I don't think your example neccesarily shows that, and though I can think of self-evident examples that would seem to indicate immorality given instincts, I can also think of self-evident reasons that those examples don't show that instinct innevitabely leads to a reduction in morality. Empathy, for example, is an instinct that leads to most moral feelings, and something like cheating in schoolwork has more to do with people's perception of the situation and needing to be taught why it's wrong rather than that it's wrong.I've already given an example ( and many more are self-evident if one takes the time to think it through ) that shows that merely following primordial instincts would reduce man to a morality which could essentially be summed up as "what is good for me is good, what is bad for me is bad" with no other constraints.
All right, as a simplification I can accept this.Assume there is no God...
...
Therefore, we will assume that men are not exclusively good or evil. We will also assume that some men are "more good" than others.
I agree with this.Given these assumptions, it stands to reason that over the course of history, the "good" practices of man will have gradually ( through thousands of years of trial and error ) been codified into codes of behavior. These codes would have been handed down formally and informally from generation to generation because they work. There may be some variations to these codes in different regions of the world, but they also include certain fundamental core codes of conduct.
If that's qualifies something as a religion, then science is a religion. There's a point of view from which science is a religion, but this really isn't how the word is generally used. However, I can agree that what you've described could be a mechanism by which morality is conveyed to people, and whether it's called religion or not isn't really important to me.I propose that we call such time-honored codes of behavior "religion".
...
As I've already acknowledged, to respect and adhere to religion as described above is an act of faith. Faith that the best traits and knowledge of our ancestors has been handed down to us to use for our own good, and for the good of all Mankind.
Here is where I think the absence of God is significant. The difference is that the wisdom of man, even the best wisdom of the ages is fallable, whereas the wisdom of God is not.Now... If we choose to reject this " religion ", and "decide for ourselves" what is moral, we (at a minimum) elevate ourselves to a level of moral wisdom surpassing the best that Mankind has ever produced ! If enough people do this... well, we've already gone there.
Since you're saying "the best Mankind has produced" you're neccesarily implying that there have been revisions and modifications along the way. Moral progress could not happen without voices of dissent. Unless you're going to say that at some arbitrary point in the past that morality was perfected, then there's room for improvement. With an infallable origin of morality, such as God, you simply accept without questioning, because it couldn't possibly be wrong. That would be fine if God exists, of course, but if he doesn't, then you're going to end up repeating the same moral errors indefinitely because you can't ammend them without giving up God. And since I personally don't believe in God, I can't perceive any moral code as being infallable.
Well, here's one possibility, there are others:if, as you say, people are both good and evil inherently, how can one expect them to consistently act in what we would all generally agreee to be a morally "good" fashion without ever having had those moral values instilled (trained... through " religion ", whether divine or not) into them from prior generations?
1. People have an interest in their children and descendents that often supercedes their own self-interest.
2. People are social animals because it's effective. They cooperate at times rather than exclusively competing because it benefits them to do so.
Therefore, people will cooperate to create a society they think it will benefit their children. In most respects, this is a moral rather an an immoral society. Furthermore, conceit helps because everyone tends to believe that in an even race they and their children will win. People develop scruples against cheating, because they don't want their children to be cheated against. And so on for other examples of moral behavior.
The only issue here is whether it's "both" or "neither." Is fire good or bad? Is rain good or bad? You could say both or you could say neither, since they can result in things we like or things we don't like, but don't have any tendency either way.You have answered your own query as to what "subjective morality" is... In doing so, IMNSHO, you inadvertently contradict yourself. You first wrote (quoted above exactly) that man is inherently both good and evil. Then, in saying that my definition of "subjective morality" isn't consistent with your use or understanding of the term, you wrote: " ...the point is more that man inherently possesses a multitude of traits, which are neither inherently good nor evil in and of themselves ... but become so depending on how they manifest themselves in behavior. "
Thus what I was saying is that human beings have traits (analogous to fire or rain) that cause good or evil behavior. I chose to use the word both for humans and neither for traits the same way I would say that a forest fire is both good and bad (environmentally speaking), but fire itself is neither.
I'm not heavily comitted to use of either "both" or "neither" for the good and evilness of humans or human traits so if you're more comfortable with one choice then I'm happy to go with that.
The story of Jesus is the story of someone who followed his own code of moral conduct regardless of what others though of as "good moral conduct." More importantly, everyone's system of moral conduct is affected by their own views. Even religious leaders argue and disagree on how to interpret the Bible. Yes, they agree on the big stuff, but the fact that there are any dissagreements shows that there is an extent, however small to which their morality is subjective. From there it's just a matter of degree that seperates them from the modern Liberals.Therefore, "subjective morality" is a system of moral conduct modified or affected by ones own personal views or experiences and thuse arising out of one's own personal perception without external influences. Bluntly, it is the belief that one's own code of moral conduct is followed regardless of what others think of as "good moral conduct"..
I'm not sure how this follows. What could good or evil be inherent to if not to behavior? Are you talking about them in terms of abstract forces in the universe? I was using them as descriptive terms for behaviors (such as killing) that are good or evil depending only on the context.In effect, "subjective morality" is the belief that there is no inherent good or evil, but rather good and evil are defined depending on how they manifest themselves in behaviour!
If a person had never come into contact with the moral codes found in the Bible, but had devised an identical set of precepts from their own perceptions, that would still be subjective morality because it had arisen out of their own perception, yes? But it doesn't seem like you're saying that the moral code found in the bible would be a subjective form of morality.
You made a point about martial artists being from a lineage, and my take on the matter as it relates to morality is that just like times change and it's okay to question whether what the masters of old taught is still the best and definitive truth, it's reasonable to question the morality that is passed along to us. The stakes are higher with morality but it's a similar issue when you talk about it in terms of to what degree you simply accept what you're told. Then again, unlike martial arts, it's not okay for morality to be custom-fit to each person. But in my mind it's still an open question what is the best moral life.
I'll go start a thread about the political side in your forum.
)
)......I'll grant you an infinity of Gods,
]