AgnosticWeb.com - Atheism and morality

Atheism and morality (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:21:25 +0000

An atheist psychologist/researcher invents a theory using any empty chair. Clint Eastwood's speech brings out all sorts of things. I don't buy it, fooling kids to make a point:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2012/09/04/imaginary-presidents-and-imaginary-gods-the-real-empty-chair-effect/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20120905-A conscience is taught to you by parents who understand the cooperation needed to live in society

Atheism and morality (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:06:56 +0000

A long and well-referenced discussion of Coyne's recent article on natural morality and an answer from a religious point of view:- http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-morality-cannot-be-100-natural-a-response-to-professor-coyne/#more-24664-It certainly appears that morality came from the religions first as our various cultures developed. There is an interesting quote from Buddhist India about 250 B.C.

Atheism and morality (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:37:53 +0000

At least you're very honest; I only worry (because I don't know you) how much you take that 'golden rule' for granted? It took 2000 years for western civilization to become as "civilized" as it is now. -Not to mention that we were born into that moral... it's not so obvious otherwise!

Atheism and morality (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:22:20 +0000

Going back to our discussion of Morals and Morality; I still haven't seen a response yet from you about your seemingly mercurial ideas about Morals. > > You've claimed before that "Man is capable of knowing what is right, but is incapable of doing it." > > What is it that you think is objectively right, that hasn't been thwarted by history?-Sorry I have not been very active. My family has been having a round robin bout of a particularly nasty stomach bug. -If I had the answer to the objective morality question, I would be much wealthier and more infamous than I am. I am not certain that history has thwarted anything on a strictly moral basis however. Success, riches, power, and popularity do not depend on moral behavior. -I know it is a bit cliche, but I still think that about 99% of morality boils down to the 'do unto others' ideal. The reason we are incapable of fulfilling it is reason itself. We have a tendency to justify via flawed reasoning any and every action based on what someone/thing else has done or might possibly do. -I hope that sufficiently sets up what I mean by 'know what is right' and why we are incapable of 'doing what is right'. I am afraid I do not know how to express the concept in simpler terms.

Atheism and morality (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 03:15:25 +0000

Going back to our discussion of Morals and Morality; I still haven't seen a response yet from you about your seemingly mercurial ideas about Morals. -You've claimed before that "Man is capable of knowing what is right, but is incapable of doing it." -What is it that you think is objectively right, that hasn't been thwarted by history?

Atheism and morality (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 02:34:57 +0000

dhw, > Interestingly, the killer punch comes right at the end of the article. The author writes: "I should add that while Foot insisted that some moral norms were grounded in human nature, she also recognized that other norms were culture-relative." Since human nature varies from one subject to another, and culture from one group to another, what chance objectivity?-Nietzsche would call her position as enumerated at the end of her article pale; her position is no different than Kant or other ethicists in the early 1800's. She's afraid that by admitting no objective or universal moralities that we cannot justify them. Foot's view is rooted in irrational fear. -Nietzsche's work for example would have us accept Athenian morals for what they were; their civilization would never have achieved its greatness. Check out the Melian dialog.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue-The morals that drove Athenian supremacy was the kind of morality that would allow this type of event. Nietzsche liked to point out that while European culture loved to ape all the forms of the Greeks, they forgot that the world that allowed the Greeks their greatness was exactly the kind of "Barbarism" that the modern European at the time would abhor. Though, in much irony, the Greeks viewed all others as Barbaroi; the Melian Dialog would have seen the Athenians blameless in Greek Morals of the time.

Atheism and morality (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 02:27:15 +0000

Though, to answer a minor point, the need to seperate right/wrong and morality, for me, comes from the need to have one defined as absolute, and the other as our attempts to live the best we know how. > > Here is an article on an atheist philosopher, Philippa Foot, who believes in 'natural goodness'. Her point of view seems reasonable to me. > > http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/death-of-a-grande-dame-can-we-build-m... misreads Nietzsche completely... Nietzsche was concerned with how morality actually plays "in the real world," and by no means takes a position that the things he ascribes to "Master Morality" are the right things; but that it is the "Master Morality" that discovered the creation of values for moral actions. She apparently decides that Nietzsche values the worth of an action based on the type of the individual; I can't begin to tell you in how many ways this contradicts what Nietzsche was trying to say. -When she talks about his attribution to "the spontaneity, the energy, the passion of the individual agent..." she's referring directly to "A Genealogy of Morals" where his entire POINT of that book is in the title; where do morals come from? -She takes this as to say that "Nietzschean morality" (Which doesn't exist) means that "the ethics of the noble/strong are the good ethics." Nietzsche simply points out that the morals/ethics that predominate only occur when some entity with power enforces them. -"In my book [Natural Goodness] I take Nietzsche on. I say, 'Look, what you're suggesting might be possible for some race of beings, but not for humans. I know you think that if only people will read you and believe you, human beings will become quite different, but I don't believe a word of that. You want to judge actions not by their type, by what is done, but by their relation to the nature of the person who does them. And that is poisonous." When we think of the things that have been done by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, what we have to be horrified at is what was done. We don't need to inquire into the psychology of these people in order to know the moral quality of what they did....It's wrong-headed to leave aside, as he does, the question of what human beings as such need, or what a society needs in the way of justice, fastening instead on the spontaneity, the energy, the passion of the individual agent...'"-I don't agree that we "have" to be horrified. I worked in an ER for 4 years; most things that would "horrify" most people I can shrug off with ease. The psychology of those people is exactly what's at stake; Hiroshima for example. The consequences and psychology of anyone's actions must constitute the analysis of the act. All moral norms are cultural. -I don't think there's any foundation for universal ethics/morality in what Foot discusses here. (Aside from her shallow reading of Nietzsche.)

Atheism and morality (reply)

dhw — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:55:03 +0000

Tony and I have finally reached agreement, apart from one tiny caveat, but David has drawn our attention to the views of Philippa Foot concerning 'natural goodness'. Despite being an atheist, she was apparently driven by: "a life-long quest to show that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong. Throughout her academic life, she was passionately opposed to subjectivism in ethics."-It would be unfair to judge her reasoning by the tiny extracts that the article offers, but it tells us that she regarded vice as a "natural defect", which in itself presupposes that virtue is the natural norm. On the assumption that ethics concerns the manner in which we behave towards another, I would suggest that the criterion for ethical behaviour is the degree to which our conduct either helps others (positive) or at least does not impinge on others (negative) in their efforts to achieve happiness. Since individuals and groups have different ideas of how to achieve happiness, how can there possibly be anything but subjectivity in ethics? Tony reserves the claim of objectivity exclusively for a UI, but no-one can know what a UI thinks or wants, so we are stuck with human interpretations, and the very fact that they vary across an enormous range is in itself proof that humans cannot avoid subjectivism in ethics.-I would go one step further. No-one is going to achieve happiness in this life unless they survive, and the survival instinct is not in the first instance based on furthering or protecting the happiness of others. Philippa Foot's examples from Nature completely ignore the fact that survival in many cases has to be at the expense of others. This includes the plants she takes as one of her examples. The strong ones will grab the water, and the weak ones will die. Her owls will survive by eating little Minnie Mouse. Humans have learned to a degree to channel these instincts, so that under normal circumstances we allow for the feelings and needs of our fellow humans (though not necessarily those of our fellow animals). A baby does not make such allowances. It has to be taught. And so this suggests to me that the unselfishness which lies at the root of ethical behaviour is not the natural norm at all, any more than vice is a natural defect. Behaviour will always depend on individual circumstances and individual attributes, whether innate or developed, and judgement will depend on the criteria held by the judge. The most we can hope for is a general social consensus. -Interestingly, the killer punch comes right at the end of the article. The author writes: "I should add that while Foot insisted that some moral norms were grounded in human nature, she also recognized that other norms were culture-relative." Since human nature varies from one subject to another, and culture from one group to another, what chance objectivity?

Atheism and morality (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:19:33 +0000

Though, to answer a minor point, the need to seperate right/wrong and morality, for me, comes from the need to have one defined as absolute, and the other as our attempts to live the best we know how.-Here is an article on an atheist philosopher, Philippa Foot, who believes in 'natural goodness'. Her point of view seems reasonable to me.-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/death-of-a-grande-dame-can-we-build-morality-on-the-foundation-of-natural-goodness/#more-15475

Atheism and morality (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:02:40 +0000

TONY: I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary. > > I must say I find your autobiography rather more exciting than your views on morality! With that sort of lifestyle, maintaining balance must be a really tricky operation! -Trying to keep this juggling act of a life of mine in the air is a struggle, but worth it LOL. -> Your post at last makes it perfectly clear where all the misunderstandings have arisen. We needn't discuss the various examples (though thank you for taking the trouble to list them), because it all boils down to one simple blind spot ... though whether that is yours or mine, I can't say. As far as you're concerned, the UI has an exclusive monopoly on objective right and wrong, and the rest of us mess around with our fluid, suspect concepts of morality. As far as I'm concerned, morality means concepts of right and wrong, and I don't see any necessity for your distinction between right and wrong on the one hand and morality on the other. We agree that human morality is not objective, and is variable from culture to culture, group to group, and situation to situation. Why, then, can't we say that only a UI would be able to come up with an objective right/wrong, whereas human concepts of right and wrong are fluid and suspect? In the words of our famous compare-the-meerkat.com: "Simples!"-That works for me. Though, to answer a minor point, the need to seperate right/wrong and morality, for me, comes from the need to have one defined as absolute, and the other as our attempts to live the best we know how.

Atheism and morality (reply)

dhw — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:47:42 +0000

TONY: I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary.-I must say I find your autobiography rather more exciting than your views on morality! With that sort of lifestyle, maintaining balance must be a really tricky operation!-Your post at last makes it perfectly clear where all the misunderstandings have arisen. We needn't discuss the various examples (though thank you for taking the trouble to list them), because it all boils down to one simple blind spot ... though whether that is yours or mine, I can't say. As far as you're concerned, the UI has an exclusive monopoly on objective right and wrong, and the rest of us mess around with our fluid, suspect concepts of morality. As far as I'm concerned, morality means concepts of right and wrong, and I don't see any necessity for your distinction between right and wrong on the one hand and morality on the other. We agree that human morality is not objective, and is variable from culture to culture, group to group, and situation to situation. Why, then, can't we say that only a UI would be able to come up with an objective right/wrong, whereas human concepts of right and wrong are fluid and suspect? In the words of our famous compare-the-meerkat.com: "Simples!"

Atheism and morality (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:26:57 +0000

Not at all. I have just been unbelievably busy this past two weeks. Four birthdays, two out of town trips, and 9 people staying in a two bedroom apt for five days, and an upcoming anniversary. I just haven't had much time to get to my computer.-> (i) I don't understand why in your last sentence you have distinguished between morality and 'right and wrong'. In my view, and according to every dictionary definition I have seen, the two concepts are inseparable. Nor do I understand what you mean by "not a moral imperative". If the UI's form of right and wrong is not a code relating to our behaviour towards one another, what is its relevance to morality? > -I distinguish between the two because I view right and wrong as an absolute, regardless of whether there is one person or a billion, whereas, as we have repeatedly stated, morality can only exist when there is interaction between two or more conscious beings. So while a society might be able to decide what their 'moral' standard is, that is only governing the social interaction between constituents, not defining an objective right and wrong. Hence the statement: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish."- > Firstly, you agree that "morality can only exist where one person's actions affect someone else". If the UI's objective form of right and wrong is something "humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older", do you believe that all babies begin by unconsciously knowing how to behave considerately, and then gradually become more selfish as they grow older? If not, when and how do they acquire their understanding? > -Again there is the distinction in my statement between 'morality' and 'right/wrong'. Considerate behavior is a moral imperative designated by society and not necessarily 'right/wrong'. For example, in the state, we would consider it monstrous to slice someones stomach repeatedly in order to produce a pattern of scarring while in Africa it is a right of passage to some tribes. Is cutting someone else right or wrong? If it is right does that mean anyone who assaults someone with a knife is right? If it is wrong does that mean that surgeons and the Africans should be imprisoned? I do believe that children possess a certain innate understanding of right and wrong, though they do not possess an innate morality as differentiated above. How they acquire it, I don't know. Genetic memory perhaps.-> Secondly, you go on to say: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish." I can't see any logical link here. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, slander, cheating are all instances of one person's actions adversely affecting someone else, and our society has determined that all of these are wrong, immoral (and in most cases also illegal). Why is this rubbish? > -As a soldier in Iraq, if I would have drawn my weapon and taken another human life, that would have been murder. Would it have been right or wrong, moral or immoral? Is there justification for murder? Is feeding your children food that is bad for their bodies less abusive than beating them? Or to phrase it differently, is there a moral differentiation between poisoning and beating? Is it abuse to subject a child to movies, games, or lyrics that contain sexual, violent, or drug related themes? Is a reputation a physical thing that can be damaged by falsely spoken words? Is an attack on an abstract, intangible idea something that can be considered wrong? Is cheating in a rigged game really cheating? I am not saying that I disagree with any of these being immoral or illegal but that defining an objective case would be exceedingly difficult in most cases.-> You complain ... in my view quite rightly ... about what we as individuals may see as inherent flaws: societal injustice, silly taboos, ostracism, aggression against people who disagree with prevailing norms. No-one is saying that society's determination of what is 'right' and 'wrong' makes its decisions objective or universally acceptable. There will always be conflicts. But you're passing judgement on values, whereas I'm merely stating where values come from. Hence my asking you why you won't accept Matt's summary: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right or wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." It may be that you intended your reference to a UI to be your response, but then I would have to go back to the question whether you believe all babies are born with innate knowledge of the UI and its objective form of right and wrong, and the all-important question that follows it.-I have agreed with Matt's statement to an extent, only disagreeing with the statement that defining morality also defines right and wrong. Society can only define a moral standpoint, which is as fluid and dynamic as water, and changes as often as the weather. So from my point of view society can not define a right and wrong because right and wrong will not change based on culture, race, societal norms, or any other variable.

Atheism and morality (reply)

dhw — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:06:16 +0000

Tony believes in a UI, from whose perspective there is an objective form of right and wrong which Tony thinks of as an immutable truth, though it's not a moral imperative. "This is the version of right and wrong that I think humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older and begin to make exceptions for other people, other circumstances, and our own wants and desires. Again, this is not morality, it is right and wrong." -First of all, thank you for responding. I'd been a little concerned that our prolonged disagreement might have put you off, but the discussion is interesting and this post raises some complex questions. Firstly, two points I'd like to make in response to the abovei) I don't understand why in your last sentence you have distinguished between morality and 'right and wrong'. In my view, and according to every dictionary definition I have seen, the two concepts are inseparable. Nor do I understand what you mean by "not a moral imperative". If the UI's form of right and wrong is not a code relating to our behaviour towards one another, what is its relevance to morality?-(ii) I thought we had agreed that there is no objective right or wrong, but of course if there is a God/UI who sets the standards (see above), he/she/it will have the final word. However, since no-one knows what those objective standards are, they're not much use to us (unless a person is convinced that he has the "right" interpretation). This leads, though, to more questions:-Firstly, you agree that "morality can only exist where one person's actions affect someone else". If the UI's objective form of right and wrong is something "humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older", do you believe that all babies begin by unconsciously knowing how to behave considerately, and then gradually become more selfish as they grow older? If not, when and how do they acquire their understanding?-Secondly, you go on to say: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish." I can't see any logical link here. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, slander, cheating are all instances of one person's actions adversely affecting someone else, and our society has determined that all of these are wrong, immoral (and in most cases also illegal). Why is this rubbish?-You complain ... in my view quite rightly ... about what we as individuals may see as inherent flaws: societal injustice, silly taboos, ostracism, aggression against people who disagree with prevailing norms. No-one is saying that society's determination of what is 'right' and 'wrong' makes its decisions objective or universally acceptable. There will always be conflicts. But you're passing judgement on values, whereas I'm merely stating where values come from. Hence my asking you why you won't accept Matt's summary: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right or wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." It may be that you intended your reference to a UI to be your response, but then I would have to go back to the question whether you believe all babies are born with innate knowledge of the UI and its objective form of right and wrong, and the all-important question that follows it.

Atheism and morality (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:06:26 +0000

A good discussion of the use of brain scans in criminal cases: > > If the site will not let you in without registering, register. It is safe: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827822.400-morality-my-brain-made-me-do-it.html... those who did not subscribe, the gist of the article is a concern that if brain scans are used in court to explain behaviour, it might not lead to the same results as if the background sociology and history of the defendant were not fully detailed. Bothare needed.

Atheism and morality (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:37:52 +0000

Sorry for the delayed response, but it has been a busy week. - Let me start by saying that my view on the subject is based on my personal belief that there is a UI of some form. In this context, there is an objective right and wrong from it's perspective, if not from our own. This form of right and wrong is not a moral imperative, it, like the UI itself, simply IS. I think of it it as immutable truth, unchanging, unalterable, untainted by the human influences of short lifespans, finite resources, social stability, or any other concept that we use to moderate our own morality.-This is the version of right and wrong that I think humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older and begin to make exceptions for other people, other circumstances, and our own wants and desires. Again, this is not morality, it is right and wrong. -Morality, as you and David pointed out can only exist where ones persons actions affect someone else. Therefor, the idea that society can determine what is 'right and wrong', to me, is utter rubbish. It can only dictate a form of morality that is conducive to its own existence, but this will always be inherently flawed in many different respects as I pointed out in a previous post. We, as individuals, always will feel where the 'societal morality' fails keenly as a form of injustice, seeing particular taboos as silly, ridiculous, or as a violation of our own ability to choose the way of life which is best for us. This is not referring to 'abuse of power'. While that most certainly plays a factor at the higher levels of social morality, as in the case of laws, here I am referring to even the local non-legal interference that can come in the form of social ostracism or aggression on the basis of your opinion differing from that of the main social animal.

Atheism and morality (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:08:41 +0000

A good discussion of the use of brain scans in criminal cases:-If the site will not let you in without registering, register. It is safe:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827822.400-morality-my-brain-made-me-do-it.html

Atheism and morality (reply)

dhw — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:39:36 +0000

George, this is not actually a response to your last post, but a request for information. On 18 October at 04.19, Matt complained about humanism's "essential assertion of pacifism". Historically, I know that many humanists have indeed been pacifists, and probably still are, but I was not aware that this was integral to the modern form of humanism. Obviously wars of aggression would be out, but I'm not aware of humanist opposition to wars of self-defence. Since you are much more au fait with these matters than I am, I'd be grateful if you would enlighten us.

Atheism and morality (reply)

dhw — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:29:45 +0000

Tony wrote: "I prize my life, and the liberty to live that life as I see fit, and the liberty of others to do the same, above all things." I too see this as the basis of morality, which comes into play when one person's liberty impinges on that of others. -TONY: But society's moral compunction rarely, if ever, stops at the point where my liberty affects yours.-My apologies, but I don't understand what you mean, unless you're referring to authority's abuse of power ... which is a problem inherent in our social structure, but not in the evolution of the moral codes I referred to in my last post. In particular, I don't understand how this relates to the main point of our discussion: you dismissed the argument that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' as "total rubbish". Your counter to that is that "there does exist a 'right/wrong'", and it lies "in a person's heart". You have now stated categorically: 1) that morality can only exist "in context of the interaction of living beings", and 2) "that does not mean that societies morality is right or wrong."-Matt and I have repeatedly pointed out that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong, and all we have is a societal consensus. Unless you believe that what is in a person's heart is OBJECTIVE (which is a contradiction in terms), you would therefore seem to be in agreement with us. In my post to you on 20 October at 16.42 I wondered if I had misunderstood your original statements, or you had not said quite what you meant. I asked you to tell us whether or not you agreed with Matt's summary, and if not, why not. He wrote: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right' or 'wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." -Let me repeat the request. It may well be that a direct response will wrap this whole discussion up.

Addendum: Atheism and morality (reply)

dhw — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:07:49 +0000

Matt asks the darnedest questions, and as a non-believer (but not an unbeliever) I'm not the man to answer them. We need a conventional theist like Mark, with whom I had long discussions on morality a year or more ago. Nevertheless, I will foolishly have a go. MATT: Why is man himself--not enough?-Fear of death, fear that evil can triumph, hope that there may be compensation for suffering, the need to depend on a higher authority and the need to believe that the higher authority will be good and kind and loving? All of this could be linked to wish fulfilment, but you never know. There are less dreamy reasons available: man has no answers to any of the fundamental questions concerning our existence, and we hate unsolved mysteries. Our intelligence can't explain our intelligence, so...David will tell you the rest. MATT: I've never understood why doing good and then attributing that clearly human act to God is something that should even be allowable...-I don't think it's attributed to God. I think the basic idea is that the believer wants God to be pleased with him. Most believers think they have free will, and God will judge them according to how they use it. However, it's difficult to imagine someone doing good even though he hates other people. Many religious folk I know really do love their fellow creatures but give thanks to God for everything they have and are able to do. MATT: But back to my original question, "How can submission to God exist at the same [time] in a society of self-improvement?" [...] One is "humble." One takes no credit for anything. Takes no risks; at one time one would have said that it "takes the man out of the man." The other is hard, gives criticism as easily as takes it. Is focused on making his spirit submit to his own will... -The Calvinists were probably the best example of how to solve that problem. They thought God had already decided, and although they had to submit to his will, they looked for signs that they were among the chosen ... which involved material success here on Earth. So they went for it. But I guess we have to define what is meant by "self-improvement". I'd view it on different levels, and will take the easiest example, which is little ole me. With my humanist views, I don't actually see any difference between myself and my religious friends, barring the theology (but I don't know any Muslim fundamentalists). Materially, I've been able to raise a family, enjoy a successful career, and now live very comfortably; intellectually, I remain horribly devoid of knowledge on most subjects but have made some progress down through the years; as a human being ... to me the most important aspect of self-improvement ... I'm at ease with myself, and feel that my relations with others are generally very good: I do my best to be kind and helpful, and live cleanly, and I've led a very happy life so far. I also know how small I am in the great scheme of things, so I hope I'm reasonably "humble". A theist might say all these things about himself, but he'll also thank God for being nice to him, and if in trouble he'll pray. In short, I suspect that "submitting" to God, at least in our western society, in some cases brings comfort, confidence, hope, in other cases fear and moral conflict, but generally does not affect the drive towards self-improvement on any level. Of course, though, submission to God entails interpreting what God wants, and that's a pretty flexible arrangement.

Atheism and morality (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:57:39 +0000

Balance, > > > However--though we'd like to separate our will from that of the social organism, you still haven't answered the critical question; that which we call 'moral sense,' be it a 'feeling' or derived by logic: How is it that we can derive its reality beyond that which the society makes real? > > > > In short, you can't. Morality only exist in context of the interaction of living beings. As an attempt, you could say that it would be morally wrong to slaughter buffalo to extinction even if you were the only human being alive. But that does not mean that societies morality is right or wrong. > -I will quote you directly:-"TONY: I have said many times that I think humans have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, but not the capacity to do the right thing. The idea that a societal consensus can define something 'right or wrong' is utter rubbish. What society can do is make something legal or illegal, which has little if anything to do with right/wrong or moral/immoral. There does exist a 'right/wrong', but it does not lie in a book, or society, or in a legal system. It lies in the 'heart' of a person."-The "capacity to know the difference between right and wrong" implies that there is an objective morality to begin with. More damningly: "There does exist a 'right/wrong'" implies more directly the claim "There is an objective morality." You march yourself right to the precipice, yet apparently won't commit to the claim? Which is it? The paragraph I reply to and this one are diametrically opposed. I think in the original--the one I quote, you were speaking more the truth as you know it, but amending it later to dhw and I when caught in the logical territory...- Also "...but not the capacity to do the right thing." implies that man is not capable of free will. Free will is the capacity to do anything at all. I charge that man has the freedom to act as he wills--as long as he is willing to cross the social organism to do. - > Health is not a moral concept, it is a physical reality. The rest were social standards. > > > My point is that you appear to adhere to a rather conventional morality yourself, and the challenge of dhw and myself is such that conventional morality is exactly that which is and was delivered to you by the world in which you were raised. You praise the ancients, but also forget that the morals of ancient Greece included male rape as a consequence of war. The story of Spartan boys in the agoge as being male sexual pairs to older Citizens is partly true. The only philosophy allowed in Sparta was that of phobos. (The study of fear.)Some of the boys were subjected to the same treatment that would be expected if they were defeated in the field. > > > > Is there such a thing as conventional morality? Also, while I will defend the writings of the bible, that does not mean that its morals are my own. It simply means that I can see the logic and rationale behind them. As for the ancients, I praise their wisdom and intellect, not their morality.-I would say that "conventional" would be "morality of the day." Though I recant the suggestion that you adhere to this. We should sit down and chat more about "health" as a moral concept; rock climbing has health risks all its own for example, yet we don't hear discussions about why someone shouldn't do it. Same-sex intercourse however---As for the ancients and their intellect, good luck separating it from their morality; morality shapes decisions--decisions shape final outcomes. Caesar would have never crossed the Rubicon if he didn't hold his own good higher than that of the Republic. Leonidas would never have been able to lead three hundred Spartans and 1500 Thespians against 200,000 Persians if he wasn't steeled in the arts of phobos, forged by many years of suppressing helots. I praise the morality just as highly as the intellects, because it was the morality that shaped our history. Morals fall in and out of favor, and I fully admit that to my mind, the life of Spartans was not one I would want to endure. But infanticide and suppression of the lower class is precisely what made Spartans who and what they were when Xerxes began his march in 580BCE. How could the intellect and the morals not have coincided?