Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 04:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We can make observations about populations and draw inferences about that population from a random sampling of that population.
If that is your method then great, at least that is something.
If I were interested in the validity of your inferences then I would ask for the underlying data and the method used to sample.
I mean, if you viewed a colony of 50 monkeys and saw two instances of two monkeys preening each other and you inferred that it was a moral obligation for monkeys in the colony to do so, I would then ask about the observed behaviors of the other 48 monkeys. I would question as to how you have concluded that the actions of these two reflect the obligations of the majority of monkeys.
I would ask if confirmation bias has infiltrated your inductions.
I certainly would have strong questions as to what is meant by "moral obligation" and how a couple of isolated action events by a minority can be elevated to an obligation on all monkeys within that group.

I think the conclusion would be poor science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 04:47 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 02:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unless that's what you mean when you say society believes that X is immoral. Like when we say Texans are very friendly. Or Californians are laid back, etc...
Well, not exactly.

With morality comes the “shoulds” and “oughts”.
If you are saying that within a particular society that gay sex is immoral then you are saying that people living within that society are morally obliged not to participate in gay sex.

But do gay people living in that society deem their love and physical expression to be immoral? Unless a church has confused them and warped their brain then no, they wouldn’t feel that obligation.

Society does not come with a set of subscribed morals.
Each individual gets to make that up for themselves as they see fit.


If you want to generalise, then word your phrase differently e.g. Texans tend to be friendly.
Or Kiwi’s tend to be accepting of various beliefs or non beliefs. Or that most kiwis think it is immoral to cheat on your wife/husband.

To claim that it is immoral within the NZ society to cheat on your spouse is certainly an overstatement and most likely just a projection of the claimant’s own moral beliefs. NZ doesn’t have a moral spokesman or a moral document of authority.

It's even talked about here repeatedly to no charge, the term morality and it's range isn't limited by the ought/should notions of morality. These topics aren't only focused on that version of it either.

When talking about the approval or personal moral values of people & groups It's talking about people's views of these moral actions and behaviors.

You apparently don't call it morality despite others calling it morality. Because it's still part of the philosophical meanings and discussion of morality. So what you even would instead call it I'm unaware of... just values I could guess, but I don't know. That's why I often do specify it as people's moral values.

When others sat morality it doesn't only equate obligation just because that's how you only want to interpret 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
05-04-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Don't be a dick.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 04:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 04:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We can make observations about populations and draw inferences about that population from a random sampling of that population.
If that is your method then great, at least that is something.
If I were interested in the validity of your inferences then I would ask for the underlying data and the method used to sample.
I mean, if you viewed a colony of 50 monkeys and saw two instances of two monkeys preening each other and you inferred that it was a moral obligation for monkeys in the colony to do so, I would then ask about the observed behaviors of the other 48 monkeys. I would question as to how you have concluded that the actions of these two reflect the obligations of the majority of monkeys.
I would ask if confirmation bias has infiltrated your inductions.
I certainly would have strong questions as to what is meant by "moral obligation" and how a couple of isolated action events by a minority can be elevated to an obligation on all monkeys within that group.

I think the conclusion would be poor science.

Morality is a behavior unique to society. It's an observation of human behaviors and beliefs in populations through time, as far as morality is defined it is unique to the human species.

Your monkey example is a red herring, so it's not relevant if your straw man is viewed as good or bad science by you. Not all actions fall into the same categories of behavior (which would be subjective in and of themselves).

What I would say is that human societies have viewed different actions and behaviors differently through time. Because just as a species can evolve, so can a society's morals. And behaviors, can evolve too.

Is slavery wrong? Depends on which human society you're looking at and what period of time you're looking at it, if you apply the moral understandings of those people in that place at that time. But you seem to be suggesting that moral questions are only viewed through the lense of today when looking at yesterday. I'd call that a poor study of history.



As I said in my example, it's the same sort of issue when defining a species. There are three common definitions of a species.
1) phylogenetic species concept (great but difficult for most living species and essentially impossible for fossils)
2) biological species concept (good for biologists but impossible for fossils)
3) morphological species concept (typically not used by biologists but it's all paleontologists have and it is highly subjective)

What one person would call two species, another may call one with the other as a subspecies. Another may call it one with ecophenotypic variation. Your suggestion would be akin to saying there is no species because there is variability among individuals. You could take this anarchistic view and simply purge the terms from your vocabulary, but this would be poor science because species (in any of the above three scenarios) still have functional uses when describing populations and trends through time.

Same with morality in societies through time.

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
05-04-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 04:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 04:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We can make observations about populations and draw inferences about that population from a random sampling of that population.
If that is your method then great, at least that is something.
If I were interested in the validity of your inferences then I would ask for the underlying data and the method used to sample.
I mean, if you viewed a colony of 50 monkeys and saw two instances of two monkeys preening each other and you inferred that it was a moral obligation for monkeys in the colony to do so, I would then ask about the observed behaviors of the other 48 monkeys. I would question as to how you have concluded that the actions of these two reflect the obligations of the majority of monkeys.
I would ask if confirmation bias has infiltrated your inductions.
I certainly would have strong questions as to what is meant by "moral obligation" and how a couple of isolated action events by a minority can be elevated to an obligation on all monkeys within that group.

I think the conclusion would be poor science.

Another reason your monkey example is a red herring, is because you're equating any behavior with moral behavior. I don't understand how or why you would define morality that way. And I don't know anyone who has define morality that way.

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
05-04-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What I would say is that human societies have viewed different actions and behaviors differently through time. Because just as a species can evolve, so can a society's morals. And behaviors, can evolve too.
Societies morals can’t evolve because a society cannot have moral beliefs. Only individuals can have moral beliefs.

(05-04-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Is slavery wrong? Depends on which human society you're looking at and what period of time you're looking at it,
No, It depends on the person that you are talking to.
Person A might say that slavery is immoral and person B might say that slavery is moral. It is not relevant which society or time period that these people live within.

(05-04-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But you seem to be suggesting that moral questions are only viewed through the lense of today when looking at yesterday. I'd call that a poor study of history.
No, I’m saying that morality can only be determined by either asking a person what their personal belief is or by reading a document in which a person declares their own personal moral belief.

No person is the spokesman or moral authority for a given society. If Julius Caesar says that slavery is moral that does not mean that slavery is moral in the Rome society under his rule.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 05:12 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 05:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What I would say is that human societies have viewed different actions and behaviors differently through time. Because just as a species can evolve, so can a society's morals. And behaviors, can evolve too.
Societies morals can’t evolve because a society cannot have moral beliefs. Only individuals can have moral beliefs.

(05-04-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Is slavery wrong? Depends on which human society you're looking at and what period of time you're looking at it,
No, It depends on the person that you are talking to.
Person A might say that slavery is immoral and person B might say that slavery is moral. It is not relevant which society or time period that these people live within.

(05-04-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But you seem to be suggesting that moral questions are only viewed through the lense of today when looking at yesterday. I'd call that a poor study of history.
No, I’m saying that morality can only be determined by either asking a person what their personal belief is or by reading a document in which a person declares their own personal moral belief.

No person is the spokesman or moral authority for a given society. If Julius Caesar says that slavery is moral that does not mean that slavery is moral in the Rome society under his rule.

You're explicitly ignoring the way I define morality in order to reject what I say. This is a pointless and fruitless discussion of me trying to answer your questions.

Your objections are still akin to saying that a species (or genus or family or order or phylum) doesn't and can't exist because individual traits and characters may vary. Personally, I like definitions of terms that serve a purpose instead of taking such anarchistic views.

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
05-04-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
For instance, show me where I ever said or implied that any one person speaks for the morals of a given society?

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
05-04-2016, 05:19 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Trying to discuss morality with you is akin to discussing climate change with someone who defines a climate as synonymous with the word "weather."

It doesn't matter what I say or how, you outright reject it because of the way you define your pet term.

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
05-04-2016, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2016 05:25 PM by Banjo.)
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 08:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You hurl insults because you don't have a choice in the matter, you can't help yourself.

Is da devil making us do it??? We have no choice and yet you blame us?

You do know where you are right? You are amongst rationalists. You are the opposite. You are a believer in fairytales. Grow up. Seriously. It's just sad mate.

Quote:Just like every other unpleasant shithead who can't help but take their shit out on others.

Ooh, I've never been so shocked! Such a fine and noble believer calls people names like shithead?

Quote:You might try and making it sound more noble, but you're just a dickhead, not some protector of forum integrity.

Now it's "dickhead".

Er, they teach you to persuade people with such words at your church? Where do you go, Westborro church?

Quote:I doubt you'd be proud to have you son look at your behavior here, or describing it as something he should emulate.

Er, see above. Your own behavior is a disgrace. As a role model you fail. In more ways than one.

Quote:I don't tend to hurl insults at people routinely. I might annoy people, but I don't often try and insult them. You're just a special case here.

See above for proof of this lie. That's you being quoted buddy.

You have no real arguments with which to face us. So, you resort to name calling, strawmanning etc. You are but a worthless child attempting to interact with adults at a serious dinner party discussion. The topic is Tolstoy and you want to discuss Where's Waldo.

Begone you worthless troll. Perhaps flay yourself or something. Maybe strike your thumb with a hammer for penance.

You are pathetic.

I did not even need to swear. Unlike you.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: