Morality from Nature?
Greg Koukl answers the question, “Can we derive morality from nature?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
People have committed worser acts in the name of “morality”
You are failing to acknowledge that it is your capacity for love that has you ignore bible passages like "Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones" and your fear of your own sexuality that has you cling to the notion that homosexuality as a biblically evil deed is worth hanging onto despite you ability to reject some of the other passages.
It would make sense to reconcile this anomaly even if its only in the privacy of your own mind.
Hmm, I didn't get that message from from this video. The reason humans don't behave like the nature you listed is because we have a highly developed brain and neocortex and a high ratio of neocortex in our brain in relation to all the other stuff (200% that of primates and even more compared to less evolved mammals). So no, morals are not derived from "observation" alone, our ability to think about what "we ought to do" and reason deeply is unique to highly evolved brains. That is nature.
To tie your response to the video, what do you think is the telos of a human being?
A lot of people would argue that properly understood one can derive morality from nature insofar as we observe that natural things have a telos or an end. Even though things often fall short to the telos we are still capable of figuring out what that telos is.
His point is that observing nature does not supply us with morals we would intuitively hold. Nature is brute, unforgiving not knowing know right from wrong. It simply is. A lion kills a zebra. Males forcibly copulate with females. Parents kill children. We observe. We acknowledge. And yet, when humans behave we are not simply guided by how things are but by what we ought to do. We evaluate and therefore need a normative reference point.
While "it's just natural" isn't a sufficient justification by itself, it isn't a bad place to start either. After all, we would not want to do things that don't feel natural to us, would we?
Sneaky video doesn't really say anything valuable at all. Why don't you challenge or assert a premise for an argument? Something clear. Or at least propose an argument. Its hard for me to even figure out whether to thumb up or down because I can't really even tell what position you are taking. In fact morality did come from nature by the very fact that nature encompasses all physical things we know of, can measure or interact with. We simply evolved past some more primitive animals "nature".
Please stop spamming my inbox.
I do not compare homosexuals (or anyone else) with animals. That was your argument, not mine, so do not turn the tables to act as though I am the one making the comparison.
But please be consistent. If one behavior is okay 'because animals do it', then so must other behaviors be okay on that same basis.
Again, it is the pro-homosexuality side that so often brings up this line of reasoning. Yet they pick and choose which behaviors they excuse on this basis.
Thank you.
I never made the claim you imputed to me, namely, that Christianity's "objective morality" is "somehow an impetus toward a morally superior society." Please revoke your claim. That temptation to think that simply knowing what's right will lead to doing it was Plato's error, and human history obviously disproves it. Besides, my proposition–without truly objective morality, any moral action is ultimately amoral (or "goes")–is, I would think, generally accepted, whatever position you may hold.
Is there morality in censorship? Why was my comment deleted?
It’s about forcing society to validate a psychological state that contradicts basic evolution by pretending that it's "normal". Atheist philosopher & author Peter Singer sees nothing wrong with a society wants to breed children as organ donors On whose ultimate authority can we say he's wrong?
The idea is born out of secular & multicultural ideology, that demands that moral standards are at the whim of society. To get their way, gay activists attack those who reject their dubious lifestyle
The demand to recognize "gay marriage" is just a clever ploy to legitimize “alternate” and often dangerous forms of sexual gratification. It is an honorable thing to recognise the union of 2 committed adults but a totally different one to hijack “marriage” to condone rampantly dangerous behaviour in which adherents openly brag about multiple partners not in the 10s but 100s, behaviour that shortens life expectancy, spreads deadly diseases while being anti-family.
The silly claim that sexual preference comes down to genetic programming is self-defeating. If we're just a bunch of selfish genes as biologist Dawkins claims, sodomy would have to be a genetic aberration since survival & procreation are fundamental to the survival of the species.. If gays are going to claim morality is arbitrary, just a spinoff from sociobiological evolution then they must explain how polygamy, underage sex, pedophilia bestiality r not also defined by their DNA makeup.
Ah, good point!
Well, there actually are many people who advocate killing their young, i.e. abortion, so cannibalism doesn't seem so far off. When there is no objective morality, anything goes. It's just a matter of time before society collectively realizes that.
Yes, really take a good look at nature. I thank God we are made above the animals otherwise we are doomed to behave that way.So,then, that means I don't have to behave as an animal. I can rise above. It's just sad that so many choose to behave like animals.
It's always disturbing when people try to justify homosexuality by comparing themselves to animals.
Animals sometimes kill and eat their young too. But we don't see anyone advocating for that being acceptable, do we?
Why was my comment deleted?
Well, that's a radical claim about knowledge…
If you're saying morality exists then this "non-existent entity" as you claim, must actually exist. Otherwise, morality (Objective moral values and duties) doesn't exist.
Morality from a non-existent entity doesn't work either
The naturalistic fallacy come to mind.
Your right, an appeal to nature is not a good way to determine the morality of this subject. Even if an appeal to nature was the right way to go about it mammals are clearly designed to function in a heterosexual fashion.