do with gay marriage?

Did you even read it? I did, so I read the bit where it said "Young people living with HIV have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status." and the bit where it said "There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of stigma and discrimination within their community. They may worry that people will fi nd out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage...".

But try as I might, I could not find the bit where it said "Only homosexuals have the right not to disclose their HIV status. If you are heterosexual and suffer from HIV, you are legally required to tattoo 'Look out! I have AIDS!' across your forehead in large bold letters." Nor could I find any mention of why the different legal requirements for homosexuals and heterosexuals concerning disclosure of HIV status (which I'm pretty sure don't actually exist) are relevant to the marriage rights of homosexuals. Given your frequently exhibited tendency toward mythomania, I must conclude that you have made these bits up.

Word to the wise, Proxy: clutching at straws and coming up with red herrings is not a good look - it gives folk the distinct impression that your skill in rhetoric is comparable to that of a retarded goat. Might I suggest that your next argument against gay marriage not be completely irrelevant twaddle?

A blatant lie Proxy!

A lie is a statement that is known to be an untruth, not a difference of opinion. One might argue that those who continue to relate pedophilia to homosexuality are spreading untruths to suit their own religious agenda. Heterosexuals are also capable of pedophile behaviour - this is a given. Being gay does not make one attracted to children - a whole different animal that one.

Marriage is not required to have a child. Many defacto couples are raising children without a bit of paper proclaiming their commitment. Many married couples are now divorcing, there is no security in marriage anymore.

Same-sex marriage merely bestows the right to marry - personally I can't see the difference between a civil union (with the same legal rights) and marriage, because ultimately the commitment is that between two people who love each other, but it is not about what I think or what you think but doing what is deemed fair in an equitable society.

I agree that a child should have access to information about their biological parents when they come of age (in the cases of adoption or IVF donation) if the donor agrees. Many gay couples do maintain contact with biological parents in the interests of the child. I watched a documentary recently about two lesbians (in Adelaide from memory) who had a child with a gay male friend and both mothers and father are involved in the baby's life. I can't find it on Google but when I find a link I will post it.

The most important thing in a child's life is love and security and that can be found in all manner of family structures.

JP,
Those who read my posts could expect me to side with you rather than with your adversaries. In general they would be correct, nevertheless let me quote from an interesting book I have read recently (David Fergusson, Faith and its Critics, OUP 2009):

“… arguments that move from moral objectivity to God are usually much too swift. Non-theistic outlooks such as Confucianism and Buddhism are deeply ethical and have sustained moral tradition over many centuries. This has been achieved religiously but not theistically. … Hence it would be as well for religious apologists to drop this argument in the form in which it frequently appears.” (p. 95)

“… the unease is around the notion that our cooperative instincts are simply the result of evolutionary conditioning and that there is nothing valuable about altruism beyond its capacity to ensure the survival of our genes. The ethical evaluations we make seem like illusions that nature has tricked us into believing. Yet our intuition is to hold that morality has a purpose and a claim upon us that are not exhausted by the evolutionary advantages that it offers.” (p. 101)

Note that Fergusson speaks of “unease” (to accept a reductionist explanation of morality), not an out-of-hand rejection. He explains what he means in the Chapter “Morality, Art and Religion”.

I am not an ethicist, but many years ago I asked an atheist friend a question similar to the one you asked: “why don'nt you do something (regarded as "immoral" by the society) knowing you could get away with it?” His answer was something like “for the same reasons I would not vandalize a beautiful picture or eat something disgusting”. In other words, he was amalgamating the moral with the aesthetic, goodness with beauty. (Since this was in Communist Prague in the 1950s, a reference to “the collective”, as the arbiter of morality would have sounded like a Marx-Leninist cliché, that we both suffered “indigestion” from).

I do not know how widespread this attitude is among contemporary atheists, but I since thought this was one possibility.

We might not always agree George but you always put things so well.

Please be comforted that the term 'collective' or 'community' does not necessarily relate or belong solely to a Marx-Leninist perspective. :)

Perhaps in the end, the theist and atheist come to the same conclusions in the main, about morality, albeit via different paths even if there is some dispute on detail (something not confined to atheist/theist). We are afterall, all human first, that overrides any differences on the religious front IMO.

While human behaviour is clearly flawed, they also possess an innate sense of altruism. Religious adherence would not be possible if there was no natural 'foundation' to work with - it is a pessimistic view that believes human morality is only produced through 'fear'.

Disputes about 'the detail' (in this case-same sex marriage) are also prevalent within Christian groups, the secular humanists and atheists or indeed any group. Change is part of human evolution and it is revealed by a growing recognition by some Christians of a metaphorical emphasis as opposed to a literal interpretation of religious text.

Believe it or not A J I read all the posts carefully and yes, I think before I write.

