On morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: On morality
Quote:[…] Ibelieve some morals like the "do not kill members of your own tribe"are directly influenced by evolution. They can be counteracted by socialprogramming, as with your Muslim father example.


Other morals are strictly a product of social programming - such as "do nowork on certain days of the week".

Ok, now I see evolution may have something to do with our sense of right andwrong. But I completely don’t get your argument with social programming. It’s like saying: “I was programmed like a robot in my childhood and can’t put into doubt what I was taught”. If it were so, who would dare to abandon religion? We wouldn’t even dare to think there’s something wrong with this superstition.


It’s perfectly visible with the Muslim father example. You say he had been taught it was the right think to do. It seems like you assume he’s not capable of thinking rationally. He acts like a robot. He certainly was taught Koran is the
word of god in his childhood but it doesn’t mean he didn’t put his believes into doubt later in his adulthood.

In my opinion, social programming might have something to do with our feeling of right and wrong (it may affect values we respect when we are adults). However, it’s not as powerful as you may think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Maciek1Aciek's post
16-04-2012, 02:06 PM
RE: On morality
(16-04-2012 01:56 PM)Maciek1Aciek Wrote:  
Quote:[…] I
believe some morals like the "do not kill members of your own tribe"
are directly influenced by evolution. They can be counteracted by social
programming, as with your Muslim father example.



Other morals are strictly a product of social programming - such as "do no
work on certain days of the week".
Ok, now I see evolution may have something to do with our sense of right and
wrong. But I completely don’t get your argument with social programming. It’s
like saying: “I was programmed like a robot in my childhood and can’t put into
doubt what I was taught”. If it were so, who would dare to abandon religion? We
wouldn’t even dare to think there’s something wrong with this superstition.





It’s
perfectly visible with the Muslim father example. You say he had been taught it
was the right think to do. It seems like you assume he’s not capable of
thinking rationally. He acts like a robot. He certainly was taught Koran is the
word of god in his childhood but it doesn’t mean he didn’t put his believes
into doubt later in his adulthood.


In my opinion,
social programming might have something to do with our feeling of right and
wrong (it may affect values we respect when we are adults). However, it’s not
as powerful as you may think.
You are correct. I'm an atheist. If I'd just followed my programming I wouldn't be where I am today. *But* going against that programming is hugely costly and hard - because it's got built in reinforcement. All the dominant religions have *fearsome* safeguards to stop people from going against the conditioning - things like community shunning, community enacted "justice" e.g. stoning an adulterer - not to mention your loved ones getting in on the act. These kinds of things make it very much harder to react against your conditioning.

Nowadays it's harder to see evolution at work because human society has become so complex, but I contend that it's right there, underneath, if you look for it Smile Just the signal is mixed in with so much noise. A sharp guy like Richard Dawkins or someone like that could probably lay it out much clearer than me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:55 PM
RE: On morality
[Image: not_this_crap_again.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 03:45 PM by Stevil.)
RE: On morality
(16-04-2012 12:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  No right and wrong.
I absolutely agree



(16-04-2012 01:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Simply because you acknowledge the subjectivity to morality does not require you to be amoral.
I struggle to see how subjective morality exists. To me it is an oxymoron.

From a semantic POV atheists often dress up their own personal values and labels them morals. Theists dress up their god's law and label it as morals. These two perceptions of morality are quite clearly different things and hence it becomes confusing when Theists and Atheists debate "moral" points of contention.

For me, I don't think either position fully meets the requirements of the morality concept. I am an amoralist, the alternative seems absurd.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
16-04-2012, 03:44 PM
RE: On morality
To me, morality is based on empathy and has nothing to do with law and religion.

As a matter of fact, I see a lot of religion as immoral. And the law covers morality inadequately.

Just my personal views.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
16-04-2012, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 06:35 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: On morality
(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 12:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  No right and wrong.
I absolutely agree



(16-04-2012 01:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Simply because you acknowledge the subjectivity to morality does not require you to be amoral.
I struggle to see how subjective morality exists. To me it is an oxymoron.

From a semantic POV atheists often dress up their own personal values and labels them morals. Theists dress up their god's law and label it as morals. These two perceptions of morality are quite clearly different things and hence it becomes confusing when Theists and Atheists debate "moral" points of contention.

For me, I don't think either position fully meets the requirements of the morality concept. I am an amoralist, the alternative seems absurd.

Ah, Stevil. One of the few people who actually think it is humanly possible to, ironically, choose to be amoral. It is not an oxymoron.

(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Merriam Webster Wrote:  Oxymoron - A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Merriam Webster Wrote:  Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Merriam Webster Wrote:  Subjective - Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Merriam Webster Wrote:  Objective - Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Merriam Webster Wrote:  Amoral - Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Morality is a person's view on "right" and "wrong". Absolute/Objective morality is the belief that there is a set law to morality (not necessarily "divinely inspired"). Subjective morality is the belief that there is not a set law to morality.

You are thinking of ethics, my friend.

(16-04-2012 03:38 PM)Dictionary.com Wrote:  Ethics - The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 07:13 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 07:16 PM by Stevil.)
RE: On morality
(16-04-2012 06:31 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Ah, Stevil. One of the few people who actually think it is humanly possible to, ironically, choose to be amoral. It is not an oxymoron.

Morality is a person's view on "right" and "wrong". Absolute/Objective morality is the belief that there is a set law to morality (not necessarily "divinely inspired"). Subjective morality is the belief that there is not a set law to morality.

You are thinking of ethics, my friend.
No, not ethics, ethics is based on morality. I reject the concepts of morality and ethics as being nonsensical beliefs.
Morality is a belief system and I lack a belief in morality.

I have no more chosen to be amoral than an atheist has chosen not to believe in god/s.

Morality is based on a concept of right and wrong or to be more specific objective right and objective wrong.
I have no belief in right and wrong. By what standard, to what goal, by what consequences do people decide something to be right or wrong?

Animals do what animals do, it is in our nature to do things, sometimes we do things that are common practice for our species, society or culture and sometimes we do things that are uncommon practice for our species, society or culture. But our actions are simply what we do, they are neither moral nor immoral, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

Our actions do have consequences and sometimes our own actions put our own lives at risk. In order to survive there are certain natural laws that we need to selfishly obey, otherwise we face the consequences. Being a dangerous threat to society puts our own lives in major risk as society will look to protect itself and hence look to eliminate dangerous threats.

Here is an article that you might find interesting it is from a Moral Moments columnist in Philosophy Now named Joel Marks he had been author of this column for the last ten years and in 2010 realised that morals don't exist. This article is very long, he spends substantial time trying to convince the audience that he is still suitable to write the Moral Moments even though he no longer believes in morality LOL
http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/80/A...sto_Part_I
Quote:I was reeling – much as, I imagine, a religious believer whose whole life has been based on a fervent belief in the Almighty, would find herself without bearings or even any ground to stand on if suddenly that belief were to vanish, no matter whether by proof of just by poof! Just so, morality has been the essence of my existence, both personally and professionally. Now it is no more.

Scott Hughes did a small article titled The Clarity Of Amorality
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/v...?f=3&t=247
Quote:Morality consists of moral values used to judge conduct, events, and people in general. It refers to the way people try to universally categorize human conduct as right or wrong, or good or bad.

Quote:Even many so-called atheists talk as though some metaphysically universal set of values exist to determine the goodness or badness of people or actions. They do that by referring to people and actions as morally good or bad.

Quote:Using the moral terms, rather than saying specifically what one means, lacks clarity. When a person calls a certain action immoral, we do not know what they mean exactly. Do they mean the action disgusts them? Do they mean they dislike it? Do they mean it would hurt them? Do they mean it would hurt the person who does it? Do they mean their religion forbids it? We can try to figure out what they mean by the context, but they can also just specify it by using amoral terminology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2012, 03:47 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2012 03:51 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: On morality
(16-04-2012 07:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 06:31 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Ah, Stevil. One of the few people who actually think it is humanly possible to, ironically, choose to be amoral. It is not an oxymoron.

Morality is a person's view on "right" and "wrong". Absolute/Objective morality is the belief that there is a set law to morality (not necessarily "divinely inspired"). Subjective morality is the belief that there is not a set law to morality.

You are thinking of ethics, my friend.
No, not ethics, ethics is based on morality. I reject the concepts of morality and ethics as being nonsensical beliefs.
Morality is a belief system and I lack a belief in morality.

I have no more chosen to be amoral than an atheist has chosen not to believe in god/s.

Morality is based on a concept of right and wrong or to be more specific objective right and objective wrong.
I have no belief in right and wrong. By what standard, to what goal, by what consequences do people decide something to be right or wrong?

Animals do what animals do, it is in our nature to do things, sometimes we do things that are common practice for our species, society or culture and sometimes we do things that are uncommon practice for our species, society or culture. But our actions are simply what we do, they are neither moral nor immoral, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

Our actions do have consequences and sometimes our own actions put our own lives at risk. In order to survive there are certain natural laws that we need to selfishly obey, otherwise we face the consequences. Being a dangerous threat to society puts our own lives in major risk as society will look to protect itself and hence look to eliminate dangerous threats.

Here is an article that you might find interesting it is from a Moral Moments columnist in Philosophy Now named Joel Marks he had been author of this column for the last ten years and in 2010 realised that morals don't exist. This article is very long, he spends substantial time trying to convince the audience that he is still suitable to write the Moral Moments even though he no longer believes in morality LOL
http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/80/A...sto_Part_I
Quote:I was reeling – much as, I imagine, a religious believer whose whole life has been based on a fervent belief in the Almighty, would find herself without bearings or even any ground to stand on if suddenly that belief were to vanish, no matter whether by proof of just by poof! Just so, morality has been the essence of my existence, both personally and professionally. Now it is no more.

Scott Hughes did a small article titled The Clarity Of Amorality
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/v...?f=3&t=247
Quote:Morality consists of moral values used to judge conduct, events, and people in general. It refers to the way people try to universally categorize human conduct as right or wrong, or good or bad.

Quote:Even many so-called atheists talk as though some metaphysically universal set of values exist to determine the goodness or badness of people or actions. They do that by referring to people and actions as morally good or bad.

Quote:Using the moral terms, rather than saying specifically what one means, lacks clarity. When a person calls a certain action immoral, we do not know what they mean exactly. Do they mean the action disgusts them? Do they mean they dislike it? Do they mean it would hurt them? Do they mean it would hurt the person who does it? Do they mean their religion forbids it? We can try to figure out what they mean by the context, but they can also just specify it by using amoral terminology.

Morality is based on empathy. Empathy is a genetic evolutionary trait. Religion is not.

No, morality is not empirical. I do not understand what is so hard to comprehend here. Subjectivity applies to things more simple than that. Such as reality. As I have previously stated, it is possible and logical to have objective or subjective morals. Ethics, however, are what is publicly and collectively agreed to be moral, making a certain objectivity to morality.

Morality is observed in animals as well. Pack, herd, and hive animals all exhibit certain forms of empathy and morality. This is necessary for group-think.

The very fact that you have a moral conjecture (even if it is "amorality"), it is still a moral belief. That, Stevil, is an oxymoron. I also find it hard to believe that, if a murder happened to a loved one, that you would feel the same. The only way one could possibly be amoral, is if they are Psychopathic or Sociopathic, and those are genetic mental conditions. If anything, you are a Subjective Moralist.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2012, 05:21 AM
RE: On morality
(17-04-2012 03:47 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Morality is based on empathy.
This is your belief. You assert this to be true for humanity, possibly across all animal life.
Your assertion does not make this belief system true for me. I do not subscribe to moral emotivism.
Going by emotivism, it could be concluded that homosexual sex is immoral, because the thought of it may make a straight person have a detest-like emotive response.
Quote:No,
morality is not empirical. I do not understand what is so hard to comprehend here.
I can understand people's desire to be good. As a child your parents probably rewarded you by calling you a Good boy or Good girl. If you were naughty you got punished, good you got rewarded. TV and movies are full of stories of battles between good and evil, the good hero is glorified and the bad villain is punished. So we are brought up on this stuff but that doesn't make morality true.
Morality is a concept which has no factual or natural basis, there is no right and wrong, good and bad. It is this polarised black and white thinking that creates oppression, conflict and wars.
Quote:Ethics, however, are what is publicly and collectively agreed to be moral, making a certain objectivity to morality.
Moral conventionalism is different from moral emotivism. Just because a society agrees (presumably by majority vote or dictated by position of power) on a set of rules this doesn't result in a morality, this results in a law (including punishment for unlawful actions. A law abiding person is not necessarily a moral person.
In a heavily Christian society e.g. USA, it could be deemed illegal "immoral" for people to perform homosexual actions. If your society agreed this to be the case, would you consider this to be an objective immoral?
Quote:Morality is observed in animals as well. Pack, herd, and hive animals all exhibit certain forms of empathy and morality. This is necessary for group-think.
It is not possible to objectively measure morality unless you consider morality to be an objective standard. If you subscribe to subjective morality, then whose morality are you judging these animals by? Someone may consider them to be acting morally, but someone else might consider them to be acting immorally. I would consider them to be acting naturally and hence neither morally nor immorally.
Quote:The very fact that you have a moral conjecture (even if it is "amorality"), it is still a moral belief. That, Stevil, is an oxymoron.
This my friend is a fallacy. It is exactly equivalent to a theist telling an atheist that their stance is a religious belief.
Quote:I also find it hard to believe that, if a murder happened to a loved one, that you would feel the same.
If someone killed a loved one of mine, I would not consider their act to be immoral. I would be supremely motivated to find out why my loved one died, was it an accident, was it self defense, was it callous?
Emotionally I might seek revenge but this is not because a person has performed an immoral act, I am not the guardian of morality, it is not my purpose in life to enforce other people to act morally or suffer the wrath of Stevil.
Quote:The only way one could possibly be amoral, is if they are Psychopathic or Sociopathic, and those are genetic mental conditions. If anything, you are a Subjective Moralist.
No, I am an amoralist, I do not believe in morality be it objective morality or subjective morality. Subjective morality is an oxymoron. It is nonsensical, I side with theists on the argument that atheists do not have morality because philosophically it is inconsistent.

There is a large difference between amoralism and lacking empathy, the two are not linked. I understand in your belief system that they are equivalent, but I lack this belief, I do understand empathy and I do experience it but it does not define my actions or my judgements and I certainly do not subscribe to my empathy as being a moral filter defining what is right and wrong. I do not subscribe to the concept of right and wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2012, 05:30 AM
RE: On morality
(16-04-2012 01:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(14-04-2012 02:13 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  There's only eighty million threads on this subject, you amoral buffoon. Big Grin
Simply because you acknowledge the subjectivity to morality does not require you to be amoral.

Obviously I wuz pulling his chain, you amoral buffoon. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: