Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 08:13 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No, it isn't.

Is it wrong to eat a bacon cheeseburger?

According to my doctor it is, since I have high cholesterol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 08:13 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But my point is by the mother saying it's wrong instead of using terminology like harmful, it's propagates the mental picture of a right/wrong morality.

Maybe to some very dimwitted child, who can't distinguish between various iterations of wrong, and needs it spelled out to him and each and every time, or he'll default to assuming it's meant morally.

Oftentimes harm (in a health sense) is iterated to a child in a very simplistic way like saying something is dirty, to not eat dirty things, like candy from the floor, or actual dirt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 08:46 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2015 08:53 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 08:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 07:50 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So more of the, IT HAST TO, be considered objective or else chaos would ensue...

No. A view rejected by Ruse:

"Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner."

Quote:There isn't any need for this, it has to be viewed as objective talk, or illusionary terms.

Who said anything about need?

I said a thing about need. Because you constantly keep using the terms in that way and even your article of Ruse did. Saying it HAS to here, "It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down"

So I don't get your first part or what you think you are saying by NO. I'm saying exactly what he is saying here. He thinks that without the objective view of morality, it's basically not gonna hold together.

Do you honestly not think people are programmed to understand things in a black/white thinking by how people raise their kids? You really are resistant to that? Part of the whole classic "teenage angst" concept is based around teenagers realizing the world isn't so right and wrong despite their upbringing and being conflicted by it. It's a significant premise of the James Dean movies especially the reiteration of Steinbeck novel East of Eden. Which yes, has many intentional biblical allusions as the name would apply. It's a classic angst confliction with the way morality is presented. Obviously most people wouldn't take dirt as a moral issue but there times you have to sit with a preschooler and teach her to not hit the other students or take their toys and help them understand the moral implications of it. You can ingrain their perspective and view of things by if you tell them, don't do that It's Wrong. or don't do that, it's hurtful and harmfull to that kid and you wouldn't want it done to you, so try to be your best. Our language, literally and figuratively alters how we come to view things.

"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
27-05-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 08:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I said a thing about need. Because you constantly keep using the terms in that way and even your article of Ruse did. Saying it HAS to here, "It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down"

And you forgot the part that I quoted:

""Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner.""

Quote:So I don't get your first part or what you think you are saying by NO. I'm saying exactly what he is saying here. He thinks that without the objective view of morality, it's basically not gonna hold together.

Uhm, no he doesn't. A point he made clear in the above quote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
TheBeardedDude Wrote:Incorrect. I never said or suggested that behavior itself is heritable in the same way genes are.

Here's where the confusion lies, then; I've emphasized the passage that muddies the waters.:

TheBeardedDude Wrote:You don't think behaviors are related to your genetics?

(I'll give you a hint, Dawkins is correct)

TheBeardedDude Wrote:As for analogies and being imperfect, that is something I'd assume is a given.

Of course. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that an analogy can be so loose as to have limited or no utility.

Don't misunderstand me; I generally agree with you. But you're hurting your own points with unclear verbiage.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And I'd have thought my analogies were straightforward. But Tomasia either did not or would not understand them.

I think the problem is that use of the word "genetic" as quoted above.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:Such as societies developing independent of one another and these societies are new niches with similar selection pressures, regardless of the population or geography, etc. Resulting in a convergent evolution of moral behaviors that are similar, despite there being no migration from one culture to another for direct sharing of these morals.

So, a South American culture could develop a set of moral behaviors that are similar to Chinese cultures or African cultures or any other other population occupying a similar niche.

Put this way, it is much clearer, thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
27-05-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 09:51 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Yeah, sorry. Sometimes I'll start a post and then start thinking through the whole idea while I'm writing, and the whole thing is just my inner monologue on the thing while I think it through.

[...]

I'm not sure where the point is exactly that it seems we're talking past eachother, but it seems as though we all are.

It's cool, there's much misunderstanding going on in this thread, and I own a share of it too.

(27-05-2015 05:43 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I only argue that you could never make a true statement about the world by describing something as good or evil.

This is your opinion, yes. My opinion is that one can make such a statement even though morality is subjective simply by understanding that calling something "evil" is a subjective judgement.

(27-05-2015 05:43 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  To suggest that murder simply for the fun of it, IS evil, is about as absurd as suggesting that a baseball is kind.

No, it's not. Suggesting that an action which has a dramatic effect on the life of a human is the equivalent of the passive quality of an inanimate object is silly and reveals a startling lack of perspective.

Also, you never did answer my question, so I shall repeat it: How can you say that this world is "fucked-up" without reference to morality? Put another way, how is that not a moral judgement? If you think killing has no moral dimension at all, as your comparison above would indicate, then you cannot use murder in your assessment. It follows that you cannot use any human treatment of any other human in calling this world "fucked-up."

And that means that you're making a moral judgement without having, or at least admitting to have, any moral basis at all.

Such muddled thinking is useless for the purposes of this conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 08:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 08:13 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No, it isn't.

Is it wrong to eat a bacon cheeseburger?

According to my doctor it is, since I have high cholesterol.

But is it always wrong to eat a cheeseburger? Even if you're nearly staved and it's the only food you have that can keep you alive? Is eating a cheeseburger still wrong even in this scenario? If not (i.e. context matters), then the act of 'eating a cheeseburger' is not objectively wrong.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 08:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I said a thing about need. Because you constantly keep using the terms in that way and even your article of Ruse did. Saying it HAS to here, "It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down"

And you forgot the part that I quoted:

""Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner.""

Quote:So I don't get your first part or what you think you are saying by NO. I'm saying exactly what he is saying here. He thinks that without the objective view of morality, it's basically not gonna hold together.

Uhm, no he doesn't. A point he made clear in the above quote.

What? You can't be living in a Normal Happy Manner if you don't believe Morality is Objective?

Believing your morals aren't objective isn't believing they have no "rational foundation"

This isn't a refutation of his own comments before. He's not stating what he said before was wrong.

I don't know what you think he is saying or what you think I'm saying, but you aren't going anywhere that is connected.

"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
27-05-2015, 09:25 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But is it always wrong to eat a cheeseburger? Even if you're nearly staved and it's the only food you have that can keep you alive? Is eating a cheeseburger still wrong even in this scenario? If not (i.e. context matters), then the act of 'eating a cheeseburger' is not objectively wrong.

Does the fact that I'm starving, mean that eating a cheeseburger will not raise my cholesterol?

When a doctor tells me it's wrong, if all wrong means here "is that it would raise my cholesterol", than yes it's still wrong in this sense.

If someone held a gun up to my head, and told me to write the answer to 2+2, as 5. My answer is still wrong mathematically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 09:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
TheBeardedDude Wrote:Incorrect. I never said or suggested that behavior itself is heritable in the same way genes are.

Here's where the confusion lies, then; I've emphasized the passage that muddies the waters.:

TheBeardedDude Wrote:You don't think behaviors are related to your genetics?

(I'll give you a hint, Dawkins is correct)

TheBeardedDude Wrote:As for analogies and being imperfect, that is something I'd assume is a given.

Of course. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that an analogy can be so loose as to have limited or no utility.

Don't misunderstand me; I generally agree with you. But you're hurting your own points with unclear verbiage.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:And I'd have thought my analogies were straightforward. But Tomasia either did not or would not understand them.

I think the problem is that use of the word "genetic" as quoted above.

TheBeardedDude Wrote:Such as societies developing independent of one another and these societies are new niches with similar selection pressures, regardless of the population or geography, etc. Resulting in a convergent evolution of moral behaviors that are similar, despite there being no migration from one culture to another for direct sharing of these morals.

So, a South American culture could develop a set of moral behaviors that are similar to Chinese cultures or African cultures or any other other population occupying a similar niche.

Put this way, it is much clearer, thanks.

"You don't think behaviors are related to your genetics?"

My phrasing does appear to have missed the boat here. I meant something more like, "You don't think that behaviors are heritable in a similar way to genetics?"

"Put this way, it is much clearer, thanks."
Which is what I meant by convergent evolution of morality.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: