Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:42 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussion about morals
#1
Discussion about morals
I am of the opinion that without God, we can do whatever we want. There is no such a thing as 'good' or 'bad' nor good vs evil. Everything which happens is on this Earth. The above labels, is just it: Labels.

Say someone commits a crime and get away with it. now you call him an 'evil' person. Yes, and that is just it. A label with no significance nor value other than of a label.

If you take away the bible, sutras and Qurans, you release away whatever fear, real or imagined , of repercussions if you sense an advantage which you can take hold of. Self centeredness will reign.

This is a discussion, without God whether there is such a thing as morals. I am of the opinion that there is not.
Reply
#2
RE: Discussion about morals
Well, that is distressing!

I think without religion we still have a duty to uphold the social contract and it is by such a contract that right and wrong are defined. So, congress makes laws, and we should follow them... mostly. Smile I obviously don't follow the laws that I don't agree with (I smoke pot) and vote against anything I feel is wrong, but most laws I agree with and uphold.

Rhizo
Reply
#3
RE: Discussion about morals
I agree. Most people are law abiding and laws release us to be free. We're free to do what we want knowing that the law protects us, and where the lines are drawn.
Reply
#4
RE: Discussion about morals
(October 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm)Ephrium Wrote: I am of the opinion that without God, we can do whatever we want. There is no such a thing as 'good' or 'bad' nor good vs evil. Everything which happens is on this Earth. The above labels, is just it: Labels.

Why would you think you can do whatever you want? We live in a society and as such we are responsible to each other. If you do something to cause harm to society you should expect to receive an appropriate response.

I agree with you that nothing is truly good or evil, but in the context of society, a consensus is required to assess the values of society as a whole, and anything that is detrimental to society is considered bad. This goes back far before human civilization, emerging from the evolution of social animals a few million years ago, it gave them an innate sense of the functions that would allow for a more prosperous society, which excluded murder, stealing, deception etc... None of these actions are beneficial to the survivability of the society and are thus deemed by the society to be bad.

Quote:Say someone commits a crime and get away with it. now you call him an 'evil' person. Yes, and that is just it. A label with no significance nor value other than of a label.

Cosmically it has no significance, but it does have significance to us, and that is far more important than you seem to think.

Quote:If you take away the bible, sutras and Qurans, you release away whatever fear, real or imagined , of repercussions if you sense an advantage which you can take hold of. Self centeredness will reign.

To a degree we are motivated by our own satisfaction, but certainly not at the most. We are motivated by our friends and family in ways that are far more profound than selfish actions.

Quote:This is a discussion, without God whether there is such a thing as morals. I am of the opinion that there is not.

Morals do exit, it's extremely evident in every day life to the point where it is blatantly obvious. I think the argument is not whether or not morals exist, but whether or not they are subjective (different for everyone) or objective (absolute and unchanging).
.
Reply
#5
RE: Discussion about morals
Morals don't exist in the sense that there is a universal right and wrong.

Morals do exist in the way that the average human, at the neurological level, recognized where an action is good or bad. This is extremely consistent.

Morals do exist in the way that society, as a whole and in subpartitions, has drafted a very rough outline of what is and isn't acceptable.

They are definitely subjective and have no underlying meaning to them, aside from pack survival and whatnot.
- Meatball
Reply
#6
RE: Discussion about morals
Why? Okay, I tell you one good reason why.

Just a few centuries ago, it was acceptable for a country (or rather, any group of people) to conquer any other weaker country. The stronger country will deem it acceptable . So this is 'good'?

In 90% or perhaps even 99% of the things you do , perhaps a portion of the population will deem it good another bad, so how do you decide?

The point being, when you discuss morality, everything is such an arbitrary construct. The more you analyse it, the more convinced you are it does not exist. It is opposite of what you had said about it being blatantly obvious. The only yardstick mentioned till now is approved laws. Laws change, and further, as I mentioned not long ago it was okay to take others' belongings as long as it is not from your group, showing once again how arbitrary law or morality is. Further more , even if you do break it successfully nothing happens, other than a label placed on you.

(October 23, 2009 at 2:12 pm)theVOID Wrote: 1. Why would you think you can do whatever you want? We live in a society and as such we are responsible to each other. If you do something to cause harm to society you should expect to receive an appropriate response.
Reply
#7
RE: Discussion about morals
Nobody is saying morality is static, but just because it changes over time doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The evolutionary argument for morality is that as individuals we are one of the weakest species around (compared to our many would-be predators). Together however, we stand stronger. It was neccessary for our survival that we worked together, and such systems in the wild (pack mentality, instinctual morality, etc) are all precursors to human morality.
Reply
#8
RE: Discussion about morals
(October 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm)Ephrium Wrote: Why? Okay, I tell you one good reason why.

Just a few centuries ago, it was acceptable for a country (or rather, any group of people) to conquer any other weaker country. The stronger country will deem it acceptable . So this is 'good'?

In 90% or perhaps even 99% of the things you do , perhaps a portion of the population will deem it good another bad, so how do you decide?

The point being, when you discuss morality, everything is such an arbitrary construct. The more you analyse it, the more convinced you are it does not exist. It is opposite of what you had said about it being blatantly obvious. The only yardstick mentioned till now is approved laws. Laws change, and further, as I mentioned not long ago it was okay to take others' belongings as long as it is not from your group, showing once again how arbitrary law or morality is. Further more , even if you do break it successfully nothing happens, other than a label placed on you.

Morals are subjective - they differ from people to places to periods of time. Historically it was acceptable, even honorable, to conquer other nations. Now we see that sort of conquest, or war in general, to be rather barbaric. This only means morals re subjective, not that they don't exist.

Morals in society are decided by society as a whole, there is no objective right or wrong, only what is appropriate for those people at that time and in that place. There are some things that have never been right, for example murder, in the structure of a society. As social animals we have an innate understanding that we need to work together in order to survive, murder is directly counter-survival for example, so it is fairly rudimentary to declare against it. All laws and all sense of morality happens in a similar way, the society decides what it's collective values are (or what the majority value is) and this value is held as the standard.
.
Reply
#9
RE: Discussion about morals
(October 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm)Meatball Wrote: Morals don't exist in the sense that there is a universal right and wrong.

Morals do exist in the way that the average human, at the neurological level, recognized where an action is good or bad. This is extremely consistent.

Morals do exist in the way that society, as a whole and in subpartitions, has drafted a very rough outline of what is and isn't acceptable.

They are definitely subjective and have no underlying meaning to them, aside from pack survival and whatnot.

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that while right and wrong are not universal, good and bad are somehow at least extremely consistent "at the neurological level"? This seems somewhat contradictory. Also what is the standard you are using for "good" and "bad" such that you know it when you see it at a neurological level? And what do you mean by "at the neurological level" to begin with?

Regarding your comment about pack survival and whatnot, if one lives say in the US, from an atheistic world view should they be concerned with genocide in another country on the other side of the world? Should they condemn the genocide as being bad? Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?
Reply
#10
RE: Discussion about morals
(October 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm)Ephrium Wrote: This is a discussion, without God whether there is such a thing as morals. I am of the opinion that there is not.

The other day while cycling into town, i stopped to help an older bloke get a large chair into the back of his car, he was struggling and needed a hand, I had a minute to spare so stopped and helped him. After helping him he asked me to wait while he got some money to pay me, I said it was Ok, I explained that it was a sad day when you cannot just stop and help someone without expecting to receive/to give a reward and just put it down to my NON christian attitude, we laughed and I went away.

No god but helped someone else for nothing.

just been down my local had a few drinks, nothing worth pulling, scored some green, now in some peoples eyes I am morally wrong to do all of those things.

Morals are subjective, I am Anti Animal Rights, I know to much about those people, the lies they tell etc, So to an AR person I am moral scum, even though the work i do and the money i raise for animals goes to animals not some AR pocket.

If you look at the sources for god and the words he is suppose to speak they are not very moral in my eyes, maybe in the followers but not mine.

Thousands of people do moral things everyday without god being even close. So you cannot say that without gods there are no morals, helping each other out for future credit or in exchange is possibly how the whole social structure of humans originated.

just me tuppence

A
(October 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?

So you are saying that when the 2006? tsunami struck that athiests didnt give a dam but fundis did?

What if that pack was the same cult as yours? would you care then?

A
EE WA EE WA, WIGGY WIGGY WIGGY, PLUNGA A PLUNGA A
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The fascinating asymmetry of theist-atheist discussion Astreja 5 436 July 22, 2023 at 8:02 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Old threads of discussion I have had. Mystic 125 16051 April 3, 2018 at 4:43 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Objective/subjective morals Jazzyj7 61 4262 February 19, 2018 at 9:20 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Subjective Morals and Societal Whims InteresedUser 114 30096 May 25, 2017 at 12:49 am
Last Post: Bunburryist
  Atheists have no morals? Islam & Christianity are actually crazy. bussta33 8 2718 January 16, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut
  Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here. Mystic 99 23676 January 11, 2016 at 1:14 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Atheist Morals/Purpose/Altruism z7z 12 3480 May 9, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion GriffinHunter 216 30757 March 26, 2015 at 6:03 am
Last Post: The Reality Salesman01
  Two babies discussion. Mystic 213 29670 February 24, 2015 at 8:34 am
Last Post: h4ym4n
  Morals - Objective and Subjective Dystopia 16 5371 June 29, 2014 at 8:53 am
Last Post: DeistPaladin



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)