Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 01:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-05-2015 01:02 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  What we do regarding morality -- trying to grapple with how best to live with each other and judge others -- is exactly the same REGARDLESS of whether it is subjective or objective!
Or,
If we accept that morality does not exist we then stop judging others against our own opinion of what is moral and immoral. We stop passing judgement. We leave gays alone, we leave polygamists alone, we let scientists make discoveries with stem cell research, we make prostitution legal.
We let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact us i.e. we don't let them eat us or our babies but we do let them have abortions or pay for sex or get married to a same gender partner, because it is none of our business to pass judgement or to interfere.

In this vision, I still don't see how there isn't the moral value of harm still being applied. It's judging harm done upon others by others as a moral negative.

"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
25-05-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  In this vision, I still don't see how there isn't the moral value of harm still being applied. It's judging harm done upon others by others as a moral negative.
Its because that is the way that you and most people think about things.

We are conditioned to think that everything ties back to a moral judgement based on moral value.

It is unnecessary to do this. But you would first have to break the habit of moral thinking. It's more obvious when it is about something that perhaps you personally don't get affected with such as prostitution. Is it moral or immoral? Let's just say that it is irrelevant whether it is moral or immoral. If other people want to participate, then that is their business not yours, it's not your place to judge.

Obviously when someone attempts to harm you, it is your business to defend yourself, much in the way you would defend yourself against an attacking lion. You don't deem the lion to be immoral, you deem it to be dangerous, you are motivated by self preservation rather than moral obligation to defend yourself and to stop or harm your attacker (regardless if they are an immoral person or an amoral lion)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 01:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-05-2015 01:02 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  What we do regarding morality -- trying to grapple with how best to live with each other and judge others -- is exactly the same REGARDLESS of whether it is subjective or objective!
Or,
If we accept that morality does not exist we then stop judging others against our own opinion of what is moral and immoral. We stop passing judgement. We leave gays alone, we leave polygamists alone, we let scientists make discoveries with stem cell research, we make prostitution legal.
We let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact us i.e. we don't let them eat us or our babies but we do let them have abortions or pay for sex or get married to a same gender partner, because it is none of our business to pass judgement or to interfere.

Well morality obviously exists AT THE LEAST as a social convention -- that is, as an idea (correct or incorrect) at large in our society which greatly impacts everyone. The question is, does it exist as more than that?

If we decide that there is an objective morality and that it disapproves of judging others (because if there's no morality and it makes you feel good, why NOT judge others?), and which demands that we stop persecuting gays, interfering with scientists, etc... or just simply doesn't mandate any of that... then the result is exactly what you just said. So what's the point in arguing about it?

[Image: 1423638818910.jpg]

NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD FOR THE WIN!

EDIT: Also, I hereby declare an intentional derail. Rather than arguing about whether morality is objective or subjective, I am arguing about whether to argue about whether morality is objective or subjective. If you wish to argue with me about whether I should argue about whether to argue whether morality is objective or subjective, feel free.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
25-05-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 02:08 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  If you wish to argue with me about whether I should argue about whether to argue whether morality is objective or subjective, feel free.

I don't think it'd be morally correct to do that.
Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 01:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-05-2015 01:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  In this vision, I still don't see how there isn't the moral value of harm still being applied. It's judging harm done upon others by others as a moral negative.
Its because that is the way that you and most people think about things.

We are conditioned to think that everything ties back to a moral judgement based on moral value.

It is unnecessary to do this. But you would first have to break the habit of moral thinking. It's more obvious when it is about something that perhaps you personally don't get affected with such as prostitution. Is it moral or immoral? Let's just say that it is irrelevant whether it is moral or immoral. If other people want to participate, then that is their business not yours, it's not your place to judge.

Obviously when someone attempts to harm you, it is your business to defend yourself, much in the way you would defend yourself against an attacking lion. You don't deem the lion to be immoral, you deem it to be dangerous, you are motivated by self preservation rather than moral obligation to defend yourself and to stop or harm your attacker (regardless if they are an immoral person or an amoral lion)

I don't think that is the case at all... a Lions actions can be moral/immoral in the same way. You see people speaking of wolves/dogs in evaluations of them in that manner plenty of times.

