Sorry, I'm not particularly helpful because I do not support your goal. From my perspective, the only thing more dangerous than some 'god-centered' moral system is some 'human-centered' moral system.
What do you think my goal or objective is? I will agree with you that human-centered moral system is too objective and is riddled with hypocrisy.
Sorry, I've been making a few different arguments in this thread vis-a-vis other posters so that perhaps is the reason for my confusion regarding your essential position on the thread topic.
Multi-tasking of several philosophy arguments in a single thread can be tricky when I'm not familiar with the basic philosophic position/outlook/ideology of the various posters involved.
That being said, in the last paragraph of the OP you stated:
These are the two 'yay' arguments I can think of. If there are others, I am happy to read them because I do not understand how morality can exist within a physicalist framework...
On page 3 of this thread you stated:
Even at that, I think we are diverging from the initial subject. The intent is to justify a material morality. We have briefly discussed Kant (whom we kind of just skimmed over), and now Nietzsche. I will continue to look for additional Nietzsche quotes in my reading (and I would appreciate your input on Nietzsche also, Dormouse).
Note: bolded part (my emphasis).
Hence, I'm not sure if you taking the pro-materialist position as an advocate, devil's advocate or critic - or perhaps just as one who is interested in the topic itself for exploration? You do seem to be taking an 'advocacy' position, hence my rejection of your 'presumed' goal that you may, or may not have.
As for my general position, if I have to choose between a dichotomy of a 'theist-centered' moral system and a 'materialist-centered' moral system, I'd definitely vote for the latter - but only under those (polar) conditions. Ultimately, I prefer neither, or perhaps just a mix-mash of both.
Morality just seems damn ugly all around - a game for charletans, mystics and authoritarians (with lots and lots of hypocrisy).
I'm with Nietzsche in so far as we are living 'beyond good and evil' now. God is dead (humans killed him). Since morality is defined by God, morality is dead as well.
That is to say, I don't see much benefit, purpose or advantage in seeking 'God-free' morality, since it will likely only produce the same monsterous violence, sanctimonious posturing, rampant hypocrisy and social-political unrest as 'God-driven' morality has always given us.
Where does this leave us? Are you suggesting anarchy? or simply a risk that no one likes but we all have to suck it up and deal with?
The latter, definitely. And that's a rather good way of putting it too!
Echoing Aristotle's famous dictum that 'man is a political animal' (also translated as 'man is a social animal') - Nietzsche said 'man is a moral animal' - and he is indeed quite right.
Humans do apparently love morality, or at least to be seen or thought of as morally good, or to cite good morals as justification for their acts. This is a very strong passion that is much in evidence throughout human history to the present day.
But I see no evidence that theism is the only 'true' or 'proper' (or unique) source of actual moral 'rules'. Theism certainly has been the most dominant cited source throughout most of the last two thousand years or so, but that doesn't 'prove' anything other than the fact that 'theism' is generally quite popular.
By the same token, I'm well aware that several brilliant philosophers have explored the very question of establishing the basis of a moral system - one without the direct involvement of a God (Kant and Nietzsche being the most notable, but not unique examples). I personally don't like the results or ramifications of either of these enterprises (but I understand both of them to be mostly moral and rationally functional on a theoretical basis).
So where this all leaves us probably requires more words than I can type here in this post.
We still have not explained how morality coheres with a material world view.
It doesn't. Morality is a function of God. God is immaterial. Ergo, God-morality doesn't 'cohere' with a material world view.
You are begging the question. This is precisely the contradiction I am pointing out. I am asking a materialist to demonstrate how it is not a contradiction or acknowledge it as one.
Begging the question? The question begs that answer.
God-defined morality doesn't hold with materialist-morality by definition. They are contradictory. All materialists must reject God-based morality as a sham. Ergo, your question begs that answer.
Indeed, your whole question turns on the uniqueness and 'truth' status of God-defined morality. If that is 'real' then everything else is just silly. If you reject, or set aside, the God-defined unique 'truth' of morality, then all moralities become theoretically possible (or nonexistent). The only contradiction here is between 'god' or 'no-god'. If you grant one, then the other is a contradiction.
In other words, if you hold that a particular God is the only one true source or judge or goal of morality, then that's your answer.
If you hold that morality may have alternative sources of origin than God-given decree, then that's your answer.
More specifically, we have not justified life as sacred, the begging axiom.
Indeed. Perhaps this is because it isn't actually sacred?
Holding life to be sacred seems to be a 'polite fiction' of humans. Humans rarely actually adhere to this in reality (as Iamme's attempts to dodge my examples show).
I fervently disagree. The right to life (except with regard to abortion) and freedom is the fundamental moral ideal of western culture, is it not?
It is a political posture certainly. And it is a popular conception, I'll grant that too.
But its not very real. The right to life doesn't really exist. It is a 'polite fiction' like most other things considered 'rights'. You have these 'rights' until the government chooses to deny them (or your fellow citizens choose to do so). Thus, 'rights' do exist, just that I know of no 'right' that is inviolate, and thus, 'rights' are no different than any other law or statute we make. We try to follow them as rules, and 'we as a whole' usually do, but we generally also make lots of excuses for the exceptions we permit.
Capital punishment, vigilante justice and legal war are all clear examples of the 'right to life' being routinely denied - with duly acknowledged 'moral' rules invoked to support these violations of the 'right to life'.
And one need hardly point out that this 'right to life' applies only to humans and most specifically does not apply to any other lifeform that can almost be killed at will (and held to be 'morally correct').
We get 'natural selection' from nature.
I was asking where we get morality from if not from natural selection...
Slight confusion of terms here. Humans perhaps get their passion for 'morality' from natural selection. I'd not dispute that (I'm with Nietzsche - man is a moral animal). But this is only the 'impetus' for having morality.
However, it is the 'rules' or 'content' of the morality that is in question here, and that comes from human artifice, society, culture and your parents.
Kind of... its still a personal choice to go off to war or to sacrifice your life; it is not mandated by the culture. I think civilization just happens to benefit from this coincidence.
No, not necessarily mandated these days (though it most certainly used to be). But the choice is presented and made available and social reinforcements are used to encourage you - certainly money is not the prime motivator here.
And civilization most certainly does not necessarily benefit from the actuality war (indeed, it is probably quite rare). Civilization does perhaps benefit from our human passion and planning for war, that I'll accept, but not the actuality of war - that's just too destructive and murderous to be considered essentially good.