You insist that you don’t simply make assertions yet you continue to do so, eg. “there is very little subjectiveness in defining wellbeing and maximising it for everyone overall. You rights end where mine start.”

You are not presenting arguments to support your position. It is nothing more than your opinion that people should be concerned about maximising everyone’s well-being and that one person’s rights end where another’s start.

If a person says that they don’t want to maximise everyone’s well-being, it appears that the best you can say to them in return is that you think they ought to. Again I ask you, why is your opinion, as one human being, any more valid than theirs, a fellow human being?

Regarding The Euthyphro Dilemma, you’ve largely answered it yourself in that the usual response is that goodness is taken to be an essential part of God’s character, not something outside of God. But God is understood to be eternal and not created.

Pelican – you seem to have no problems setting yourself up as the great wise arbiter who can accurately determine whether individual values or communal values should prevail in a given situation.

But of course other people disagree with you. Why should your views prevail? You seem to feel quite certain that you are right, as if you have been able to tap into some source of objective, absolute values.
Could you please inform us what that source is.

George – please note that I have not been arguing from moral objectivity to God. As I have previously pointed out, the single point I have been making is that if there is no God who has created us then all moral claims are subjective and relative.
(cont)

(cont) This is not to say that people do not or cannot create ethical systems, such as those generated by Confucianism, Buddhism and presumably by A J Phillips and pelican. Of course that can be done.

The question is whether these systems have any foundation that is not subjective and relative. I would say that, given that these ethical systems are all based on human opinion, they remain subjective and relative. None of them can answer the question of why a person who disagrees with them should abide by the ethical requirements that they have made up.

Regarding your atheist friend who said that for aesthetic reasons he would not act “immorally” even if he could get away with it, that may well be true for him. But so what? What of the atheist who cares more about their own self-interest than for aesthetics? Why shouldn’t he act “immorally” if he wants to and can get away with it? (Or don’t such atheists exist?)

Pelican – I would strongly dispute that there is not much difference between the moral systems of atheists and theists (in particular Christians). Certainly there can be very similar behaviours in both groups, but the fact that the atheist’s moral behaviour has no basis, beyond their own personal opinion, is crucially important.

You say, “human behaviour is clearly flawed”, but it is hard to make sense of that in an atheistic universe. No one has any responsibility to any one or any thing in an atheistic universe. You may so that is not the case, but your saying that does not make it so.

In the atheist’s view humanity is simply the chance end-product of pond scum that happened to come into being and is heading toward no goal or objective. On those terms how can any human behaviour be described meaningfully as “flawed”?

One behaviour is just as “good”, “bad”, and meaningless as any other behaviour, personal opinions notwithstanding.

JP, I agree, me just saying something does not make it so. That applies to anyone including those that assert the existence of God/Allah etc. I don't set myself up as a wise arbiter of anything. Like you I offer only an opinion about the basic nature of man.

Where did I say it would be ME determining 'whether individual values or communal values should prevail in a given situation'. Surely that would be done at a community level in a democracy with a strong judicial (ethical) system.

You ask about sources but do not offer your source - other than a belief in the supernatural. Why is your belief in a higher power considered a 'source' when there is no evidence to support that view.

Why do you not also ask why your views should prevail without equally having to provide evidence for your source. Why not argue the folly in following what could be described as simplistic faith based ideologies.

I am neither Right about all things nor am I certain about everything - who is? However I do believe in a biological imperative (which can include the spiritual) that drives human beings towards survival rather than destruction in the main. Our behaviour might not always reflect that view in its minutae but in the broad sense.

Ethical structures and frameworks can and are formed separately to religious influence albeit our judicidal system has been highly influenced by a Judeo-Christian history. Why can't ethics and morality stem from something other than via the supernatural. That is other than the 'human'. If there is no God, (and with or without religion) all we have to rely on ultimately is the solid reality of ourselves. Why is a pessimistic view of human nature more valid than an optimistic one even with our failings?

You continue to criticise my view of human nature but do not provide any evidence that morality has to be a supernatural 'construct' for it to have any validity.

I’m not sure how else it can be explained to you, JP. This is obviously one of the fundamental aspects of how you justify your religious belief, because there is a seemingly impenetrable block here that makes it appear as though you’re not reading our posts properly.

Just be aware that even if religion did have the value that you claim it has, that still wouldn’t say anything about whether or not a god existed.

That being said, what you’re essentially saying, is that in a universe where there was absolute proof that no gods existed (forgetting that one can’t disprove a negative) and that religion didn’t exist, inventing a god (and religion) and conning people into believing that this god existed would be absolutely essential in order for us to survive.

Very pessimistic.

Humans (as we know them) have been around for around 100,000-200,000 years. Religion has only been around for about 30,000. So how is it that you propose we survived without this assumed higher authority for all those tens of thousands of years?

<<You insist that you don’t simply make assertions yet you continue to do so...>>

The examples of what I’ve said, that you provided, weren’t assertions because they are demonstrable. Wellbeing, on many difference levels, can be measured medically using physical health. Whether it be my already provided, simplistic example of two people on a deserted island, or just the negative effects of stress caused by someone else’s wrong doing to us.

<<You are not presenting arguments to support your position.>>

Well, there’s the above, then there’s also my point you’ve dodged about a yardstick to measure who out of God and Satan is the good one which, unless you can come up with a completely different yardstick for determining who is good and who is evil and point out why ours is wrong, demonstrates my point.

No assertions or opinions required.

But it goes both way, JP. You need to provide some reasoning as to why I haven’t presented arguments to support my position. Simply claiming that I haven’t isn’t enough, I’m afraid.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Again I ask you, why is your opinion, as one human being, any more valid than theirs, a fellow human being?>>

It’s not.

I can’t really add much more to what pelican has said other than to point out that religion is a poor moral source and authority, and considering how many interpretations there are of each religion and how often theists simply interpret their religion to suit their own prejudices and desires, it’s a pretty flimsy and open-ended source of morality too.

Incidentally, religion focuses on wellbeing as well; only it’s mostly concerned with wellbeing in the afterlife instead, and this makes religious morality potentially more dangerous and immoral.

So I ask you, if a Muslim says they have the right to kill unbelievers, how is your moral authority any more valid than theirs?

<<Regarding The Euthyphro Dilemma, you’ve largely answered it yourself...>>

Erm... yeah, and I explained why that didn’t work too (This is just one example of what I mean when I say you’re not reading posts properly); and until you can demonstrate that god exists, your claim is mere speculation anyway.

<<You [pelican] say, “human behaviour is clearly flawed”, but it is hard to make sense of that in an atheistic universe ... One behaviour is just as “good”, “bad”, and meaningless as any other behaviour, personal opinions notwithstanding.>>

If words have such little meaning in and of themselves, then how could you possibly know that you’re gaining the correct understanding of your god when you read the Bible?

If there is anything we can define as “bad”, it’s total misery for everyone, and If there is any meaning to the word “evil”, it’s someone who would put us there.

Anyway JP, pelican, McReal, myself, and now George have explained this to you in so many different ways that I don’t know that there’s any point in continuing. Could you at least provide us with something to support your position in light of all that I’ve said that discredits it?

<<One might argue that those who continue to relate pedophilia to homosexuality are spreading untruths to suit their own religious agenda>>

One might argue that those who refuse to recognise the statistical relationship between homosexuality and child sex abuse are spreading untruths to suit their own homosexual activist agenda.

81% of Catholic Church child sex abuse victims were boys.
As in homosexual activity between men and boys.
As in homosexual child abuse.
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Homosexuals form 1-2% of the population yet homosexual priests are responsible for 81% of child sex abuse cases.

The statistics speak for themselves

pelican,

Thanks for the undeserved compliment.

>> the term 'collective' or 'community' does not necessarily relate or belong solely to a Marx-Leninist perspective<<

I never claimed that, as I would not claim that the term “Führer” (meaning “leader”) “necessarily related or belonged solely” to the Nazis. Nevertheless, I can understand why today Germans are uneasy about it, and try to avoid it whenever possible. It is not a matter of “belonging to” but of unpleasant PERSONAL/national associations with an ideology that the term was central to. That is all I hinted at.

>> the theist and atheist come to the same conclusions in the main, about morality<<

This is what it is worth to argue for: not to covert believers into unbelievers (to make them more “rational”) or unbelievers into believers (to make them more “moral”), but to find a way of peaceful coexistence of people of different world-views, religious or not.

See for instance the atheist Jürgen Habermass’ “post-secular society” (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html) or his discussions with the Pope (http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666), or those of another atheist, Marcello Pera, with the Pope (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-Islam/dp/0465006272/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233401525&sr=8-9).

>> Religious adherence would not be possible if there was no natural 'foundation' to work with<<

I agree. As I said, I am not an ethicist but e.g. the Catholic Catechism speaks of “the natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men<<

Well, you may substitute here “cooperative instincts (that) are simply the result of evolutionary conditioning” (Fergusson) - or whatever evolutionary psychologists are suggesting - for “natural law, present in the heart of each man” (It is not the fault of the Catechism that the English language lacks a brief term for “human being” except for the equivocal “man”). This natural (moral) law is in addition to the “divine law”, for which atheists obviously don’t have, and don’t need, an equivalent.

JP,

>>I have not been arguing from moral objectivity to God.… the single point I have been making is that if there is no God … then all moral claims are subjective and relative.<<

Let me repeat, I am not an ethicist but (was) a mathematician: The statement A implies B is the same as the statement nonB implies nonA, i.e. “moral objectivity IMPLIES God” is the same as “there is no God IMPLIES no moral objectivity (‘all moral claims are subjective and relative’)”.

>>This is not to say that people do not or cannot create ethical systems, such as those generated by Confucianism, Buddhism and presumably by A J Phillips and pelican. <<

I cannot speak for AJ Philips and pelican (now I see, they already spoke for themselves), however I do not think the moral systems of Confucians and Buddhist were that arbitrary, independent of what Catholics call “natural law”. You can maintain - as theists, including me, do - that these “foundations” are insufficient without the divine ingredient, but that is a different story and terrain (moral philosophy) where I am an outsider.

>>What of the atheist who cares more about their own self-interest than for aesthetics?<<

What of the Christian who cares more about their own self-interest than for his/her faith ?
I do not think this kind of argument - e.g. whether there are more bad atheists (who think they can get away with doing what is against the "common good") or bad Christians (who think they can get away with doing what is against the "common good" and/or against the will of God) - will bring us anywhere.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I can see your point. Our (Christian) faith is an EXTRA that we have (and because of our free will can use or abuse it, understand or misunderstand what it requires from us). We should try to live by it thus providing a testimony for it - verbal or not - without boasting about it in arguments with those who lack it.

Pelican – you did assert that, “individual rights outweigh community opinion where there is no harm to others” (7 December 2010 9:46:45 PM), which appears to me to be a clear example of you making a determination that individual values should prevail over community values.

You say you are merely expressing your opinion on these issues. Now your opinion may be interesting or thoughtful or silly or lots of things, but what matters is, does your opinion have any authority? If not, then your opinion is just a curiosity that can be noted and safely ignored.

And I hasten to add, that will be equally true of all our opinions, mine included. If it is the case that there is no God and the only source of morality is what we humans choose to make up, then our moral values are mere opinions that lack any objective authority.

You say you believe in a “a biological imperative that drives human beings towards survival rather than destruction”. Are you saying that “biology” is a conscious entity that somehow happens to have the goal of driving people/animals to survival? You will need to give some supporting argument for that claim. In the absence of a convincing argument, things just “are” and have no ultimate goals.

Even if you insist that there is such a “biological imperative”, why should anyone care, if they don’t want to?

You ask, “Why can't ethics and morality stem from something other than via the supernatural”. In everything I have written I have not denied that human beings can and do make up moral systems. I have acknowledged that Confucius and Buddha did and that you and A J Phillips can too.

All I am arguing is that these moral systems are all human creations and so they are subjective and relative. Therefore there seems to be no basis for saying that one person’s moral beliefs are “right” and another’s are “wrong”: therefore the murderer’s and the rapist’s moral beliefs are as valid as those of Nelson Mandela or Florence Nightingale.

This is not being pessimistic, but logical.

<<I do believe in a biological imperative that drives human beings towards survival rather than destruction>>

The biological imperative towards the survival of the species drives men to plant their seeds in a woman's vagina.

What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?

What sort of biological imperative toward survival drives homosexuals to engage in sexual activities that put them at fifty times the risk of destruction from HIV/AID's?

George,

Thanks for that.

Your description of a higher moral authority as an “extra” is spot on. It can be just as much of a benefit as it can be a hindrance to the INDIVIDUAL, depending on how they apply it.

The belief in a god could be what stops someone committing suicide, but then it could also be what drives an activist to shoot-up an abortion clinic and think they were justified in doing it; which is why I think your advice that believers should try to live by it without boasting about it, is very wise.

By boasting about it, believers open themselves up all sorts of attack, and there’s certainly no shortage of examples of misery caused by those who proclaimed a higher moral authority.

JP,

It’s a shame you didn’t take George’s advice. Here is just one example of what I meant by opening yourself up to attack...

You say: “...if there is no God then claims that one thing is right and another is wrong are completely subjective and relative.”

But given the shabbiness and contradictory nature of holy books, I could just as easily say: “If someone believes in a God then claims of what this god wants are completely subjective and relative.”

But since you’re STILL not clear on the objectivity of secular morality, and since you are under the false impression that moral absolutes are fundamentally important, I’ll give you an example using Sam Harris’s chess analogy...

In chess, ‘don’t lose your queen’ is an important rule to follow if you want to play good chess. But there are exceptions.

Sometimes, losing your queen is the only thing you can do and sometimes, it’s the most brilliant thing you can do. But chess is a circumstance of absolute objectivity; there are right and wrong answers and there are finite combinations of moves for any given game.

We have ethical principles that are good to follow, but the fact that they have exceptions says nothing about the prospect of there being a moral truth.

Do you understand now?

A J Phillips – As I said to pelican, I am trying to make a logical argument so I will try to set it out more formally, using premises I think you accept.

1. There is no God and there is no God-ordained morality.
2. There are human beings.
3. All human beings can make up moral values.
4. All moral beliefs are nothing more than constructs by humans.
5. No human being has greater moral knowledge than any other.
6. No human being has an irrefutable basis for claiming that their moral system is superior to, or should have authority over, the moral system of any other human being.

Conclusion: in the absence of God, human morals are completely subjective and relative.

That is all I have been arguing.

But to address some of your other concerns. You say, “if religion did have the value that you claim it has, that still wouldn’t say anything about whether or not a god existed”. My argument does imply that someone greater than humanity – God who created us - is necessary in order for moral values to be objective and absolute, and I do think this is valuable.

It is only if morals are objective and absolute that we can meaningfully say that murder is wrong regardless of what the murderer may say. But I agree with you that my arguments do not prove that God exists and I have never suggested that they do. But if there is no God then morals are subjective and relative and the moral beliefs of the murderer are as valid as the moral beliefs of you.

“Good” and “bad” have meaning if there is a God but in a godless, relativistic universe they are essentially meaningless. If the murderer’s moral belief that murder is “good” is as valid as the doctor’s moral belief that healing the sick is “good”, then the term “good” becomes meaningless.

Regarding God and satan, it is only if the revelation contained in the Bible is true that any determination can be made as to what and who is good.

AJ Philips,

>>it could also be what drives an activist to shoot-up an abortion clinic and think they were justified in doing it<<

The emphasis here must be on “activist”: There are unfortunately many political, ideological, environmental, animal-rightist, nationalist, religious etc activists who resort to violence

Proxy said:

//What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?//

COMMENT.
and that probably sums up the whole issue better than anything else.

MY OPINION
Moral values are from God or they don't exist. Moral 'opinions' can exist aside from divine revelation.

Moral 'opinions' have only the weight of PUBLIC OPINION on their side.

So....if one is not able to declare faith in the Almighty,(and the values derived from his revealed will) one is left with..PUBLIC OPINION.

So, people, ...don't whine about it when it goes against you or your lusts.

For Christians.. if public opinion happens to be swayed against things we don't like, by deceptive and scurrellous misinformation campaigns, it is up to us to get out there and DO something about that. Whining is not as valuable as voting and changing the law.

And for those who don't LIKE how 'we' might make the law.. just think how WE feel when YOU change the law. It works both ways.

George thanks for your tempered and well thought out response.

Agree, that these 'good' vs 'bad' (Christian/Atheist) debates go nowhere and all they do is set up a defensive dialogue (for the most part) instead of looking at positive ways to live together harmoniously. For the most part, we in the West do that well, one worldview not conflicting with the other too often in hostile ways. This is not the case in non-secular nations where those who do not ascribe to the dominant faith are persecuted and sometimes killed.

JP
"Conclusion: in the absence of God, human morals are completely subjective and relative. That is all I have been arguing."

I completely understand where you are coming from JP but my argument is similar only in reverse. That is, human morals are completely subjective and relative with God given all the different interpretations, and given that God is a human construct. Religion does not of itself appear to uphold morality, although it professes a strong morality. Most rational thinking people believe in the similar principles espoused by many religious faiths (as discussed previously)because they are in reality, very human principles.

If God is a human construct then all that which led to God is also subjective. I don't think that viewpoint is 'silly' as you imply. God and religion has provided a shaky framework for human morality as AJ Phillips has described.

You and I and others on this thread voice our opinions and in a democracy (for example) our collective opinions give voice to an ethical framework. We, all of us, may not always agree with what is decided in terms of legalising same-sex marrige.

That issue comes down to one's views of homosexuality and whether we believe a minority of people should continue to be discriminated due solely on the basis of their sexual preference. The 'harm' principle is an important one I believe in human wellbeing and helps to offset some of the failures in attending to the needs of minorities.

Proxy
Your use of the phrase 'homosexual acitivist' is emotive. There have been many religious activists over time - activism isn't always a negative no matter which way you spin it. There has been no violence.

As far as I am aware there no homosexual groups seeking to discriminate against heterosexuals they merely seek equality under the law in regard to marriage.

If you are only against same-sex marriage because you equate that with pedophilia then may I suggest you are the one acting as a strongly anti-homosexual activist.

You said: "81% of Catholic Church child sex abuse victims were boys". Then you said "Homosexuals form 1-2% of the population yet homosexual priests are responsible for 81% of child sex abuse cases."

These figures show that the majority of child sexual abuse cases were boys but your figures relate only to the Catholic Church. In the greater community the majority of child sexual abuse cases are girls, and they are most often committed by heterosexual men (occasionally women are know to sexually abuse a child). In most of these cases the perpetrator is known to the victim.

Workplaces like the Churches, schools and leisure activities involving children are unfortunatley going to attract pedophiles. They tend to congregate where they have greatest contact with children.

There is a biological imperative for men to impregnate women in the context of evolution and human survival. However, we also know that within the human genome are differences. Human beings are genetically different or may display differences due to environmental influences.

Why are some people homosexual? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps there should be further studies so that we can put the issue to bed once and for all.

Either way, a 'no harm' imperative is important and in the interests of fairness it is important that stuff is not just 'made up' to suit one's worldview on this issue including accusations of a highly discriminatory nature. Current research reveals that pedophilia is about power it is not just a sexual act.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Proxy said:

<<What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?>>

A god given one.

George,

Good point. In the context of this discussion (and, hopefully, what you were saying), I should have said that the higher moral authority of such a person doesn’t stop them from doing something bad.

JP,

I suspect you're trying to argue this from an angle of pure logic because (I’m guessing) you realise that there is no way you can mention “Divine Revelation” without appearing totally batsheet crazy. But your argument only works if there is such a thing as “Divine Revelation” AND you can demonstrate it; because without it (according to your logic), you have no way of knowing who, out of God and Satan, is the good one - hence my point there.

You CAN tell the difference between these symbols of good and evil and you either use Divine Revelation to do this, or an external (secular) morality.

And which of these two are demonstrable, verifiable and even measurable to an extent..?

Thank you.

<<Conclusion: in the absence of God, human morals are completely subjective and relative.>>

Well, you’ve implied a lot more than that with your use of the term “meaningless” and scientifically ignorant remarks about pond scum. But okay, I’m willing to run with this because your argument can be brought down regardless.

<<My argument does imply that someone greater than humanity ... is necessary in order for moral values to be objective and absolute...>>

But that doesn’t make them objective at all.

Why, I could simply combine Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Matthew 5:17 to justify stoning children and it would simply be a case of your interpretation versus mine.

Either way, until you can demonstrate the existence of this higher being, your argument is meaningless and has no real value.

<<It is only if morals are objective and absolute that we can meaningfully say that murder is wrong regardless of what the murderer may say.>>

I can’t add anything more to what I’ve already said other than to say that if this is what you think, then you have traded your humanity in deference to your god.

And that’s very sad.

>> 4. All moral beliefs are nothing more than constructs by humans.

At best, this is a massive over-simplification. In fact, the evidence is mounting that morals are welded onto our DNA.

Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that "Morality is a social construction, but it is constructed out of evolved raw materials provided by five (or more) innate "psychological" foundations": the Harm, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations. Or to put it another way, "the five most important taste receptors of the moral mind are the following . . . care/harm, fairness/cheating, group loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, sanctity and degradation."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.haidt.html

How Haidt’s foundations are expressed varies from culture to culture, but essentially the evolutionary purpose of morality is to make a group of humans more successful than others. Consequently, the moral structures of a hunter-gatherer tribe will necessarily be different to those of a large urban society. Haidt recognises our natural inclination to assume that our moral positions are the best, and warns about the dangers:

"We've got to be very, very cautious about bias. I believe that morality has to be understood as a largely tribal phenomenon, at least in its origins. By its very nature, morality binds us into groups, in order to compete with other groups."

In the article I cited above, Steven Pinker argues that variations in moral reasoning arise from how different societies emphasise Haidt’s psychological foundations. Notably, none of the researchers in this field find a role for god. Humans are wired to develop the moral code best suited to their environment.

---

Anyone in Sydney next Wednesday evening could do worse than attending the annual Templeton Lecture at the University of Sydney:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=2&newsstoryid=6160

"Is man a wolf to man? Morality and the social behaviour of our fellow primates"

It's open to the public, it's free, and it will be delivered someone who knows a lot more about the topic than we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me …

Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."

Kai Nielsen (atheist) “Why should I be moral?” American Philosophical Quarterly 21, 1894: 90

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life, p. 133

“There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-oriented forces of any kind. There is life after death. When I die I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead.

That’s the end for me. There’s no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life and no free will for humans either.”

Professor William Provine, (atheist) Origins Research, 16 (1), p.9 1994

"What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?

What sort of biological imperative toward survival drives homosexuals to engage in sexual activities..."
-Proxy

Who said anything about survival? Why do you assume that it is survival which motivates homosexuals to have sex?

I assume that homosexual behaviour is driven by the same sort of biological imperative that drives me to consume such vast quantities of cheese, even though a calorie-restricted diet containing far less cheese and more wholegrains and vegetables would provide considerable benefits with regards to my own survival. I just really, really like cheese, to the point where my love for the stuff usually outweighs my self-preservation instinct. It's actually quite common - there are a lot of people in this world who put pleasure ahead of longevity.

"Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive."

Maladaptive just about sums it up.
Synonym: dysfunctional.

This is what I've been saying all along.

So I'm dysfunctional or maladaptive 'coz I like cheese. On the other hand, my BMI (Body Mass Index) is so low that I'm almost underweight, and we all know obesity kills. So it's quite possible that I'm less dysfunctional/maladaptive than folk who are fatter than me. What is your BMI, Proxy? NB: not a rhetorical question - I want the statistics you love so much, as they pertain to your own body.

By your definition, anybody who is not a complete health-nut is dysfunctional/maladaptive. But I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. The healthiest bloke I know is my athletic brother, who runs marathons for fun (wackjob). Despite his athleticism and his committment to good health, he still indulges in unhealthy practises - practises guaranteed to diminish his survival. He'll outlive us all by a long way, but I guess he must be considered dysfunctional and maladaptive.

Do you always put your health first, Proxy? Always? Have you never substituted white bread for whole-meal/grain? Is the fat you eat always unsaturated? Do you perform the amount of exercise that your GP recommends? Does your diet consist mostly of grains and vegetables, with a small amount of red meat, or are you as fond of a big juicy steak as the next man? What's your anti-oxidant intake like? How about your Omega-3:Omega-6 ratio? Are you getting enough calcium? What about iron? When was the last time you had a grapefruit? Do you wash your hands every time you go to the toilet? Are you sure - every time? Have you travelled outside of country recently? What sort of animals do you have regular contact with? What vaccinations have you received? What vaccinations haven't you received? Are you a carrier for cystinuria?

What!!?? You don't know the answer? Don't you care about your own health? Don't you care if you live or die? Such an an ambivalent attitude toward your own survival indicates that you are profoundly disturbed, and probably best described as 'dysfunctional' or 'maladaptive'.

This is not about you and your faith in Cheeses.

It's about dysfunctional, maladaptive behaviour being passed off as a biological imperative when it doesn't fit the criteria.

It's about elevating the unnatural and non-existent "right" of "gays" to "marry" over the natural birthright of children.

This is about the travesty of same sex "marriage" and its impact on innocent children.

Leave it alone, Proxy.
In the name of Cheeses.

[Deleted. Overly aggressive.]

[Deleted. Sock-puppet.]

<<what does same sex marriage have to do with the 'natural birthright' of children?>>

Absolutely nothing.

They are mutually exclusive.

[Sock-puppet. Deleted.]

Well, JP. You started out on this thread with hyperbolic comments like, “it is going to be one wild and scary ride”, then we appeared to tame you to a point where you started to sound - for the most part - somewhat reasonable by sticking to logic.

Then, when backed into a corner and shown how shaky your claim to objective and absolute morality through a higher moral being was, you blow it all in an outburst of quote mining (a dishonest tactic usually only employed by theists when trying in vain to rebut evolution) that invokes the ‘Argument from Authority’ fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In regards to your Kai Nielsen quote, there’s nothing there that really conflicts with what I’ve been saying. Although without reading the paragraphs before and after it, it’s difficult to know the context of what he was saying. But boy would I love to see what that ellipsis is hiding. If past examples are anything to go by, it should put the entire quote into context.

What really bugs me here though is that you have selectively quoted a man whose position on this topic is that morality cannot come from religion. He’s even written an entire book devoted to this one point called “Ethics Without God”.

It appears - after many different searches - that the full quote can’t be found online. All you get are a bunch of dishonest Christian websites pushing the same butchered quote (http://tinyurl.com/2688clz). So, since the Queensland state library is just a five minute drive down the road from me, I’ll be sure to check their journal archives to see if they have a copy of American Philosophical Quarterly Volume 21 from 1984 and if I find it, I’ll report back on what the full quote is.

With the Dawkins quote, all you have to do is read the first four sentences of the paragraph from which your quote was carefully extracted to see that what Dawkins was describing was the brutality of nature and the UNIVERSE’S indifference to whether or not we suffer, not each other’s.

Continued...

...Continued

As for your Professor William Provine quote, none of that conflicts with what I’ve said. The keyword there was “ultimate”, because ultimately, when the universe dissipates or collapses in on itself again (as some have theorised), none of this will have mattered at that point; but that says nothing about whether or not it matters to us now while we’re here. This may not be a pleasant thought, but that doesn’t mean it’s not reality as some theists think it must mean.

One other point that I couldn’t fit into my response earlier today, is that although it’s good you agree that none of what you are saying is proof of god, it begs the question, what then is your point in all this?

If whether or not a god actually exists is a side issue or irrelevant to your argument, then you’re wasting your time, because whether or not a god exists, we’re here; we’re doing okay; the streets are not burning and anarchy hasn't ensued.

With or without a god.

There is some racist stereotyping which suggests Africa is primitive.

Not so.

Malawi has just enacted laws giving homosexuals equality.

"Current Malawi law, which prohibits “unnatural offenses” and “indecent practices between males,” punishes male homosexual sodomy with imprisonment. The new law reportedly seeks to equalize the punishment for women."

Equal punishment for lesbians.
That's equality African style.

It's their culture and cultural relativists should respect that.
No culture is better than any other.
Just different.

"Malawi’s 80% Christian population is strongly opposed to sodomy and supports the ban. Their view is reflected throughout the African continent, where 38 out of 53 states prohibit the behavior."

And who said Christianity was losing the culture wars?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parliament-of-malawi-expands-criminal-penalties-for-sodom

hey max

in a democracy the majority do set the rules. So lets have a referundem.

<Same sex marriage: is public opinion a moral value?>

Homosexualists aim is to crush public opinion that opposes their agenda.

That is the reality and more can be expected if SSM is legalised.

"The new archbishop of Brussels, Andre-Joseph Leonard, is being targeted by homosexualist groups, and has been condemned by the country’s prime minister, after he said that AIDS is a consequence of risky sexual behavior, including homosexual sexual activity."

Dear me, imagine making a truthful statement. How immoral.

“When you mistreat the environment it ends up mistreating us in turn,” he continued. “And when you mistreat human love, perhaps it winds up taking vengeance.”

“All I’m saying is that sometimes there are consequences linked to our actions. I believe this is a totally decent, honourable and respectable stance.”

Imagine politely saying what most normal people have held to be true for thousands of years. Why, it's not only indecent, it's criminal.

"A lawyer acting on behalf of a homosexualist lobby group has filed a formal complaint against Leonard for “homophobic statements” and “violating an anti-discrimination law.”"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-belgian-archbishop-faces-legal-threats-over-aids-remarks

This is already happening and the legalisation of same sex "marriage" will only give totalitarian homosexual activists a bigger stick to shut up anybody who disagrees with them.

Not only that, but children will be taken from their biological mothers and given to their mother's former lesbian partners because their natural mothers are clearly unsuitable to raise their own children because they disavow the homosexual agenda.

Mother loses her children to former lesbian partner:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article702829.ece

Judge Orders Evangelical Christian Mom Lisa Miller to Give Her Child to Gay Ex-Lover
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6037741-504083.html

Wake up people, it's already happening.

[Deleted as a sock-puppet, which the commenter admits.]

[Deleted for flaming.]

[Deleted. Refers to presvious comment.]

Proxy mate! I wish you well.
Please though! Get some help, as life is about living; and it is so easy!!

Morality! Discrimmination? It's neither - nor need God get a guernsey.

This subject of gay marriage seems to have totally missed the fundamental objective of marriage - which the Marriage Act defines as being between a man and a woman. That fundamental objective is the continuity/perepetuation/reproduction of the human race - preferably so that future humans may develop through the nurture of their mother and father, within the potential stability of a family (forget marriage breakdown for the purposes of this debate).

Gay couples simply cannot contribute to the reproduction of our human race on those terms, for obvious biological reasons. So there is no discrimmination whatsoever, gays simply cannot qualify. So it follows that there is no moral issue either.

If the Marriage Act is to be changed at all, then let's insert the fundamental purpose of marriage. The underqualified gay population is faced with settling for Legal Unions - or some other more friendly device, yet to be coined. In this context, gays are different to 'straights' and they just have to live with that difference. There is no 'fault', they are absolutely normal - products of the normal distribution of hormones among humans - which unfortunately does not qualify them for reproduction - and therefore, marriage.

I'm not so sure of your theory of hormone causation, otherwise curing the poor devils would be as simple as re-balancing their hormones.
Apart from that, commonsense commentary on homosexual self-exclusion from marriage.
Overall, I have no beef with your arguments.

... The "fundamental objective [of marriage] is the continuity/ perepetuation/ reproduction of the human race" -
Posted by Beef, Monday, 13 December 2010 9:45:24 PM

No, reproduction is just the consequence of sex.

" .. the Marriage Act defines [marriage] as being between a man and a woman.""

Only in recent times.

"" (forget marriage breakdown for the purposes of this debate). "" ... to shore up the distorted view that gay parenting does not give a mother and a father through child-hood like heterosexual parenting *might*

""So there is no discrimmination whatsoever, gays simply cannot qualify. So it follows that there is no moral issue either.""

Pull the other one, Beef. Moral issues include the sidelining of significant points like
* marriage breakdown,
* gay parenting is no less than heterosexual parenting,
* the point that all children have a biological mother and biological father, regardless of whether they live in one or two parent or "pseudo-parent" households, anyway.

"The fundamental objective [of marriage] is the continuity/ perepetuation/ reproduction of the human race" -
Posted by Beef, Monday, 13 December 2010 9:45:24 PM

<<No, reproduction is just the consequence of sex.>>

Looks like you tripped yourself up with a "heteronormative" statement.

Yes, reproduction is a consequence of normal sex.
No, reproduction can never be a consequence of homosex.

For the consequences of homosex you need to look to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control:

- HIV/AID's
- Anal cancer
- Gonorrhoea
- Syphilis
- MRSA
- early death
- etc
- etc
- etc