Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 01:43 PM)jennybee Wrote:  I don't think they like honor killing--I think it is done as a way to prevent shame on the family and to induce some sort of societal control.

I'm not asking about what they mean by wrong, but what you mean by it. I want you to consider and articulate your own moral perceptions not there's. So I ask that you return to my previous question with that in mind.

But to clarify, those who engage in honor killing value honor, their communal reputation, more so that often family ties, or even their own lives, or lives of others in some cases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 01:02 PM)jennybee Wrote:  I am not sure why you are bringing up fashion in a debate about murder? You can change your outfit. If you murder someone they are dead, fini.

If you are asking if fashion is subjective--yes. Are cultural mores subjective--yes. I don't really see the correlation beyond that.

I'm asking because I'm never too sure what atheists mean by subjective, particularly when they try and distinguish moral subjectivity from other forms of subjectivity. You point out that one involves killing and the other involves outfits, which to me is like pointing out that the difference between food and movie preferences, are that one involves movies and the other involves food.

All I am trying to clear up, is to see if when you say murder is wrong, or honor killing is wrong, that all it means is that you don't like it. Such as when you tell someone who supports honor killing that it's wrong, you're just expressing something you don't like against what they do like.

For me the actual difference of this topic you keep bringing up to. Like Moral issues being the same as taste, is that the moral ones, are actually fit to a moral value.

I and many "western" cultural people would think honor killings are morally undesired because they see the harm done. There is an act of harm, and harm being a moral value, deem it a poor moral action.

Though I think the people doing honor killings are respecting tradition/loyalty moral values higher. And they validate the action as it is relevant to that inspire of it still being inflicting harm.

I may not like most country music or general top 40 pop songs, but I don't think there is any moral value involved in whether or not you like X music. There isn't a shared evolutionary trait like valuing authority, fairness, harm, etc. That is involved in what taste you have.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 01:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But the point of the experiment is that there is no cold water. The point is that no monkeys remain who experience any non monkey retribution consequences.
They aren't reacting out of fear of getting wet, they are reacting out of habit, perhaps out of belief that it is taboo to go for the banana, perhaps a belief that the banana is sacred. The real reason to not go for the banana has been lost and is no longer discoverable.

Yes, the monkey doing the beating are reacting out of habit. Those who refrain from going up the ladder are acting out of a fear of a beating.

That's why i suggested a third monkey, not acting out of fear, or out of habit in this sense, but out empathy. One who refrains from going up the ladder in the original scenario not of fear of a beating, but out of concern for other monkeys who get douses with water, or in other words out of empathy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 01:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 01:43 PM)jennybee Wrote:  I don't think they like honor killing--I think it is done as a way to prevent shame on the family and to induce some sort of societal control.

I'm not asking about what they mean by wrong, but what you mean by it. I want you to consider and articulate your own moral perceptions not there's. So I ask that you return to my previous question with that in mind.

But to clarify, those who engage in honor killing value honor, their communal reputation, more so that often family ties, or even their own lives, or lives of others in some cases.

I thought I answered that? Maybe not lol. Subjective is based on cultural mores--what a culture deems appropriate and then is followed through by society. Cultures vary which can cause mores to vary. I wouldn't want to elongate my neck like the Kayan women of Burma--but in their culture that is seen as something that is highly attractive. Wrong/right culturally speaking are subjective terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 01:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There isn't a shared evolutionary trait like valuing authority, fairness, harm, etc. That is involved in what taste you have.

What is this shared evolutionary trait here? Is it only shared by those who opposed honor killing, or shared by those who are for it?


Quote:For me the actual difference of this topic you keep bringing up to. Like Moral issues being the same as taste, is that the moral ones, are actually fit to a moral value.

I and many "western" cultural people would think honor killings are morally undesired because they see the harm done. There is an act of harm, and harm being a moral value, deem it a poor moral action.

Would't the family whose name is being dishonored, whose social reputation is taking a beating being harmed here as well?

Quote:Though I think the people doing honor killings are respecting tradition/loyalty moral values higher. And they validate the action as it is relevant to that inspire of it still being inflicting harm.

No, they value their reputation and standing in the community, their honor. In some cultures, like my own who place a very high value on these things, disgracing your family is likely to met with very hard consequences, like your family disowning you.

But who is to say that taking someone's life for dishonoring you is wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
Tomasia, where are we going with this secular morality thing? How many atheists do you know are running around torturing babies for fun?

Seriously, why is it I don't see tons of atheists acting out their favorite scenes from Grand Theft Auto?

(25-05-2015 04:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What would this reasoning an atheists would give, for why torturing a baby just for the fun of it is wrong?

Is the wrong aspect of this comparable to factual statement, such as as 2+2=5 is wrong? Is non-factual wrong like wearing a certain blouse with a certain top is wrong?

Or is there some undisclosed sense of wrong, that is neither of these examples and somewhere in the middle?

First off, really? "For fun"? I'm not even sure those words are needed.

Now, anyway, let's be clear about this "Morality from God" debate. This is not even a debate about proving that there is a God. Nor is it trying to be. This debate is simply trying to prove the need for the belief in God.

That being said, maybe you can see why many (I would say most if I had some references) atheists find this claim about morality from God to be a very disturbing one. We can't prove God exists, but you're going to try to prove that morality can only be made clear for a society that believes in God. A God that might not even be there.


Torturing Babies

Morality for Religion VS. Morality for Atheism

God said it - For religion morality is simple: God said it, that's why. This is not good enough for atheists.
Children are our future - So ask God (or his followers) why He thinks torturing babies is wrong? Even for many religious people, the "because I said so" still isn't good enough. So the reasoning is that babies are new life, they're the future. We bring harm to them, we harm our future. But the atheist can come to this conclusion without God.
Children are our creation - For God, this explanation is obvious. Everything is created by God, so that's why He values that no harm comes to His creation (I'm sure some atheists will point out the problems with that sentence, but that's not the argument right now). Atheists can come to this conclusion as well, at least as far as their own offspring is concerned. I don't need God to tell me to love and care for my kids. But even if they aren't my kids, they're still a potential part of my future.
The "Awe" Factor - (Related to the two previous points). You can say God built it into us, I say it's evolution. But (as someone else pointed out already) we are given this need to adore all "new life". That's why even when it's not our own offspring we still adore the little ones of others. Hell, not even just humans. We love the crap out of baby animal videos. Kittens are considered more adorable than adult cats. Torturing cuteness is unacceptable. I don't need God for that.
Safe Environment - This is the most basic reason for a society to come to an agreement about morals. I want to live in a safe environment. I don't need God to come to this conclusion. So I want a system set up to ensure this safe environment. To find out that someone tortured a baby, makes those who want a safe environment feel unsafe, especially if action isn't taken.
Consequences - For the screwed up individual that still wants to torture babies, they still have to consider the consequences. For the society that is trying to maintain a safe environment, they probably have consequences in place. Jail. Execution. Therapy. Whatever. Of course, religion simply takes it a step further by inserting a perfect supernatural entity that has more lasting and more devastating consequences: eternal damnation, fire from above, making the earth swallow people whole, being punished for the sins of others (example: for the guy who tortures babies, not only is he punished, but so is all his family and descendants).
Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is not something you need to be a theist to understand. It's just good math. In fact there are other versions of this. Like: rub my back, I'll rub yours. A bit less poetic, yes, but it gets the job done. Not sure how this applies to babies, which is why it's further down the list. The baby might not know what I did, but the family will.
The Agreement - This one here is actually the most important. In considering all of the above, we as a society need to come to an agreement on morality. The agreement is more important than the proposal. I could propose that we only drink orange juice on Friday, from 1PM to 2:33PM. As a society, we have to come to an agreement on whether or not to enforce that. If pass the law, my name may go down in history as the guy who brought it up, but I doubt I'll be remembered much more than the law itself.

The Difference - The difference between the atheist and the religious is the religion specific laws (like "thou shalt love the Lord thy God" and "keep the Sabbath day"), and that while atheists believe in earthly consequences, religious people believe in supernatural consequences. I see supernatural consequences as simply a fear tactic to those who are trying to get away with something. If you escape earthly consequences there's no way you'll escape the supernatural consequences. It's a fear tactic that may work, but since we can't prove the supernatural exists, this tactic is rather transparent and some may logically see little use in it.

In the end, morality is not simple math (that's right, not as simple as 2+2=4). As I said, the most important thing about morality, is the agreement we come to as a society as to what morality means. Even from a religious point of view this is how it is. You may have religious leaders tell you what God says is right and wrong, but you end up making the decision to agree with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 02:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 01:52 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There isn't a shared evolutionary trait like valuing authority, fairness, harm, etc. That is involved in what taste you have.

What is this shared evolutionary trait here? Is it only shared by those who opposed honor killing, or shared by those who are for it?


Quote:For me the actual difference of this topic you keep bringing up to. Like Moral issues being the same as taste, is that the moral ones, are actually fit to a moral value.

I and many "western" cultural people would think honor killings are morally undesired because they see the harm done. There is an act of harm, and harm being a moral value, deem it a poor moral action.

Would't the family whose name is being dishonored, whose social reputation is taking a beating being harmed here as well?

Quote:Though I think the people doing honor killings are respecting tradition/loyalty moral values higher. And they validate the action as it is relevant to that inspire of it still being inflicting harm.

No, they value their reputation and standing in the community, their honor. In some cultures, like my own who place a very high value on these things, disgracing your family is likely to met with very hard consequences, like your family disowning you.

But who is to say that taking someone's life for dishonoring you is wrong?

These traits are present in our species and many other familial mammals. It's just that we don't all judge each moral value with the same importance.

The family is being harmed in a way as well. Not a physical harm as much as a harm via cultural tradition and social norms. I don't get what you mean by saying NO there, their honor is the case of which values such as tradition or loyalty come into play. It's potentially fit with social ousting, which is part of the loyalty aspect of a community. It's a respect to the authority of the community, well some people don't care for that so it wouldn't be a situation they think that should come into play. Some do, that's how this works, different people and different groups view different moral values differently.

A person who physically can say whatever they want can say whatever they want. If you want to say it's HARMFUL, unfair, unjust, .. you can. Anyone who can, can. What does, who is to say even get at? That old type of comment is so arbitrary and leads nowhere.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 02:03 PM)WalkingSnake Wrote:  Tomasia, where are we going with this secular morality thing? How many atheists do you know are running around torturing babies for fun?

I know of none.

But my question is not in relationship to do you believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun, which everyone here would agree is wrong (beside Stevel, who doesn't believe in morality), but the meaning behind claiming that this wrong is subjective/relative rather than objective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 02:03 PM)WalkingSnake Wrote:  Tomasia, where are we going with this secular morality thing? How many atheists do you know are running around torturing babies for fun?

I know of none.

But my question is not in relationship to do you believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun, which everyone here would agree is wrong (beside Stevel, who doesn't believe in morality), but the meaning behind claiming that this wrong is subjective/relative rather than objective.

I don't believe it's "WRONG" either. I keep telling you this. There is differences from how you use the terms and right/wrong do imply there is a right/wrong of an objective sense.

I'd say it's harmful to torture babies. Very much so. And that unless in a outlandish hypothetical there isn't any other rational benefit that can come from doing it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-05-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
I'm not even sure what we are talking about anymore lol Tongue

Fashion/Torturing babies/Food/Movies/Murder/Honor Killings/Cooperation

Weeping I'm so confused
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: