Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 07:08 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 07:00 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 04:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  There are many many threads on this subject and one that's still current. You can join in with that, if you like.

Meanwhile ... Welcome to TTA.

The answer to your question is ... neither.

Oh! and I edited a little to keep you within forum rules. Yes

How often do we see pre-censored posts?

I have no exact metric but I'd say something like 99.99% are uncensored and those that are have pink or green writing on them or (as I have done) a declaration that something was changed.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 07:11 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 07:08 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 07:00 AM)Anjele Wrote:  How often do we see pre-censored posts?

I have no exact metric but I'd say something like 99.99% are uncensored and those that are have pink or green writing on them or (as I have done) a declaration that something was changed.

Apparently I am only seeing black and white print in the OP.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 06:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
Basically, nihilism requires you to "get over yourself." You have to realize that it is not even a fact that humans should exist, let alone behave in any certain way.

Hi Matt. I'm curious as to why you posted this video again. Did you not see the criticism of it from the previous thread?

If you did reply to my criticism, my apologies for missing it.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 07:18 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 07:11 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 07:08 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I have no exact metric but I'd say something like 99.99% are uncensored and those that are have pink or green writing on them or (as I have done) a declaration that something was changed.

Apparently I am only seeing black and white print in the OP.

Yup. I was on my phone and editing ain't as easy as on the laptop.

I'm guessing you are curious as to what was edited. Without drawing undue attention to something that the rules state should not get attention ... let's just say that I changed a specific description of a victim to a non-specific and gender-less "person".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 07:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 07:11 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Apparently I am only seeing black and white print in the OP.

Yup. I was on my phone and editing ain't as easy as on the laptop.

I'm guessing you are curious as to what was edited. Without drawing undue attention to something that the rules state should not get attention ... let's just say that I changed a specific description of a victim to a non-specific and gender-less "person".

Seems a bit shady to allow a first post to appear that had to be cleaned up first.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 07:23 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 07:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yup. I was on my phone and editing ain't as easy as on the laptop.

I'm guessing you are curious as to what was edited. Without drawing undue attention to something that the rules state should not get attention ... let's just say that I changed a specific description of a victim to a non-specific and gender-less "person".

Seems a bit shady to allow a first post to appear that had to be cleaned up first.

Yup. That's me. Mr Shady.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 07:44 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 07:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 07:23 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Seems a bit shady to allow a first post to appear that had to be cleaned up first.

Yup. That's me. Mr Shady.

Big Grin

I am missing the implied humor.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 06:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 03:51 AM)Hambone Wrote:  The very fact atheists make moral claims, is testimony that they are claiming moral facts. But in a godless world, where do these facts come from?

I'm an atheist and I don't make moral claims. However, I can punish a rapist even though he didn't do anything objectively wrong.

Moral nihilism is the only way to make sense of morality.

The video below does a fairly good job of explaining it.





Basically, nihilism requires you to "get over yourself." You have to realize that it is not even a fact that humans should exist, let alone behave in any certain way.

I didn't participated much in the thread where you might have posted that video before and it's now the first time I see it. I must admit this is a very bad case for moral nihilism. The author seems to think that kindness, generosity or selflessness is an action and thus a fact while these things are moral judgement on action not actions themselves. His idea that value cannot be derived from facts is also dubious at best. It implies that we cannot judge the usefulness of actions, or their merit or their intelligence. Basically it denies that we can judge things according to logical, consistent standards which is false. Morality is only one of the human construct that is based on standards (hopefully logical standards). The fact that human should or should not exist is irrelevant to a discussion about morality. How they should behave can be logically debated if you decide what are the standards by which every action shall be judge and these standards don’t need to be the same for all types of actions (for example, the standards for killing other humans aren’t necessarily the same than those for acquiring goods.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
26-07-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Morality
Morality is both subjective (dependant upon the agent) and relative (dependant upon circumstances).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
26-07-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Morality
It's really quite simple. I want to choke every moron Christard who comes in here asking us how atheists can possibly be moral without a GODCOMMAND to tell us what to think.

But I don't, because I am a civilized human being who thinks that society is a basically good idea, and I know that if we all just gave into our animal impulses, civilization would be gone in roughly 72 hours. (What I call "the Hurricane Katrina figure" for the veneer of civilization.) Yet this is something we must actively choose; as we can see in certain parts of the world, the moment people choose not to uphold the veneer of civilization, it vanishes. See e.g. most of equatorial Africa.

The idea that morality is some kind of transcendent, objective power of its own is ridiculous. Morality is subjective and exists only as applied by rational beings seeking to get along with one another in a society. (Not just humans; most social animals have such rules.) When necessary, we apply pressure to bring others into conformity with the generally-agreed rules of civilization, be it legal punishments, illegal retaliations, or simple social ostracization. Again, you can observe this in animals... I highly recommend watching shows like Orangutan Island or Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet, if you want to get some idea of this fact. One can demonstrate that morality is relative simply by reading the books of Jane Goodall, as she documents the vast difference between the enforced "moral rules" of varying chimpanzee tribes.

The only reason humans like to think of morality as objective (not counting the religious version of this argument, which thinks it's objective because God Handed The Rules Down From On High™, an argument easily dismissed by simply reading the barbarity of those Rules) is because our prohibitions against harming our fellow human beings are so ubiquitous within societies that we think of them as transcendent. Yet they are clearly not so, as any basic Anthropology course will show you in about three class-sessions.

I highly recommend Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, which details the various social rules we humans think are unique to us, but which are actually found in our various cousin-species to such a wide degree that it is obvious we have evolved this sense of social-morality. It is eye-opening.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: