Morality

[houseofcantor]

Glad to see I was wrong about you, A.

[Erxomai]

(29-12-2012 01:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Glad to see I was wrong about you, A.

Aren't you wrong about most people, Prophet?

[houseofcantor]

(29-12-2012 02:49 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 01:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Glad to see I was wrong about you, A.

Aren't you wrong about most people, Prophet?

Wasn't wrong about you, preacher.

[Erxomai]

[cheapthrillseaker]

(29-12-2012 04:36 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  

Now get back to work, preacher.

[FZUMedia]

Universally preferable behaviour. For example, a world cant function by definition if everyone is a thief- but the world can function beautifully if everyone creates/trades/negotiates. Non initiation of violence is at the centre of my life.

[namiloveyou]

(29-12-2012 07:21 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Universally preferable behaviour. For example, a world cant function by definition if everyone is a thief- but the world can function beautifully if everyone creates/trades/negotiates. Non initiation of violence is at the centre of my life.

lol.. the man you learned that from seems a bit mentally off to me.

As all in the human sphere is subjective, how can anything be "universally preferred"?

Granted, society may break down if everybody stole. But some do steal, based on morality or pathology (kleptomaniacs).

[fstratzero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

I honestly feel like the majority of ethical theories are lacking or can be manipulated to exercise morally good actions that would be detrimental. So it's hard to choose one.

[namiloveyou]

(28-12-2012 03:49 PM)Austavion Wrote:  This question has been plaguing me for a while; how do atheists determine and defend a moral framework?

I would assume most take a evolutionary approach, stating that morality is derived through evolving over time and promoting a species expansion and prosperity. This has some large holes though; namely abortion, homosexuality, and contraception would be in violation of that "expansion," in turn being morally wrong. One could say the earth is already over populated, but wouldn't that void the entire evolutionary moral code?

Also, if there is no overarching objective supernatural morality and it's plural to some degree, who determines right and wrong? If the people of a democratic society determine it and they feel another country is doing "wrong," how could they have the moral authority to tell them they are doing wrong, let alone act on it?

Sam Harris has thrown out the evolutionary approach and states that neuroscience may one day determine morality. But, for one, that day is not here, and two, science is based on measurable, repeatable results. If you're simply measuring chemicals or responses in the brain that signify "happiness" or "well being," a prescription drug could remove all of those "wrong" feelings. In the end, philosophy is at play no matter where you start from in this approach, not the empirical facts.

Anything goes morally.

[Chas]

(01-01-2013 06:11 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  

(28-12-2012 03:49 PM)Austavion Wrote:  This question has been plaguing me for a while; how do atheists determine and defend a moral framework?

I would assume most take a evolutionary approach, stating that morality is derived through evolving over time and promoting a species expansion and prosperity. This has some large holes though; namely abortion, homosexuality, and contraception would be in violation of that "expansion," in turn being morally wrong. One could say the earth is already over populated, but wouldn't that void the entire evolutionary moral code?

Also, if there is no overarching objective supernatural morality and it's plural to some degree, who determines right and wrong? If the people of a democratic society determine it and they feel another country is doing "wrong," how could they have the moral authority to tell them they are doing wrong, let alone act on it?

Sam Harris has thrown out the evolutionary approach and states that neuroscience may one day determine morality. But, for one, that day is not here, and two, science is based on measurable, repeatable results. If you're simply measuring chemicals or responses in the brain that signify "happiness" or "well being," a prescription drug could remove all of those "wrong" feelings. In the end, philosophy is at play no matter where you start from in this approach, not the empirical facts.

Anything goes morally.

Not if you want to have friends, a job, freedom; things like that.