A "Transcendent Moral Order": Does it Exist?

What evidence is there that a god exists? I see none, which is why I'm an atheist.

ChezC3 said:

Which one is it?

Who are these rotten people disobeying? The code? Who wrote the code? Who determined what went in, what was left out? Who said we needed a code? Who demands we adhere to it? Why should we? Who respects those who adhere to the code? Why?

Many, many questions.

Click to expand...

And all those questions are pointless.

Society determined it through natural evolution and we created an environment in which said code works most of the time. We recognize it to be true and to be the river through which better things flow. So if we want a better future, we must be moral and ethical. Moral in our sense of right and wrong, and accept when we are wrong and rectify it. Moral does not mean making no mistakes, because that is impossible, it just means that once mistakes were done, you must have the will to redeem yourself for them. Ethical in the sense of the work ethics we keep, the etiquette we keep, the way we carry ourselves and the way we interact with one another.

Morality does not however mean to be good in a biblical sense. Sometimes you must be violent and forceful in order to do the right thing.

Rainman05 said:

Society determined it through natural evolution and we created an environment in which said code works most of the time.

Click to expand...

If society created it, it is not objective or transcendent. For something to be transcendent, it must have an origin outside humanity. For something to be objective, it must be inherent within the thing itself, not projected onto it by human society or agency. You're claiming morality is rooted in human society and opinion, which means it is contingent and subjective, not objective and transcendent.

Morality does not however mean to be good in a biblical sense. Sometimes you must be violent and forceful in order to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

The Bible has more than its' fair share of violence and force .

Kindness said:

If society created it, it is not objective or transcendent. For something to be transcendent, it must have an origin outside humanity. For something to be objective, it must be inherent within the thing itself, not projected onto it by human society or agency. You're claiming morality is rooted in human society and opinion, which means it is contingent and subjective, not objective and transcendent.



The Bible has more than its' fair share of violence and force .

Click to expand...

I never said that it is transcendent. I don't agree with that premise. Society makes its own moral code, and each society has its own. Its moral code is reflected in its achievements and the state of their society.

I do however say that there is one good, efficient moral code, one that works, and has been proven to work, and countless bad ones.

Rainman05 said:

And all those questions are pointless.

Click to expand...

Really? Why is that? It seems you've made what is called the "traditional error of the philosophers".

Society determined it through natural evolution and we created an environment in which said code works most of the time.

Click to expand...

Society has determined? Well, that is mighty nice of them, but I do believe I'll take it upon myself to determine that. Said moral code works most of the time at what? for whom?

We recognize it to be true and to be the river through which better things flow.

Click to expand...

We do? Again, I must ask, better for whom?

So if we want a better future, we must be moral and ethical.

Click to expand...

I can point you in the general direction of many, many, far too many individuals and institutions who'd contradict this statement.

Moral in our sense of right and wrong, and accept when we are wrong and rectify it.

Click to expand...

Hold on here, moral in our sense of right and wrong? Right and wrong as another way of saying good and bad? because below...

Moral does not mean making no mistakes, because that is impossible, it just means that once mistakes were done, you must have the will to redeem yourself for them.

Click to expand...

Right and wrong here, as in making a wrong decision? This doesn't have to do with morals, this has to do with judgement. Morals are what help us make judgements.

Ethical in the sense of the work ethics we keep, the etiquette we keep, the way we carry ourselves and the way we interact with one another.

Click to expand...

Right, but who is this "we" you speak of? My work ethic could very much be different from yours. Etiquette, and the way we interact with others these deal with social norms, not morality. Belching after a good meal in certain cultures is considered quite acceptable while here it is rude. Different strokes for different folks. Comportment, that is a moral issue not ethical.

Morality does not however mean to be good in a biblical sense. Sometimes you must be violent and forceful in order to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

Here you make a distinction where when I had previously asked you had said it was a pointless question. Morality to you might not be meant in a biblical but for someone else it may. For someone it might be in a Buddhist sense, others Hindi. For others it might very well be a different and yes, quite diabolical sense. Others a non-religious (though they are always influenced by it). The morals you have, your morality is yours, you've decided what you will accept and adhere to and what you will eschew. It is subjective. That means it is yours alone.

If it is as you say, if society has determined your moral code and you haven't purposefully examined it, weighed it, and determined on your own what moral code you'll adhere to personally, than you're not sharing a moral code you are enslaved by someone elses. Like a yoke upon a beast of burden.

I dare say, the questions I had previously asked were far from pointless, they were on point. Very much relevant, and very much in need of answering.

Kindness said:

One of the pillars of traditional conservative thought is belief in a "transcendent moral order," a system of right and wrong, good and evil, virtuous and vicious that exists above and beyond humanity. Philosophical liberals, on the other hand, tend to disbelieve in this order, saying that morality is socially constructed or invented by humanity.

This transcendent moral system could come from some kind of god or religious entity, something like a Platonic form, or some intuitive knowledge, so it is not necessarily religious.

Do you think such a moral order exists? Why or why not? What implications does its' existence / nonexistence have for society?

Click to expand...

Well - from what you've written it sounds like a both:

"A socially constructed or invented by humanity system of right and wrong, good and evil, virtuous and vicious that exists above and beyond humanity."

:shrug:

As evidence of it being socially constructed - but inherent to living soundly with individuals in a society - every religion and country has rules that govern such actions and activities to try to encourage peace and cooperation to some extent. Driven by the desire to not live in chaos and at odds with each other on a daily basis.

Rainman05 said:

Regardless of that. Some moral codes are good and some are bad. And some are in between. Not all moral codes are desirable.

The desirable moral code is the moral code that is established well within a society in such a way that it makes it desirable to live in.

Click to expand...

"Good", "bad", and "desirable" are all subjective terms. Take them out of your statements and there's nothing left. Obviously, by your own admission here, moral codes are subjective.

Rainman05 said:

I do however say that there is one good, efficient moral code, one that works, and has been proven to work, and countless bad ones.

Click to expand...

This analysis depends on your goals, another subjective definition. The moral standards of a society do, however, influence what constitutes successful offspring. If your primary goal is to improve people physically (better senses, disease resistance, etc.) there will be a far different set of moral standards than if you're attempting to improve cooperation or any other traits(s). As we've become more and more domesticated (what I'm assuming you mean as "good") we pass along more physically undesirable genes like poor eyesight and disease resistance.

I think transcendent morality is oxymoronic. Morality is innately human. We derive it from our own experience as humans, as physical, mortal beings. Morality is anything but transcendent.

I agree, morality is human-based, socially constructed, and culturally contingent. That doesn't mean that it is worthless, or that we can't use reason and emotion to devise moral standards that benefit society and all sentient life. It would be nice if a transcendent standard existed, but it just isn't the case.

Cephus said:

Nope, it doesn't exist. Morals, like laws and rights, come from a particular group of people, be it a culture, a society or a nation. They set what is acceptable and not acceptable within their particular group.

Click to expand...

But this leaves completely unanswered how the group develops its moral code.

Kindness said:

I agree, morality is human-based, socially constructed, and culturally contingent. That doesn't mean that it is worthless, or that we can't use reason and emotion to devise moral standards that benefit society and all sentient life. It would be nice if a transcendent standard existed, but it just isn't the case.

Click to expand...

Socially constructed out of what?

Wessexman said:

But this leaves completely unanswered how the group develops its moral code.

Click to expand...

It's called enlightened self-interest. People generally understand that if they want to be treated a certain way, they need to treat those around them in that way so their actions are reciprocated.

Thinking is the problem. If more people approached other humans from the heart, they would understand very quickly what moral universalism is. There are laws in societies all over the world that are the same - not necessarily written ones, but ones shared among all people. Those core laws are based on love for fellow humans. The logic can't grasp this, thus morality seems subjective. If you're in a heart centered way of living then morality is obvious.

Cephus said:

It's called enlightened self-interest. People generally understand that if they want to be treated a certain way, they need to treat those around them in that way so their actions are reciprocated.

Click to expand...

But surely most traditional moral codes include aspects that cannot be reduced to enlightened self-interest, at least not in a sense that could occur to most individuals. If, as no doubt is the case, you do not believe in post-mortem rewards of punishments, why would enlightened self-interest, for example, lead to, for example, fighting and risking death for one's country? Why, also, would individuals adhere to restrictive codes of morality, such as those advocating temperance? Yet these are generally part of all traditional moral systems.

I'm not sure simply saying that individuals subscribe to moral codes because of enlightened self-interest either fully explains the moral codes themselves or even the individual's motives in subscribing them (in a sense, we don't do anything unless we wish to, based on the constraints and circumstances we face, so in that sense all moral behaviour is self-interest).

Wessexman said:

But surely most traditional moral codes include aspects that cannot be reduced to enlightened self-interest, at least not in a sense that could occur to most individuals. If, as no doubt is the case, you do not believe in post-mortem rewards of punishments, why would enlightened self-interest, for example, lead to, for example, fighting and risking death for one's country? Why, also, would individuals adhere to restrictive codes of morality, such as those advocating temperance? Yet these are generally part of all traditional moral systems.

Click to expand...

Because presumably, you are leaving behind offspring which will benefit from your actions. Moderation in alcohol, for instance, can be easily validated by realizing that when you're blottoed, you're not pulling your own weight and that your actions can cause harm to those around you. As for why some individuals would take radically restrictive stances, that's a religion thing and religion simply is not rational. There are some people who think that calling the doctor to help your sick child is immoral, others who think that you should handle poisonous serpents or drink poison to prove your faith. Those are simply stupid things to do.

I'm not sure simply saying that individuals subscribe to moral codes because of enlightened self-interest either fully explains the moral codes themselves or even the individual's motives in subscribing them (in a sense, we don't do anything unless we wish to, based on the constraints and circumstances we face, so in that sense all moral behaviour is self-interest).

Click to expand...

Moral codes exist because we all have to coexist in social situations in order to survive. Moral codes are simply a means of codifying what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in a particular social setting. Because human needs are, in general, similar, many moral codes are similar. That doesn't stop people from adding on to things that are actually necessary and coming up with really ridiculous ideas to which they will also adhere.

Kindness said:

Do you think such a moral order exists? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

No.

Because human beings are irrelevant to the Universe.

Anything true has to be true independently of the human experience. Any claim that depends that depends on the human experience is false by definition. That's why all religions are false.

Humans exist and their experiences are interesting but they are not necessary for the universe.

Cephus said:

Because presumably, you are leaving behind offspring which will benefit from your actions.

Click to expand...

Who are leaving behind offspring? Young men who die to protect their civilisation? They may easily not have children. Is it correct to think that even if they did have children that dying for their country, if there is no post-mortem rewards or even instrinsic goodness to the action, would really be provoked by enlightened self-interest?

Moderation in alcohol, for instance, can be easily validated by realizing that when you're blottoed, you're not pulling your own weight and that your actions can cause harm to those around you.

Click to expand...

Are most people really going to come to this conclusion based on enlightened self-interest? Is it not quite remote from the way most people would look at things? Surely, enlightened self-interest might just as well suggest to me that as long as I can get away with I might as well drink as much as I want? Or indeed that unless I'm discovered doing something wrong I gain more from doing it than not doing it? Does not Thrasymachus' position hold true in the world that only recognises enlightened, worldly self-interest?

Moral codes exist because we all have to coexist in social situations in order to survive. Moral codes are simply a means of codifying what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in a particular social setting. Because human needs are, in general, similar, many moral codes are similar. That doesn't stop people from adding on to things that are actually necessary and coming up with really ridiculous ideas to which they will also adhere.

Click to expand...

This doesn't really explain who is coming up with these codes, how they are doing it, and the exact relationship these codes might have with the enlightened self-interest that is allegedly at their

Wessexman said:

Socially constructed out of what?

Click to expand...

Enlightened self-interest, in our case, handed down from history's great rulers. When the law "Thou shalt not kill" was written (whatever version you'd like to use as being "first") it had little to do with not making war. It only applied to killings not condoned by the king or the ruling powers. It was 100% proper, even expected and honorable (just as it is today), that you would kill if the king said to kill or if certain qualifications were met, like a duel of honor. For a ruler, having killings and theft inside the kingdom is always loss, hence laws were enacted to curb killing and theft. Rulers were, essentially, domesticating their citizens, just as they continue to do today - except we're more educated now and can see the wisdom of it on our own - well, usually.

Wessexman said:

Who are leaving behind offspring? Young men who die to protect their civilisation? They may easily not have children. Is it correct to think that even if they did have children that dying for their country, if there is no post-mortem rewards or even instrinsic goodness to the action, would really be provoked by enlightened self-interest?

Click to expand...

Genetics plays a role here, too. If you die for your children you're saving about half your genes for each child - if you only have one you are saving exactly half. If it's your brother or sister it's ~1/4 per sibling on average. Overall, humans, like many, many other animals, understand instinctively that risking death is often worth it for gene survival. It doesn't necessarily take conscious self-interest, though in our case it's often explained that way since most people can see the logic in it.

fMRI studies have shown that humans have a moral instinct in normally functioning brains, so one could say there is something of a universal morality at that level. Beyond that it is illogical to conclude its anything but social construct.

Wessexman said:

Who are leaving behind offspring? Young men who die to protect their civilisation? They may easily not have children. Is it correct to think that even if they did have children that dying for their country, if there is no post-mortem rewards or even instrinsic goodness to the action, would really be provoked by enlightened self-interest?

Click to expand...

Since it goes beyond just the individual, yes. We, like all advanced animal species, are programmed to advance and protect the species. Besides, you can't make the statement that people who believe in an afterlife are the only ones who fight in wars, we both know that's not true.

Are most people really going to come to this conclusion based on enlightened self-interest? Is it not quite remote from the way most people would look at things? Surely, enlightened self-interest might just as well suggest to me that as long as I can get away with I might as well drink as much as I want? Or indeed that unless I'm discovered doing something wrong I gain more from doing it than not doing it? Does not Thrasymachus' position hold true in the world that only recognises enlightened, worldly self-interest?

Click to expand...

But you're forgetting that as a social creature, it's not all about you. Would a society where everyone acts like that operate and be healthy? I'd say no.

This doesn't really explain who is coming up with these codes, how they are doing it, and the exact relationship these codes might have with the enlightened self-interest that is allegedly at their

Click to expand...

You're looking for a single individual to impose these codes from on high and it just doesn't work that way. It's a collective effort that occurs over a long span of time, where people decide, as a group, that some ideas work better for social unity than others and these ideas can and do change over time. The morals of the 1600s and the morals of the 1800s and the morals of today have lots of differences between them.

MoSurveyor said:

Enlightened self-interest, in our case, handed down from history's great rulers. When the law "Thou shalt not kill" was written (whatever version you'd like to use as being "first") it had little to do with not making war. It only applied to killings not condoned by the king or the ruling powers. It was 100% proper, even expected and honorable (just as it is today), that you would kill if the king said to kill or if certain qualifications were met, like a duel of honor. For a ruler, having killings and theft inside the kingdom is always loss, hence laws were enacted to curb killing and theft. Rulers were, essentially, domesticating their citizens, just as they continue to do today - except we're more educated now and can see the wisdom of it on our own - well, usually.

Click to expand...

I really don't buy that, society had already developed the rule against killing, but many social and religious rulers over the years have taken those pre-existing rules and made them personal or twisted them to place themselves in a position of power.

Cephus said:

Since it goes beyond just the individual, yes. We, like all advanced animal species, are programmed to advance and protect the species. Besides, you can't make the statement that people who believe in an afterlife are the only ones who fight in wars, we both know that's not true.



But you're forgetting that as a social creature, it's not all about you. Would a society where everyone acts like that operate and be healthy? I'd say no.

Click to expand...

But don't these two comments show two other foundations for morality -ie., genetic inheritance and our nature as a social animal - other than enlightened self-interest?

You're looking for a single individual to impose these codes from on high and it just doesn't work that way. It's a collective effort that occurs over a long span of time, where people decide, as a group, that some ideas work better for social unity than others and these ideas can and do change over time. The morals of the 1600s and the morals of the 1800s and the morals of today have lots of differences between them.

Click to expand...

But doesn't this make it hard to see how these moral systems are constructed simply from the enlightened self-interest of individuals?

Cephus said:

I really don't buy that, society had already developed the rule against killing, but many social and religious rulers over the years have taken those pre-existing rules and made them personal or twisted them to place themselves in a position of power.

Click to expand...

You're acting like there's some genetic taboo against killing, to which I say Poppycock. If that were true war would never get off the ground and there would be no need for laws against killing. I'm sure even tribal elders or whoever had to make decisions about murders and how to punish the offender. We do tend to not kill our fellow tribesman (murder as opposed to killing) but extending that to a large society on an innate level doesn't happen since we meet hundreds of strangers every day and strangers - for most peoples - are historically "the enemy". Even today strangers (people of other "tribes") still go to war with each other. You can see it almost any day in the form of team sports, which is nothing more than domesticated warfare. There should, also, be no need to argue that people will kill one another during extreme emotional distress and that can happen between friends/tribesman as well as foes/strangers.

I would say that the evolution of morality tends to converge when you look at the more major aspects - for example, the idea of 'fairness' (shorter version of a similar video here), or the Golden Rule. However, that doesn't indicate that there is some external 'true morality' which all societies progress towards - it's simply emergent behaviour (just as there is no 'ideal termite nest' which all termite nests are progressing towards, or 'true flock', which all groups of birds progress towards). Nor is this convergence the case when you get down to the finer points of morality - for example the age of consent, or the death penalty, or abortion. There is lots of room for alternative competing moralities to flourish - and they do.