Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 09:30 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:19 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 06:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Simple, sociology teaches these concepts at the fundamental level. Self preservation and safety is the basis. Lets go back to hunter gatherer time....it didn't take long to figure out that ones odds for survival were greatly increased if we stick together in groups, hunt in packs, protect each other....it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that as we started to build bigger tribes, groups, villages, towns, etc...that the basis of self preservation and safety is a tier one concern. It would be frowned upon to put it lightly, if you stole my food, raped my wife or children, or killed one of my family....these type of actions would be considered against everyones self preservation and safety...thus banned...thus SOCIETY dictates what is acceptable behavior, and this evolves with time. No made up god/s needed at all. No BS "ten commandments" which are so obviously written by a group of empowered, ignorant patriarchal men.....thou shalt not rape? ....nope, not on there, thou shalt not enslave other humans? ...nope, not on there, and surely the all knowing god knew that would be a problem...but no...the MEN that created the ten commandments were more concerned with pressing matters like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

And here it is.......is their any obligation to promote the flourishing of the human species and maximise happiness? Who imposed this obligation?

Their are no obligations in the animal kingdom. We see torture, rape, killing for sport etc etc. Why would you think all of a sudden their are these obligations and duties on human beings that aren't their for animals? Who imposed these?

To suggest that there are these obligations and duties imposed on humans would be illusory.

We imposed them you moron. No divine presence required. We share many evolutionary instincts with the animal kingdom because we are a part of it. We've just evolved a higher form of consciousness which brought new pieces to the societal puzzle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
26-07-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:30 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 09:19 PM)Hambone Wrote:  And here it is.......is their any obligation to promote the flourishing of the human species and maximise happiness? Who imposed this obligation?

Their are no obligations in the animal kingdom. We see torture, rape, killing for sport etc etc. Why would you think all of a sudden their are these obligations and duties on human beings that aren't their for animals? Who imposed these?

To suggest that there are these obligations and duties imposed on humans would be illusory.

We imposed them you moron. No divine presence required. We share many evolutionary instincts with the animal kingdom because we are a part of it. We've just evolved a higher form of consciousness which brought new pieces to the societal puzzle.

Who is we? You? Stalin? Nazi Germany? Al Qada? Western World?

Who has authority over the other?

And why call people names?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 09:40 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:35 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 09:30 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  We imposed them you moron. No divine presence required. We share many evolutionary instincts with the animal kingdom because we are a part of it. We've just evolved a higher form of consciousness which brought new pieces to the societal puzzle.

Who is we? You? Stalin? Nazi Germany? Al Qada? Western World?

Who has authority over the other?

And why call people names?

If the shoe fits. "We" is humanity. Individual societies designate the authority. It's not my fault that you don't understand basic concepts of sociology and psychology.

Everything can be explained without inserting a supernatural law giver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 09:48 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:40 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 09:35 PM)Hambone Wrote:  Who is we? You? Stalin? Nazi Germany? Al Qada? Western World?

Who has authority over the other?

And why call people names?

If the shoe fits. "We" is humanity. Individual societies designate the authority. It's not my fault that you don't understand basic concepts of sociology and psychology.

Everything can be explained without inserting a supernatural law giver.

Of course each society designates an authority. Different countries with different rules. If that is actually what defines right and wrong, then it simply becomes relative, or subjective....

If this is the case, then what Stalin did isn't wrong as a fact, its just an opinion that what he did was wrong, no different to me thinking I am the best looking man that ever existed. Just a subjective opinion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:48 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 09:40 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  If the shoe fits. "We" is humanity. Individual societies designate the authority. It's not my fault that you don't understand basic concepts of sociology and psychology.

Everything can be explained without inserting a supernatural law giver.

Of course each society designates an authority. Different countries with different rules. If that is actually what defines right and wrong, then it simply becomes relative, or subjective....

If this is the case, then what Stalin did isn't wrong as a fact, its just an opinion that what he did was wrong, no different to me thinking I am the best looking man that ever existed. Just a subjective opinion?

So where does a supernatural law giver come into play? Why does there need to be such a thing? And most importantly, prove it.

I'd also recommend enrolling in Intro to Psychology and Sociology 101 at your local university.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 11:04 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:14 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 05:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Don't know how those laws arose, don't assume there is a reason why they are the way they are?
Don't know. Perhaps the laws of physics couldn't have been anything different. I don't assume that they are either arbitrary or selected for a purpose.

If there is no reason that arose or the way they are, then the laws themselves came about by a blind unguided process. Random chance.
That's not correct.
That's like saying that if I roll a dice the number that faces straight up is by random chance.
Whereas there is zero probability of a 7 appearing and zero probability of a 0 appearing. There is 16.67% chance that a 1 appears, 16.67% chance that a 2 appears.
100% chance that the number is either a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.
The structure and form of the dice define the probabilities. The probabilities are not random.
Why do you think the probabilities of the laws governing the universe are random? Do you understand what the universal constants are and how they might be explained? Do you understand what a graviton is and what the graviton field is? Do you understand what a Higgs field is? How can you make a claim such as that laws are random, when you don't understand what the laws are and how they are all interrelated?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-07-2015, 11:45 PM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 11:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 09:14 PM)Hambone Wrote:  If there is no reason that arose or the way they are, then the laws themselves came about by a blind unguided process. Random chance.
That's not correct.
That's like saying that if I roll a dice the number that faces straight up is by random chance.
Whereas there is zero probability of a 7 appearing and zero probability of a 0 appearing. There is 16.67% chance that a 1 appears, 16.67% chance that a 2 appears.
100% chance that the number is either a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.
The structure and form of the dice define the probabilities. The probabilities are not random.
Why do you think the probabilities of the laws governing the universe are random? Do you understand what the universal constants are and how they might be explained? Do you understand what a graviton is and what the graviton field is? Do you understand what a Higgs field is? How can you make a claim such as that laws are random, when you don't understand what the laws are and how they are all interrelated?

The answer you won't get is, no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
27-07-2015, 01:06 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 08:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 04:27 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  One could say government is mirror of people which are governed by it and I think it's apt saying - neither gov nor people here are much concerned with freedom or healthy society so what they want it's what they got.

In any democracy, the governed get the government they deserve.

More like a gov for which they voted, deserving could be different case. In Poland it isn't though - when people heavily complain about gov and yet still vote on the same people it's hard to feel sorry for them and I say those who vote on it deserve such shitty gove that we have.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 01:15 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2015 01:19 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 03:51 AM)Hambone Wrote:  Is morality objective (factual) or subjective (preference/opinion)?

If something is objective, then it is factual, that is, it is true/false independent of human taste preference or opinion. It is DISCOVERED. For example, the earth is not flat is an objective truth. It is factual. It is true regardless of human opinion. This was discovered. Even if their were no conscious beings in the universe, the earth would still not be flat, rather, the shape of sphere/ball.

If something is subjective, then its based on personal taste, preference or opinion. These are not factual. They are mind dependent. These include, food, drinks, movies, music, clothes, holiday destinations etc etc etc. There is NO RIGHT or WRONG.

Where is morality? Is it objective or is it subjective?

Lets first put it in the subjective basket. You will notice that when we look at subjective items, they all result in the same conclusion. No right or wrong. For example, if I say I prefer thick crust pizza to thin crust pizza, am I wrong for preferring that or thinking one is better than the other? No. We all know taste in food is subjective, therefore, there is no right or wrong. Its just opinion.
If I say I prefer hip hop R&B to heavy metal music, am I right or wrong to suggest one is better than the other? Neither, because they are just preferences.
These are just 2 examples. But if you put any item in the subjective basket, you will notice the conclusions are the same, that is, their is no right or wrong.

Now, lets put morality in this subjective basket. If I say I prefer to rape and cause harm to others, is this right or wrong? Well, if you are consistent, then its neither right or wrong, just like in the case of food and music.

Lets look at objective items. I gave the example of the flat earth above. Another example is the sun. The claim the sun exists is an objective truth, it is factual. If their are no conscious beings in the universe, it is still true that the sun exists.
If I say the sun doesn't exist OR the earth is flat, then I am WRONG. I am only WRONG because rights and wrongs ONLY exist in relation to objective items/facts.

Now lets put morality in the objective basket. If morality is objective, then rights and wrongs exist morally.
So, if someone says that raping a person for fun is right, then they are wrong. They are only wrong because we can compare their claim to an objective fact, ie, rape is wrong.

So, what is it? Based on experience, it appears to me, that morality is actually objective.

Lets look at an example....ASSUMING i like rape and you don't. IF I say for the past 6 months, I have had a person in my garage whom I have been raping, torturing and treating woefully, then if morality is SUBJECTIVE, then you can only reply in the same way as if you don't like a food that I like. Their is no right or wrong. Just opinion. Is this really how it is based on experience? Would we treat this case the same way as in taste of food? Experience says we don't.

Now, based on the example, if morality is objective, then and ONLY then can you say my actions are wrong, because you are comparing my actions against an objective truth.

So which one is it?

Now, notice I am speaking ontology, not epistemology. This is not about HOW we know. I can discuss that later.

Secondly, how can objective morality exist in a godless world? Remember I said, if something is objective, it is true or false REGARDLESS of human taste preference or opinion. In fact, they are discovered. Therefore, in a godless world that came about by a mindless and unguided blind process, what are moral facts doing in such a world? Don't moral laws or truths come from a law maker or law giver?

My problem is, atheists often claim morality is subjective, but then go and criticise morality in the OT. If morality is subjective, then your claims that the morality in the OT is wrong is not factual, rather, just an opinion...no different to if I said vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate.....

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?

Are atheists actually affirming a moral law giver everytime they make a moral claim?

I would suggest that your analysis is incomplete because it ignores multiple options.

First, I would add a third category to your factual versus opinion/preference category: Convention. With convention, a large body of people agree (sometimes unconsciously or subconsciously, sometimes through unquestioned childhood indoctrination) to and adopt a certain assertion as true, usually with a pragmatic purpose. One good example is which side of the road to drive in.

In civilized parts of the world, we drive on the right side of the road. *ducks and covers* In other parts of the world, they drive on the left side of the road. There isn't really much objective reason to adopt one over the other. What's important is that everyone drives on the SAME side of the road... whichever side is the standard in that part of the world.

Now, is "we should drive on the right side of the road" objective or subjective? It's not subjective -- it transcends the simple opinions or preferences of an individual. It's more solid than that. But it's not objective -- it can vary in time and place. It's less firm than that. It's somewhere in the middle.

Other examples of conventions can include vocabulary (is it dog, perro, or hund?), whether to use a . or a , to indicate the divide between the ones place and the tenths place in decimal notation, and just how much personal space one is supposed to give someone else. (If you are French, NEVER VISIT AUSTRALIA.)

I would suggest that morality (or, at least, our working understanding of morality) fits pretty nicely into this category of convention.

A claim based on subjective morality that the OT morality is wrong would, indeed, be a subjective claim... but a strong one. One's tastes and preferences can be shared by society at large, for example. It could be akin to declaring that skunk-flavored ice cream tastes bad. Or worse, garlic-chocolate ice cream. (For the morbidly curious, visit Gilroy. I accept neither legal nor ethical liability for the consequences.) At some point, this passes the critical threshold of widespread opinion and becomes convention.

We might even go a bit further. If we have a species-wide instinctive revulsion against certain activities (say, for example, eating feces... yes, I know there are exceptions to this, I'm feeling lazy on the examples front, NO I DON'T NEED LINKS TO COUNTEREXAMPLES!), is it objective then? At what point would we be able to declare something objective?

I honestly don't know what an objective moral would look like, that would be different from a widely-accepted convention. Can we build an objectivity-meter that would twitch if we point it at one? Is it that we can put our finger on why violating it is a bad idea (like, say, a doomsday machine that wipes out humanity)? If so, and if we can identify why it is bad through methods independent of morality, then what use is morality?

These aren't epistemic questions I'm asking. They're basic definition questions. What counts as a moral? What does truth or falsity actually indicate in the context of morals?

I would also take issue with the claim that an objective morality would require an objective moral-giver. If there was some objective morality, then it would indeed exist.... like the universe. Or as part of the universe. But just as the existence of the universe does not necessarily imply a creator, the existence of morality would not necessarily imply a moral-giver. As an alternative (not one that I believe, but one that highlights why this is an unjustified leap of logic), consider Taoism. In Taoism, the Tao is a state/path/habit/force of right-being and right-acting. It could be considered a moral code, or at least as including a moral code. Yet it is not an intelligent agent and is not at the whim of an intelligent agent. It is simply a natural force, defining right conduct much in the same way that gravity defines down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
27-07-2015, 05:00 AM
RE: Morality
(26-07-2015 09:19 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 06:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Simple, sociology teaches these concepts at the fundamental level. Self preservation and safety is the basis. Lets go back to hunter gatherer time....it didn't take long to figure out that ones odds for survival were greatly increased if we stick together in groups, hunt in packs, protect each other....it also doesn't take a genius to figure out that as we started to build bigger tribes, groups, villages, towns, etc...that the basis of self preservation and safety is a tier one concern. It would be frowned upon to put it lightly, if you stole my food, raped my wife or children, or killed one of my family....these type of actions would be considered against everyones self preservation and safety...thus banned...thus SOCIETY dictates what is acceptable behavior, and this evolves with time. No made up god/s needed at all. No BS "ten commandments" which are so obviously written by a group of empowered, ignorant patriarchal men.....thou shalt not rape? ....nope, not on there, thou shalt not enslave other humans? ...nope, not on there, and surely the all knowing god knew that would be a problem...but no...the MEN that created the ten commandments were more concerned with pressing matters like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

And here it is.......is their any obligation to promote the flourishing of the human species and maximise happiness? Who imposed this obligation?

Their are no obligations in the animal kingdom. We see torture, rape, killing for sport etc etc. Why would you think all of a sudden their are these obligations and duties on human beings that aren't their for animals? Who imposed these?

To suggest that there are these obligations and duties imposed on humans would be illusory.

Can't come up with any original thoughts huh? We also see love, parenting, and sacrifice in the animal kingdom, we also see monogamy, and homosexuality in the animal kingdom...what's your point? To suggest a "moral" standard had to have been applied by an hubris , egocentric, childish, invisible, transcendental, un-witnessed super being is not only disingenuous, it is unnecessary.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: