Jump to content

The Existence Of Morality


Recommended Posts

I am writing a new thread that will alow us to clarify all the points us poor Christians is confused about.It will be fun for all most of us.What's really funny though was that I started a thread a while back about how planets were formed, LLY was doing a very good job answering my questions etc, just as we were getting to the good stuff, crow began jumping ahead to tell me everyone why I am just trying to make the case that planets are astronomically difficult to form and that some how..yawn..proves evolution wrong. the thread got sidetracked and LLY never finished, leaving me with swirling masses of cosmic dust spinning on their own inertia, soaring through the vast universe, and getting caught in the gravitational pull of our sun to condense into large masses that were the correct distance to maintain perfect orbits for millions of years. I never got past that part...which happened 9 times, or 8...I forget, oh and with moons, a bunch of them...you know, the tricky part.So the last time I started a thread asking honest questions about evolution, it was quickly derailed into my being put on the defensive for my beliefs, instead of an actual instructional thread about how planets formed. Because if you asks difficult questions of evolutionist, they get testy.Don't get me started on where matter comes from...you know 1st law of thermodynamics and such.So some people are late to this party, but the party has a history. And history will repeat itself again, because everything continues just as it always has...right?
Well that's why I say we share some of the burden. From my perspective, the challenge is on me to see if I can get you to understand what evolution is all about (provided you are wanting to know). That doesn't mean getting you to agree with it, but at least if you understand it then your argument can be aimed at the right target. I haven't read the old thread though. I am learning something from this forum though, about the ways these two sides misunderstand each other that may help further communication. I think atheists spend a lot of time telling the religious people how they are wrong, which I understand in that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But what happens is that the religious folks become defensive and feel attacked, and retreat to caricaturing the atheists as immoral heathens or robots with no feeling, and not making the effort to really appreciate that there is a depth to our position. This is why Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation is not really going to work. I've been thinking about writing a similar kind of letter-book, but with a different strategy. Instead of starting with why religion is wrong, starting with what we agree on that many religious people don't realize we agree on. E.g. we agree that selfishness is bad, that morality is important, even that there is something to be learned from the stories of the Bible... but here is how we can have all those good things and still not be in conflict with science and rationality. Carrot instead of stick.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 814
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well that's why I say we share some of the burden. From my perspective, the challenge is on me to see if I can get you to understand what evolution is all about (provided you are wanting to know). That doesn't mean getting you to agree with it, but at least if you understand it then your argument can be aimed at the right target. I haven't read the old thread though. I am learning something from this forum though, about the ways these two sides misunderstand each other that may help further communication. I think atheists spend a lot of time telling the religious people how they are wrong, which I understand in that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But what happens is that the religious folks become defensive and feel attacked, and retreat to caricaturing the atheists as immoral heathens or robots with no feeling, and not making the effort to really appreciate that there is a depth to our position. This is why Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation is not really going to work. I've been thinking about writing a similar kind of letter-book, but with a different strategy. Instead of starting with why religion is wrong, starting with what we agree on that many religious people don't realize we agree on. E.g. we agree that selfishness is bad, that morality is important, even that there is something to be learned from the stories of the Bible... but here is how we can have all those good things and still not be in conflict with science and rationality. Carrot instead of stick.
To be honest, I have looked back on some of my old stuff in that thread and I definately was defensive, and quick to anger. At times I was the very thing that I have accused crow of being.I do agree that atheist are a little more into telling religous folks they are wrong first, rather than present a different idea. I mean think about where we are, on a poker site, in a religion section, which claims to be the place to dicuss religion. And as soon as a new Christian guy comes in here he is mocked ridiculed and laughed at. Now some of these new guys are idiots too, going for the shotgun blast approach of posting a bunch of statements and then running away. But let's not pretend that this sub forum is anything other than a couple atheist who scan this forum everyday, looking to pounce at the first mention of Pascal, Jesus or creationism.Personally I think they are like Creed in the second to last episode of last season's Office when he was playing chess.Don't do that, if you do that I do this,you do that, I do this,you do that I do this.Thet act like they've already won the debate, and it is beneath them to go over it again.But I am also guilty, I more than once have posted something purposefully on the fence of logic just because I know it bugs those guys. Like the phrase random chance as a qualifier for evolution. Sure it's a part, but it's just the beginning of a process that includes natural selection. It's not the process itself.I'll clear up the evolution thing once I get to writing my new thread, I need to cut some out, it's 8 pages of dialogue now...too long.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What's really funny though was that I started a thread a while back about how planets were formed, LLY was doing a very good job answering my questions . . .
I agree. I suggest you review LLY's initial response to your OP in that thread.
So some people are late to this party, but the party has a history. And history will repeat itself again, because everything continues just as it always has...right?
After reviewing the thread in question, all i have to say regarding what is bolded above is QFT.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a travesty if there were such a thing as travesty.Unfortunately the slave proffering god of the bible does not exist, so apparently there is no such thing as travesty, or joy, or right and wrong, or any distinction between things.So, let's go drink and rape!

Link to post
Share on other sites
fwiw, this question has become sam's new focus, and we can expect to hear more from him soon on this issue. his point of view, that I largely agree with, is that ethical standards can be based on objective analysis.
see ayn rand
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once a society begins to disregard the morality foundations laid down by religion, it begins to decay from within. Once the people in the society decide to ‘shuck off the shackles of morality’ they seal the fate of their society. And so far nihilism: 0, Morality: 100
Once people shed the notion that morality is no longer needed. I can just imagine the havoc. Society would be torn apart. There would be no need to give up your seats to the elderly because there are no morals, therefore no sense of rightness of wrongness.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once people shed the notion that morality is no longer needed. I can just imagine the havoc. Society would be torn apart. There would be no need to give up your seats to the elderly because there are no morals, therefore no sense of rightness of wrongness.
But it wouldn't be right or wrong to do that if there isn't an outside authority making the act of morality right or wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But it wouldn't be right or wrong to do that if there isn't an outside authority making the act of morality right or wrong.
Consider me the outside authority that tells you you are wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once people shed the notion that morality is no longer needed. I can just imagine the havoc. Society would be torn apart. There would be no need to give up your seats to the elderly because there are no morals, therefore no sense of rightness of wrongness.
lol, not giving up seats to elderly = society torn apartright is what leads to your life and your happiness by the way. ethics and morals come from reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But it wouldn't be right or wrong to do that if there isn't an outside authority making the act of morality right or wrong.
there is no outside authority needed. morality and ethics arise from reality. they are the acts that lead to the continuation and happiness of your life. ok... heres a quick lesson in aristotle's nicomachean ethics for all of you.what is your highest value? well, its your life. proof? if you didnt have your life, you would have no values. you need life for other values to exist, thus your life is your primary, highest value.what is the purpose of that life? to answer that: what is the one thing you dont save up or trade for anything else? happiness. your life as your highest value and your happiness as its purpose is what creates ethics and morality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no outside authority needed. morality and ethics arise from reality. they are the acts that lead to the continuation and happiness of your life. ok... heres a quick lesson in aristotle's nicomachean ethics for all of you.what is your highest value? well, its your life. proof? if you didnt have your life, you would have no values. you need life for other values to exist, thus your life is your primary, highest value.what is the purpose of that life? to answer that: what is the one thing you dont save up or trade for anything else? happiness. your life as your highest value and your happiness as its purpose is what creates ethics and morality.
Are you saying people never willingly give up their life for a higher value? Or sacrifice their own happiness for someone else's?
Link to post
Share on other sites
ok... heres a quick lesson in aristotle's nicomachean ethics for all of you.what is your highest value? well, its your life. proof? if you didnt have your life, you would have no values. you need life for other values to exist, thus your life is your primary, highest value.what is the purpose of that life? to answer that: what is the one thing you dont save up or trade for anything else? happiness. your life as your highest value and your happiness as its purpose is what creates ethics and morality.
that's an oversimplification that doesn't explain altruism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying people never willingly give up their life for a higher value? Or sacrifice their own happiness for someone else's?
of course not. just saying that its immoral to do so. your actions are not automatic, thus they are not automatically right. you can perform wrong actions. ethics arnt a deterministic code that all people are bound too, they dont explain how things are, they explain how things should be. (aristotle said all that. i agree though. his ethics that i outlined above are basically indisputable).
Link to post
Share on other sites
that's an oversimplification that doesn't explain altruism.
it is in humans self interest to be social, to a degree. but you misunderstand what ethics and morality are. they are the study of how things should be, not how they are.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it is in humans self interest to be social, to a degree. but you misunderstand what ethics and morality are. they are the study of how things should be, not how they are.
i understand that you are over-objectifying morality in much the same way as religious people do.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic problem with Waters' analysis is that it assumes that the only "self" which has self interest is the individual. This is false. The individual organism is an arbitrary unit. There are various levels of organization which express self-interest (genes, cells, organisms, communities, etc.), and there is no objective reason why the individual organism's interest should have priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic problem with Waters' analysis is that it assumes that the only "self" which has self interest is the individual. This is false. The individual organism is an arbitrary unit. There are various levels of organization which express self-interest (genes, cells, organisms, communities, etc.), and there is no objective reason why the individual organism's interest should have priority.
genes and cells do NOT express self interest. their actions actions are automatic. thats like saying that a machine expresses self interest. things which do not have selfs, because they are not conscious of a self, cannot have self interest. you are perverting the concept of self; it does not just apply to any physical existence, it applies to consciousness. a dead person has no self.i dont know what you mean by organisms because it could mean any living thing on earth including us. some of them can have self interest, some of them cant. yes, communities can have interest, but by definition it is not self interest. community is a concept, a concept cannot have a self. a community is just a collection of individuals. you say the individual is an arbitrary unit, im not sure what that means but i dont like the sound of it. in a free society the interest of the community comes down to the self interest of all the individuals in that community. in communism, a higher power (the state) forces its idea of communal interest on you. this is why its immoral and evil, it puts something above your own self interest, by force. "and there is no objective reason why the individual organism's interest should have priority." once again, your use of the word organism makes what you are saying extremely vague. if you mean human individuals, yes there is. i already outlined that. if you disagree with my logic, (through aritstotle) point it out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i understand that you are over-objectifying morality in much the same way as religious people do.
religious morals are not objective at all, they are intrinsic. aristotles morals are logically deduced from reality. and i still dont think you understand that morals are something which people have to choose to follow or not follow. there is no invisible force of morality controlling us, as you seem to be implying, thats mysticism. morals are a code of conduct if you will. you seem to be talking more about some kind of biological hardwiring.
Link to post
Share on other sites
genes and cells do NOT express self interest. their actions actions are automatic. thats like saying that a machine expresses self interest. things which do not have selfs, because they are not conscious of a self, cannot have self interest.
Something can exhibit the qualities of having self interest without it being driven by what we could consider "consciousness". Shit, we aren't anything more than extraordinarily complicated bio-machines, unless you're of the opinion that we have a magical/otherworldly soul that is out of the boundaries of physics. Does an organism have to actively think "I better do X in order to survive" in order to act in self interest? Is there a difference between me, out of total instinct and without any thought whatsoever, jumping out of the way of a car that jumped onto the sidewalk, and me making the decision to walk off a golf course during a lightening storm?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Something can exhibit the qualities of having self interest without it being driven by what we could consider "consciousness". Shit, we aren't anything more than extraordinarily complicated bio-machines, unless you're of the opinion that we have a magical/otherworldly soul that is out of the boundaries of physics. Does an organism have to actively think "I better do X in order to survive" in order to act in self interest? Is there a difference between me, out of total instinct and without any thought whatsoever, jumping out of the way of a car that jumped onto the sidewalk, and me making the decision to walk off a golf course during a lightening storm?
youre right but i guess i just have an issue with people applying the word self to things which do not have selfs. if something does not have a self it cannot act in self interest, even if that is what it seems to be doing automatically. my point is more than semantics though:we are more than complicated biomachines, and we do have something outside of the boundaries of physics, though its not a soul in the religious sense. i would call it a "self"
Link to post
Share on other sites
genes and cells do NOT express self interest. their actions actions are automatic. thats like saying that a machine expresses self interest. things which do not have selfs, because they are not conscious of a self, cannot have self interest.
You're wrong about this. Speedz' explanation went a long way so I don't need to repeat most of it. The automatic/conscious distinction does not really determine selfhood. For example, I'm sure you would agree that insects exhibit self interest even though all of their actions are automatic responses to their environment. I'm not using the word self casually.Furthermore, most biologists agree that genes are the most important unit of self interest when it comes to natural selection (although some are finally coming around to the idea that there are group-level selection pressures as well).
i dont know what you mean by organisms because it could mean any living thing on earth including us. some of them can have self interest, some of them cant.
The word organism is not ambiguous. Please find me a living creature which does not have self interest.
yes, communities can have interest, but by definition it is not self interest. community is a concept, a concept cannot have a self. a community is just a collection of individuals. you say the individual is an arbitrary unit, im not sure what that means but i dont like the sound of it.
Community is not a concept any more than a human is a concept. They are both cooperating collections of smaller units that display coherent intentions, have goals, etc. Arbitrary here means that an "individual" has no special ontological status in relation to the other groupings. A human body is a collection of cells, a community is a collection of humans.
in a free society the interest of the community comes down to the self interest of all the individuals in that community. in communism, a higher power (the state) forces its idea of communal interest on you. this is why its immoral and evil, it puts something above your own self interest, by force.
The problem you are ignoring is that both levels of self interest co-exist and interact with each other. For example, if each individual attempts to maximize his only his own happiness, this is not the best way to achieve the greatest overall happiness across the population. In fact, narrow self interest is generally counter-productive even to one's own well-being, and most people recognize this to some degree. Evolution certainly did, and this is why we have built-in social cooperation instincts.
youre right but i guess i just have an issue with people applying the word self to things which do not have selfs. if something does not have a self it cannot act in self interest, even if that is what it seems to be doing automatically. my point is more than semantics though:we are more than complicated biomachines, and we do have something outside of the boundaries of physics, though its not a soul in the religious sense. i would call it a "self"
I'm going to turn this around on you and say that anything which acts with self-interest therefore has a self -- a self in the only sense that is relevant to this conversation. Self is a tricky concept to nail down, and I have spent a good portion of my career pursuing it, so I don't really want to make this a semantic argument about what self is. But the kind of self that is relevant to self-interest is quite simple, and only requires an entity with interests to protect.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...