Morals doesn't need to mean something Grand or something objectively true.. it's just what is valued. Humans and especially other mammals have shared values that are based on things like harm, tradition, purity, or fairness.

You can't say the values don't exist. Morality is just the label of that evolutionary situation. They exist for social creatures and they differ on how individuals or groups evaluate certain values for whatever reasons, but they're there.

"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
25-05-2015, 03:25 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 01:00 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Sorry if you're too stupid to parse what words like 'subjective' and 'objective' mean when used in context... Dodgy

Ok, since I'm obviously far too stupid, could you please apply objectivity to subjective morality and tell me whether or not it's ok to have horses for slaves, and whether or not abortion should be legal?

I'm sure this will be extremely easy for you, and I'm sure you'll give us an answer real quick-like instead of continued name calling, which kind of makes you look like the dumbest person on this site, but I'm sure you just do that just so people will leave you alone. I mean, come on, if people really knew how smart you are, they would be hounding you all the time for advice on what to think. You have to do the name calling so people will think you're dumb and leave you alone...I get it.

Thanks for your help great smart one....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 03:34 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
[Image: 4vo321_th.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
25-05-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 03:25 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Ok, since I'm obviously far too stupid, could you please apply objectivity to subjective morality and tell me whether or not it's ok to have horses for slaves, and whether or not abortion should be legal?

Beats the hell outta me. What say you?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 04:19 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2015 04:23 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Atheism and morality
(25-05-2015 03:25 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-05-2015 01:00 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Sorry if you're too stupid to parse what words like 'subjective' and 'objective' mean when used in context... Dodgy
Ok, since I'm obviously far too stupid, could you please apply objectivity to subjective morality and tell me whether or not it's ok to have horses for slaves, and whether or not abortion should be legal?


Hey fucknuts, how about try reading everything I said instead of just selectively quoting one part out of context? It might answer your damn question for you.

Like, for example...


Being dishonest is neither moral or immoral, but rather it's morality is colored by its context. Lying for personal gain at the expense of others is fraud, and if done purely out of greed many would consider it to be immoral. However, much like the aforementioned Jewish smuggling, there are plenty of circumstances where lying your ass off is the most moral thing you can do in a given situation.

Context always matters.



And...


Also, you completely fucking missed the point. You can subjectively pick a criteria (for example, suffering), and from there you can amass facts (objective bits of information) to make a judgement call and determine if in a certain circumstance an action is more moral (alleviates net suffering) or less moral (causes net suffering) than another. That is how you apply objectivity to subjective morality.


So, what is the fucking context here? By what criteria are we basing our ethical judgement on? Moral judgments made in a vacuum mean little.


So between your use of 'slavery' in reference to horses (seriously, either you're trying to be purposely provocative by apply that term to animals, you're an overtly zealous PETA member, or both) and your complete lack of supplemental detains that might in any way inform a reasoned and contextual judgement in this case, I have to simply reiterate that you are too fucking stupid to see the point once again.

Thanks for proving my earlier point.


(25-05-2015 03:25 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm sure this will be extremely easy for you, and I'm sure you'll give us an answer real quick-like instead of continued name calling, which kind of makes you look like the dumbest person on this site, but I'm sure you just do that just so people will leave you alone.


Nope, I save my vitriol for pretentious cock-suckers like you. Drinking Beverage


(25-05-2015 03:25 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I mean, come on, if people really knew how smart you are, they would be hounding you all the time for advice on what to think. You have to do the name calling so people will think you're dumb and leave you alone...I get it.

Thanks for your help great smart one....


Hey, you opened your vacuous face-hole and showed just how big of a empty bottomless pit it was. What's that old saw again?

[Image: 8-it-is-better-to-remain-silent-at-the-r...ught-a.png]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-05-2015, 07:26 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
http://magazine.biola.edu/article/11-sum...thout-god/

"It’s been fascinating to watch the very vocal and prolific new atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, make a case for objective morality."

At least I'm not the only one noticing this shift.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: