Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I suggest you and Malty try reading what Christians have actually posted rather than indulging in such muppetry.

Ah just playing

Again, stop playing games. As far as I see no-one has claimed that without faith in God or a Bible you won't have any morals - so there is nothing to 'admit'. What is your problem that you can't actually discuss Christian beliefs (the subject of this forum) without this silly gamesmanship?

Well ... then I have completely misunderstood the entire thread and must apologise.

I was under the assumption that Christians believe that our morals come from God and without a belief in God there can be no morals in society because there is no one to tell us what is right or wrong.

The Christian position is that every person, irrespective of their religious beliefs or knowledge, has some sort of innate moral sense which ultimately has come from God. Therefore, as Romans Chapter 1 makes clear, lack of knowledge of biblical morality is no excuse for wicked conduct. So noboody here has any difficulty at all with your Piraha people having a sense of morality.

Ah. Ok then.

It has also been argued in this thread that, for atheists, there is no reason to believe that Stalin's morality is in any way immoral. His morality may be different from that of a philanthropist - but you cannot say it is worse unless you hold to an objective morality that comes from an outside source (God). The most you can say is that Stalin's morality was different from that of most of us. I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing argument against that.

Well, in my case your are both correct and incorrect. I do believe that my morals are based on my genetic makeup and of course has been influenced by factors such as society, my upbringing etc. But at the end of the day I decide what is right and wrong in my opinion.

And Christians are exactly the same. Do you think capital punishment is moral or immoral PDN ? Because I'm pretty sure I can point you out Christians who take the opposite line to you and they believe its 'gods' morality from the bible just as much as you do.

On the Stalin argument, of course I can say that his behaviour was immoral, by societies and my own standards.

So, for example, some people believe it is morally correct to kill babies that are weak or sickly. Such a practice can be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint - it can improve the gene pool and increases the chances of survival for healthy babies. Other species also successfully practice such behaviour.

I'm very worried with the choice of words here, what exactly do you mean by 'improve' ?

Therefore, is it necessarily immoral for our society to cut all funding for treatment of sick babies and to invest that funding into better educational facilities for healthy children?

In societies opinion ? I'd wager that the vast majority of people in this day and age would think that was immoral. Again, by their own morality.

Then again, the same situation in a different society (e.g > Ancient Sparta) could have very different results.

Or is such behaviour morally neutral (since there is no absolute morality) and we simply recoil from it because it fails to coincide with our popular, but totally relativistic, idea of what is right and wrong?

To our society now ? Of course its immoral. 100 years in the future ? Maybe not.

The Christian would say that such a practice is immoral - full stop.

1. Not if they believed god told them to sacrifice said weak infant they wouldn't.
2. 200 years ago Christians would have said that women dating before marriage was immoral full stop. 200 years ago they would have said that interracial relations were immoral full stop. And any other number of things.

I do not see that the atheist can meaningfully invoke such a moral argument, any more that they can say I am 'immoral' if I choose to wear red shoes when everyone else is wearing black shoes.

Why not ?

I for example think murder is immoral for reasons stated a gazillion times.
I don't think however that euthanasia is immoral in certain circumstances.

I assume you think euthanasia is immoral (or moral, doesn't matter) full stop yes ?

Well lets take this because its a good example.

Are you saying that you have the correct moral attitude towards Euthanasia and anyone who disagrees with you is not following Christian belief ?

Because if you'd like I can give you links to various Christian organisations on both sides of the argument and they all think they are following Gods will/morality.

So obviously Christians do not have a unified morality, unless of course you consider anyone who disagrees with your morality to be wrong and not understanding Christian morality correctly ?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that such a position is not using morality in a way that has any meaning (other than 'this is the most popular view'). It reduces morality to the same level as something being 'unAmerican'. The person with a different moralty (eg Stalin) is not necessarily worse than you, his standards are simply less popular.

I don't agree. In the first instance, I am not arguing that the "capacity for moral reasoning" evolved and left us with a decision about how to act appropriately for the good of society. I'm arguing that the behaviour of not killing others was selected for, because those animals that practised such behaviour survived while others didn't. (And I believe Sam is arguing the same). Why would this behaviour be subject to any meaning? Why do we feel that we need to have a special reason for acting as we do? Why do we think we have invented morals?

Why am I exempt from judging Stalin based on his detraction from the common desire of the vast majority of humankind? That's if I accept that Stalin had a different "moral" outlook than me, which I have no evidence for. He simply ignored his inner voice.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

Why am I exempt from judging Stalin based on his detraction from the common desire of the vast majority of humankind? That's if I accept that Stalin had a different "moral" outlook than me, which I have no evidence for. He simply ignored his inner voice.

Precisely. As I said at the start, as long as someone has a desire for himself and his loved ones to live it is logically impossible to believe that there is nothing wrong with killing. The only thing any sane person (by a given measure of sane) can do is compartmentalise and try to dissasociate a particular group from his own so that he can convince himself that the desire to avoid harm for himself and others does not apply. And people are capable of doing that and regularly do so whether they believe in god or not. I can tell someone that something is wrong by asking them if they would like it to be done to their child/wife/mother. If there's nothing wrong with it as they say then they should have no objection to subjecting a loved one to it


For example:

Question 1: Would you like your child to die because funding was cut to help healthy children?

Question 2: Would you like your child to be rounded up, put on a train, brought to a concentration camp and executed?

Question 3: Would you like your child to wear red shoes?

When you can picture anyone answering yes to all three of those questions without hesitation, you might have a point

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That tells me what you want, it does not give me any rational reason for why you don't want to cause suffering to others.
Wolfsbane, I am not going to answer this because frankly as I've already stated, I find this whole topic boring and self explanatory.

Instead I would ask you to reply to my post about the Pirahã people which will explain where I and all people get their morals from.

edit: I mean my answers are basically covered in my Pirahã people post.

OK, let's look at that:

For all the people here claiming that without God we would be running wild GTA style I want to ask a question.

No one here has said such a thing. I merely said you would have no reason not to, other than your feelings.

How do you explain the Pirahã people in South America ? (For one example)

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

They don't really have a religion per say, they believe in 'an animistic belief in spirits. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things.'

About their culture;

Quote:
- As far as the Pirahã have related to researchers, their culture is concerned solely with matters that fall within direct personal experience, and thus there is no history beyond living memory.

- The culture has the simplest known kinship system, not tracking relations any more distant than biological siblings.

- There appears to be no social hierarchy; the Pirahã have no leaders. Their social system can thus be labeled as primitive communism.

- Curiously, although not unprecedentedly[2], the language has no cardinal or ordinal numbers. Some researchers, such as Prof. Peter Gordon of Columbia University, claim that the Piraha are incapable of learning numeracy. His colleague, Prof. Daniel L. Everett, on the other hand, argues that the Pirahã are cognitively capable of counting; they simply choose not to do so.

- They barter with external traders but have resisted most external influences (such as encouragement to farm) retaining a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
So perhaps we're hitting a few birds with the same stone;

These people have a very primitive culture which can best be described as primitive communism and they don't believe in anything supernatural (under our definition any ways).

So why are they not killing each other, raping each others women or carrying out a mass genocide against their neighbours ?

How do you explain this ?

PDN said rightly explained this: we all have a moral sense, conscience that informs us to a significant degree. We all naturally suppress that to some extent, justifying sinful behaviour. To the degree we practice such suppression of conscience, we are able to thieve, rape, murder without sustained mental anguish. The more we sin, the easier it becomes.

Thankfully, most of us not only know and accept such things are immoral, we also fear supernatural judgement. Few atheists are able to murder without an irrational (for them) fear of such judgement. I'm sure they put it down to early social conditioning, religious indoctrination or just evolutionary hard-wiring.

All this does not alter my point: the atheist has no rational ground to say murder is any worse than nursing the sick. He will have social conditioning, religious indoctrination or just evolutionary hard-wiring grounds to explain why he feels murder is wrong, but he cannot give a rational defence for such a moral standpoint.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

As I said at the start, as long as someone has a desire for himself and his loved ones to live it is logically impossible to believe that there is nothing wrong with killing.

You confuse desire with morality. I might desire to bed my neighbour's wife, but I would not honestly be able to claim it was moral.

The only thing any sane person (by a given measure of sane) can do is compartmentalise and try to dissasociate a particular group from his own so that he can convince himself that the desire to avoid harm for himself and others does not apply. And people are capable of doing that and regularly do so whether they believe in god or not. I can tell someone that something is wrong by asking them if they would like it to be done to their child/wife/mother. If there's nothing wrong with it as they say then they should have no objection to subjecting a loved one to it


For example:

Question 1: Would you like your child to die because funding was cut to help healthy children?

Question 2: Would you like your child to be rounded up, put on a train, brought to a concentration camp and executed?

Question 3: Would you like your child to wear red shoes?

When you can picture anyone answering yes to all three of those questions without hesitation, you might have a point

You again confuse morality with desire. My desire that my family be well-fed and safe does not logically demand I want that for all families. That is to assume a morality. No compartmentalising necessary. Just a recognition that there is no moral standard to which he is obliged to adhere. He recognises merely that what he feels/wants for himself is not morally binding on others, nor is he obliged to treat them as he wants to be treated. Desire and morality are not equivalents.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

You again confuse morality with desire. My desire that my family be well-fed and safe does not logically demand I want that for all families. That is to assume a morality.

If someone is arguing that there is nothing wrong with something, how can they justify that logically if they would not like it to happen to their own family?

ie:
First guy: I think rape is fine, no better or worse than wearing red shoes

Second guy: Right so, let me rape your daughter

first guy: No

Second guy: Why not if there's nothing wrong with it?

First guy: eeeeeeeeehhhhh..........

In reality the only people who can successfully hold a position that their family should be safe and well and the expense of everyone else are those that are powerful enough to fight off the people who beg to differ, ie everyone else. And that's not even arguing that there's nothing wrong with something, it's being powerful that you can get away with doing it anyway.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If someone is arguing that there is nothing wrong with something, how can they justify that logically if they would not like it to happen to their own family?

ie:
First guy: I think rape is fine, no better or worse than wearing red shoes

Second guy: Right so, let me rape your daughter

first guy: No

Second guy: Why not if there's nothing wrong with it?

First guy: eeeeeeeeehhhhh..........

In reality the only people who can successfully hold a position that their family should be safe and well and the expense of everyone else are those that are powerful enough to fight off the people who beg to differ, ie everyone else. And that's not even arguing that there's nothing wrong with something, it's being powerful that you can get away with doing it anyway.

They need not say there is anything morally wrong with their daughter being raped - just that they would feel it is offensive and so would put a bullet in the rapist.

No need for morality to be involved - feelings are motivation enough. Morality is just a cloak to hide from yourself the awful reality atheism entails - that there is no significance to you, yours or anyone else. That what you feel is the only thing that matters subjectively; and nothing matters objectively.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

They need not say there is anything morally wrong with their daughter being raped - just that they would feel it is offensive and so would put a bullet in the rapist.

No need for morality to be involved - feelings are motivation enough. Morality is just a cloak to hide from yourself the awful reality atheism entails - that there is no significance to you, yours or anyone else. That what you feel is the only thing that matters subjectively; and nothing matters objectively.

So what you're saying is that the world of the atheist can be exactly the same as the world of the theist in the way people treat each other but that because the atheistic reasons for not murdering people are not the same as the theistic reasons then we can't call it morality?

Well that's just fine with me. I'd mostly call it ethics anyway

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the world of the atheist can be exactly the same as the world of the theist in the way people treat each other but that because the atheistic reasons for not murdering people are not the same as the theistic reasons then we can't call it morality?

Well that's just fine with me. I'd mostly call it ethics anyway

No, we can both call it morality.

It's just that the atheist has no rational grounds for believing anything is actually moral/immoral.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, we can both call it morality.

It's just that the atheist has no rational grounds for believing anything is actually moral/immoral.

Other than I know what I wouldn't want to happen to myself and my loved ones. The atheist says that murder is bad because I know I wouldn't want anyone I love to be murdered and the theist says murder is bad because god says so. Either way we both see murder as bad, the only difference is that I use reason to say why and you use the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

edit: To put it more dramatically, if human beings didn't treat each other they way they would like to be treated in the vast majority of cases, enough that we could live alongside each other without being in constant fear of attack, we'd still be living in caves. Is that enough of a rational justification for you?

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's just that the atheist has no rational grounds for believing anything is actually moral/immoral.

How are you defining "rational" in that sentence?

Soul Winner

doctoremma wrote: »

How are you defining "rational" in that sentence?

Atheists, by and large, are naturalists, which means that they believe that nature is all that there is, and nothing else exists outside of that. So from that perspective it is not rational to have a basis for morality because there is no morality in nature. Morality is just something that we as a species evolved in order to survive better in groups. It has no real basis in reality. It is just a tool that we use in order to keep us in check with the herd mentality. There is nothing absolute about it. Who knows, mybe in a few million years we mightn't need it at all. Which would mean that everything that we call good and bad now are not really good or bad at all. Good and bad are just terms that we use to describe things which make us act in a certain way and not act in other certain ways. In a universe without God that is all our evolved morality is. I think that was what WB was getting at but I could be wrong. :pac:

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit: To put it more dramatically, if human beings didn't treat each other they way they would like to be treated in the vast majority of cases, enough that we could live alongside each other without being in constant fear of attack, we'd still be living in caves. Is that enough of a rational justification for you?

Jesus' Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Confucius' Golden Rule:

"Don't do unto others what you would not like done unto you."

If there is no God, and there is no indwelling of God's spirit within us because of our faith in Him and no natural outflowing expression of His nature through us because of a maintained faith in Him over time, then I do not want done unto me what some people would like done unto them. I think Confucius' rule is better than Jesus' rule in a universe where there is no God and hence no ultimate good.

But in a universe with God as the ultimate good in it then I can believe that it is possible for people to genuinely do good unto me without the hidden agenda of them doing good unto me with the intent of getting something out of me. I'm at a loss to think what could possible be the evolutionary survival advantage of self sacrificing for the benefit of someone else without getting something in return for it can be in a universe without God. But that is what Jesus said we ought to do all the time.

Can anyone here think of something better to do for someone than to give of all that you have for the sake of another without thinking or expecting to get anything in return for yourself just because you see an intrinsic value in that other person that makes you want to do it? How could we have evolved such a trait in a brutal natural world?

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Atheists, by and large, are naturalists, which means that they believe that nature is all that there is, and nothing else exists outside of that. So from that perspective it is not rational to have a basis for morality because there is no morality in nature. Morality is just something that we as a species evolved in order to survive better in groups. It has no real basis in reality. It is just a tool that we use in order to keep us in check with the herd mentality. There is nothing absolute about it. Who knows, mybe in a few million years we mightn't need it at all. Which would mean that everything that we call good and bad now are not really good or bad at all. Good and bad are just terms that we use to describe things which make us act in a certain way and not act in other certain ways. In a universe without God that is all our evolved morality is. I think that was what WB was getting at but I could be wrong. :pac:

Since when does objective morality have to be absolute?

wolfsbane

Soul Winner wrote: »

Atheists, by and large, are naturalists, which means that they believe that nature is all that there is, and nothing else exists outside of that. So from that perspective it is not rational to have a basis for morality because there is no morality in nature. Morality is just something that we as a species evolved in order to survive better in groups. It has no real basis in reality. It is just a tool that we use in order to keep us in check with the herd mentality. There is nothing absolute about it. Who knows, mybe in a few million years we mightn't need it at all. Which would mean that everything that we call good and bad now are not really good or bad at all. Good and bad are just terms that we use to describe things which make us act in a certain way and not act in other certain ways. In a universe without God that is all our evolved morality is. I think that was what WB was getting at but I could be wrong. :pac:

You got it exactly, Bro.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Since when does objective morality have to be absolute?

When you can give me an example of something that is objectively moral that isn't absolute.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Other than I know what I wouldn't want to happen to myself and my loved ones. The atheist says that murder is bad because I know I wouldn't want anyone I love to be murdered and the theist says murder is bad because god says so. Either way we both see murder as bad, the only difference is that I use reason to say why and you use the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

edit: To put it more dramatically, if human beings didn't treat each other they way they would like to be treated in the vast majority of cases, enough that we could live alongside each other without being in constant fear of attack, we'd still be living in caves. Is that enough of a rational justification for you?

No, you use reason to say why you don't like it happening to you or even that would would not like doing it to another. But your reason doesn't tell it is bad/immoral. Given your materialist presupposition, your reason tells you there is no real good/bad, moral/immoral.

You just aren't listening close enough.

Not wanting to live in caves is a rational justification for moral living, indeed. But it is not establishing murder, etc. is immoral. It is merely establishing that you don't like living in a cave.

doctoremma

Soul Winner wrote: »

Morality is just something that we as a species evolved in order to survive better in groups.

If by "morality" you mean "good" behaviour, I agree. If by "morality", you mean the "capacity to make good .v. bad decisions", I agree less.

We didn't "evolve" moral behaviour; rather, behaviour that was appropriate for optimal survival e.g. not killing eachother, was selected for. We now call this "good" moral behaviour but that doesn't mean it's an artifically-applied rule.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It has no real basis in reality.

Eh? Is the life we are living not "reality"? Is our apparent evolution not "reality"? I imagine a group which operated a no-kill policy found it very useful in "reality". Do you mean it has no "objective" value?

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is just a tool that we use in order to keep us in check with the herd mentality.

Right back at the religious peeps.

And can I just express bemusement at the idea that we need "tools" to keep us in check. I know the media like to make us think differently but the vast majority of people on this planet are "good", not knife-wielding rapists or genocidal maniacs. And people are "good" for all the reasons Sam has pointed out. And "goodness" is a behaviour that can have a perfectly natural origin.

doctoremma

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can anyone here think of something better to do for someone than to give of all that you have for the sake of another without thinking or expecting to get anything in return for yourself just because you see an intrinsic value in that other person that makes you want to do it? How could we have evolved such a trait in a brutal natural world?

Our society is clearly far more complicated than that of cavemen but that actually gives more opportunities to be rewarded for an apparently altruistic act. Indeed, there are even expectations on society to help you, which you may not consciously process as receiving "reward" but nonetheless, are "rewards". We are beyond a back-scratching agreement between two people. When you stop a thief/save a life or even if you do nothing, you are part of a back-scratching agreement within a whole society, which sees that you will receive treatment for medical disorders, send a fireman to rescue you from a burning building and gives you money when you are no longer able to earn it yourself.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus' Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Confucius' Golden Rule:

"Don't do unto others what you would not like done unto you."

If there is no God, and there is no indwelling of God's spirit within us because of our faith in Him and no natural outflowing expression of His nature through us because of a maintained faith in Him over time, then I do not want done unto me what some people would like done unto them. I think Confucius' rule is better than Jesus' rule in a universe where there is no God and hence no ultimate good.

Jesus' rule works just fine. It doesn't have to be an specific thing being done because even if you personally like something someone else might not and doing something to someone that they don't like is not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you

Soul Winner wrote: »

But in a universe with God as the ultimate good in it then I can believe that it is possible for people to genuinely do good unto me without the hidden agenda of them doing good unto me with the intent of getting something out of me. I'm at a loss to think what could possible be the evolutionary survival advantage of self sacrificing for the benefit of someone else without getting something in return for it can be in a universe without God. But that is what Jesus said we ought to do all the time.

Can anyone here think of something better to do for someone than to give of all that you have for the sake of another without thinking or expecting to get anything in return for yourself just because you see an intrinsic value in that other person that makes you want to do it? How could we have evolved such a trait in a brutal natural world?

So you see no possible benefit of a group of individuals who look out for each others' welfare, who protect each other and share anything they get, who work together for their common good? So you think that if there's no god we should all burn our houses down, go and live in caves and murder each other for food? Because that's a.......better way to live

Also, how do you explain the fact that sometimes when a penguin mother's young dies she will try to steal the young of another but will be prevented from doing so by the others?

And how do you explain the fact that if you give an orangutan some food he will usually break it in half and share it with you?

And how do you explain the fact that lions hunt for food and then share it with their pride?

I could go on all day but the point is: how do you explain the fact that animals how many of the same altruistic and empathetic traits that we do?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you use reason to say why you don't like it happening to you or even that would would not like doing it to another. But your reason doesn't tell it is bad/immoral. Given your materialist presupposition, your reason tells you there is no real good/bad, moral/immoral.

You just aren't listening close enough.

Not wanting to live in caves is a rational justification for moral living, indeed. But it is not establishing murder, etc. is immoral. It is merely establishing that you don't like living in a cave.

Now you're just splitting hairs. You see morality as this wonderful magical thing that god injected into our brains that we couldn't possibly have arrived at ourselves but that's not what it is. you're basically saying that atheists have good reasons for behaving morally but that they're not really behaving morally because they're not doing it because god told them to

You're now acknowledging that atheists do have a very good rational reason not to murder each other: we don't like living in caves. The same reason applies to all behaviour that we call moral; if people went around hurting each other all the time for no apparent reason then society couldn't function and the life of everyone on the planet would be a hell of a lot worse than it is today. If you want to say that that means there's no "real good/bad, moral/immoral" then off you go, fantastic! Whether it's "real good/bad" by your definition makes no difference to me. All I know is that I have very good reasons for not harming other people and the same goes for enough people that I can live in alongside them for our mutual benefit. I call that ethical behaviour but you can call it whatever you want, the result is the same. Regardless of the reasons we have for not hurting each other the reality is that most people don't hurt each other and that's a hell of a lot better than the alternative

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Now you're just splitting hairs. You see morality as this wonderful magical thing that god injected into our brains that we couldn't possibly have arrived at ourselves but that's not what it is. you're basically saying that atheists have good reasons for behaving morally but that they're not really behaving morally because they're not doing it because god told them to

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying their reasons are not based on things being actually moral/immoral, but on how they feel about them.

I'm also ignoring whether they are behaving morally or not. I'm merely pointing out they have no rational defence for saying murder is immoral. They have a rational defence for saying it should be banned - their own feelings about it. But not that it is actually immoral.

If I like salt in my porridge, I am rational in asking for it to be provided - but I would not be rational if I said it was a moral requirement, and that not to have salt in own's porridge is immoral.

You're now acknowledging that atheists do have a very good rational reason not to murder each other: we don't like living in caves.

Yes.

The same reason applies to all behaviour that we call moral; if people went around hurting each other all the time for no apparent reason then society couldn't function and the life of everyone on the planet would be a hell of a lot worse than it is today. If you want to say that that means there's no "real good/bad, moral/immoral" then off you go, fantastic! Whether it's "real good/bad" by your definition makes no difference to me. All I know is that I have very good reasons for not harming other people and the same goes for enough people that I can live in alongside them for our mutual benefit. I call that ethical behaviour but you can call it whatever you want, the result is the same. Regardless of the reasons we have for not hurting each other the reality is that most people don't hurt each other and that's a hell of a lot better than the alternative

It is a good reason for those whom it pleases. But it is not a good reason for those whom it displeases. If they prefer - perhaps due to innate strength or position - to rape and murder, there is no rational materialist argument to say they are wrong. Maybe they prefer to take their chances in a dog-eat-dog world, rather than submit to a lower position in a compassionate world.

You cannot show that they are wrong and you are right. Only that your way suits you/pleases you and their way does the same for them.

For murder to be wrong for all, it requires more than materialism offers. Materialism is blind to things being actually moral/immoral.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying their reasons are not based on things being actually moral/immoral, but on how they feel about them.

What is an immoral act if not an act that makes someone else feel bad about something in some way

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm also ignoring whether they are behaving morally or not. I'm merely pointing out they have no rational defence for saying murder is immoral. They have a rational defence for saying it should be banned - their own feelings about it. But not that it is actually immoral.

If I like salt in my porridge, I am rational in asking for it to be provided - but I would not be rational if I said it was a moral requirement, and that not to have salt in own's porridge is immoral.

So I have rational reasons to avoid moral acts and do moral ones but I have no rational reason to be moral. Right so

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is a good reason for those whom it pleases. But it is not a good reason for those whom it displeases. If they prefer - perhaps due to innate strength or position - to rape and murder, there is no rational materialist argument to say they are wrong. Maybe they prefer to take their chances in a dog-eat-dog world, rather than submit to a lower position in a compassionate world.

You're forgetting a few things there. Even the strongest person has people who they care about. He might be able to defend himself but he isn't necessarily able to defend his mother at all times. And neither can he defend himself against everyone else on the planet. A person who harms others makes an enemy not just of the victim but of everyone who cares about that victim and of everyone who does not want to live in a society where such things are tolerated, ie the vast majority of people. At the very least someone who harms others whenever he feels like it has to spend his entire life looking over his shoulder in case of retaliation and, as I said, he can't look over the shoulders of his loved ones 24 hours a day. Someone who has absolute confidence of his own total and permanent invulnerability and the total and permanent invulnerability of everyone he cares about might be able to say that there's nothing wrong with murder but no such person has ever existed

Sam Vimes

Let's put it this way: everyone wants to live in a society where murder is illegal and carries severe penalties, even murderers.

Even as the murderer bludgeons his victim to death he's glad that murder is illegal because it protects his loved one from the same treatment.

Even if he gets convicted and jailed for life he's glad that murder is illegal because it protects him from the other prisoners

Even if he gets sentenced to death, as long as there's a single living being whose welfare he cares about then as the lethal injection fills his veins, he's still glad murder is illegal

People might think they can get away with breaking the law but no sane person would ever argue that the law should not be there. Being able to get away with something is not the same as thinking there's nothing wrong with it. People will always try to get away with murder but we will always live in a society where those who are caught are punished because it's better for everyone that way, even the murderers themselves

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What is an immoral act if not an act that makes someone else feel bad about something in some way

So if everybody in a society feels happy about torturing animals, does that mean that torturing a dog for fun is not immoral?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

So if everybody in a society feels happy about torturing animals, does that mean that torturing a dog for fun is not immoral?

No because that affects the happiness of the animals. Just because animals can't speak up doesn't mean their welfare is irrelevant. There are (arguably) rational justifications for doing "bad" things to animals such as using them for food but people generally see a distinction between killing an animal for food and for the craic

This is again the difference between saying that there's nothing wrong with a particular act and dissociating yourself from a particular group enough that you can convince yourself that the rules of morality shouldn't apply. You don't have to teach someone that torture is wrong, you have to teach them that the knowledge they already have of torture being wrong should also apply to animals

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No because that affects the happiness of the animals. Just because animals can't speak up doesn't mean their welfare is irrelevant. There are (arguably) rational justifications for doing "bad" things to animals such as using them for food but people generally see a distinction between killing an animal for food and for the craic

This is again the difference between saying that there's nothing wrong with a particular act and dissociating yourself from a particular group enough that you can convince yourself that the rules of morality shouldn't apply. You don't have to teach someone that torture is wrong, you have to teach them that the knowledge they already have of torture being wrong should also apply to animals

What about killing other humans for food? Is this not a good cause?

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

What about killing other humans for food? Is this not a good cause?

No it's not because that effects their happiness. Really there is no objective reason why we kill animals but not humans, if we were to be consistent we wouldn't kill animals either. It's one of many examples where we've managed to dissociate ourselves from a group enough that we can be ok with doing things to them that we wouldn't like to happen to ourselves and our loved ones and as with pretty much all cases where we've done it, the reasons for doing so are arguable

It's much easier for religious people of course because god has explictly said it's ok to dissociate ourselves from them and not apply morality to them

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jesus' rule works just fine. It doesn't have to be an specific thing being done because even if you personally like something someone else might not and doing something to someone that they don't like is not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you

That makes a lot of sense if we just leave it at that, but Jesus' golden rule is in the positive. It is not limited to just not doing unto others what we would not have done to us, or even not doing unto others things that they don't want done unto them, rather it is the actual doing unto others the things which we would have them do unto us. Take organ donation for example. The best answer to whether we should be an organ donor or not, is the same answer as to whether we would take an organ from an organ donor if we needed one. It's rhetorical really. If the answer to the latter is yes then the former must also be yes. Same with giving blood and so on. These deeds are in the positive. They are not just negative don't dos unto others that which we don't want done unto us. That is the limitation of the Confucian golden rule as apposed to Jesus' golden rule. I could live my whole life not doing unto others the things that I would not like done unto me and leave it at that, but in the end what have I really done in my life? Nothing. I've just served self. But by observing Jesus' golden rule I could be an overseas aid worker helping the most vulnerable to have the basics in life essentials like food, water, shelter and clothes, that's somehting I would like someone to do for me if I needed it. Not doing unto others the things that I would not like done unto me could never necessitate for that kind of pro-activeness.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you see no possible benefit of a group of individuals who look out for each others' welfare, who protect each other and share anything they get, who work together for their common good? So you think that if there's no god we should all burn our houses down, go and live in caves and murder each other for food? Because that's a.......better way to live

I'm really not seeing where you are getting the idea that we believe that people cannot be moral or behave in a goodly manner without a moral standard laid down by God. We don't. What is being argued is that in a universe without God the good and bad things that people do are only good and bad relative to our life's experience, they are not intrinsically good or bad per sé. But if there is a God and He is the one that dictates the goodness and badness of something then things which are good are good no matter what our experience tells us or they are bad no matter what. But in a universe without God, who is it that dictates the goodness and badness of something? That is why the moral argument for God's existence is so strong, because everyone just knows that there are things that are always wrong no matter what, like torturing babies for fun. But in a universe without God, torturing babies for fun is just an act like all other acts. Now you'll come back and ask me, how could I say that torturing babies for fun is like any other act of man? And then I will have you, because you will have more or less admitted that objective moral values do exist, but in a universe without God that is impossible, therefore He must exist. Are you getting where we are coming from now? Probably not

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, how do you explain the fact that sometimes when a penguin mother's young dies she will try to steal the young of another but will be prevented from doing so by the others?

How can you be sure that they are preventing her from doing so out of concern for the mother? Or is that what you are suggesting?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And how do you explain the fact that if you give an orangutan some food he will usually break it in half and share it with you?

I don't know, how do you explain it?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And how do you explain the fact that lions hunt for food and then share it with their pride?

If lions quite sharing their kills with their prides then they will eventually be left alone to fend for themselves. Heck maybe that's how leopards evolved. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I could go on all day but the point is: how do you explain the fact that animals how many of the same altruistic and empathetic traits that we do?

Like I said, I can't explain it. Maybe there is a law in the universe which, if followed, teaches that alturistic behaviour like this will be benefitial for the speicie's survival. But who could have set up such a law? :pac:

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

That makes a lot of sense if we just leave it at that, but Jesus' golden rule is in the positive. It is not limited to just not doing unto others what we would not have done to us, or even not doing unto others things that they don't want done unto them, rather it is the actual doing unto others the things which we would have them do unto us.

Semantics. One follows from the other and both are necessary for social living

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm really not seeing where you are getting the idea that we believe that people cannot be moral or behave in a goodly manner without a moral standard laid down by God. We don't. What is being argued is that in a universe without God the good and bad things that people do are only good and bad relative to our life's experience, they are not intrinsically good or bad per sé. But if there is a God and He is the one that dictates the goodness and badness of something then things which are good are good no matter what our experience tells us or they are bad no matter what. But in a universe without God, who is it that dictates the goodness and badness of something? That is why the moral argument for God's existence is so strong, because everyone just knows that there are things that are always wrong no matter what, like torturing babies for fun. But in a universe without God, torturing babies for fun is just an act like all other acts. Now you'll come back and ask me, how could I say that torturing babies for fun is like any other act of man? And then I will have you, because you will have more or less admitted that objective moral values do exist, but in a universe without God that is impossible, therefore He must exist. Are you getting where we are coming from now? Probably not

You need to stop with this idea that for something to be good it must be dictated by an outside source. Every sane human being on the planet cares for his own life and the lives of his loved ones, therefore every sane human being sees something wrong with torture for fun, therefore it's better for everyone if torture for fun is illegal. There's nothing miraculous to it. I know that torture is wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me or anyone I love and because every other sane person on the planet also wants to avoid torture for themselves and their loved ones, they also view it as wrong. The only people who would not view it as wrong are the people who would cheerfully rip out their own fingernails followed by their children's, ie insane people.

And such people do exist. Babies have been tortured for fun many many times in the past by people who clearly didn't see it as wrong no matter what, therefore morality in that case is not objective. The test for objective morality is not that a lot of people agree something is wrong, that happens because sane human beings mostly share the same basic goals, ie to avoid suffering for themselves and their loved ones, the only legitimate test for objective morality is if every human being on the planet shares exactly the same opinion on every single moral question but that's clearly not the case.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How can you be sure that they are preventing her from doing so out of concern for the mother? Or is that what you are suggesting?

They're not doing it out of concern for the mother, they're preventing theft because penguins have a sense of what we call right and wrong

Soul Winner wrote: »

I don't know, how do you explain it?

Like I said, I can't explain it. Maybe there is a law in the universe which, if followed, teaches that alturistic behaviour like this will be benefitial for the speicie's survival. But who could have set up such a law? :pac:

I explain it by saying that our sense of altruism and empathy evolved and the same sense evolved in many other species. Humans are not the only species to show concern for each others' welfare by a long shot. And it's so telling that you ask the question "who could have set up such a law" as if it has to have been done by an intelligent agency. Evolution does not require intelligence. You've answered your own question:

Soul Winner wrote: »

If lions quite sharing their kills with their prides then they will eventually be left alone to fend for themselves. Heck maybe that's how leopards evolved. :rolleyes:

Lions share because lions who don't share are left to fend for themselves. Lions who have to fend for themselves do not survive as well as the ones who share, therefore the instinct for not sharing dies out and the instinct for sharing survives and gets more and more refined as the ones who share more do better and better. That's called natural selection and along with mutation of genes it's how evolution works. No god required

edit: and it may very well be how leopards evolved but it would be leopards and lions both evolving from a common ancestor, not leopards evolving from lions. Leopards are actually related to rabbits btw