Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[downbeatplumb]

I'll repeat once again, and hopefully for the last time: right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" that gives them meaning.

Well that is just wrong.
What defines "right and wrong" is empathy.

And saying god defines right and wrong is a bit nebulous isn't it?
How does it do it?
It certainly isn't through scripture because I haven't read the Koran which is where I assume those things are yet I am a moral man.
Its not through the Imams etc because I don't listen to them.

Is rape wrong? Everyone, atheist or theist, will say it is. Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.

I think rape is wrong because my "empathy" tells me that I wouldnt like to be raped.
I assume Pete Singer is some kind of muslim! they seem to be the ones that use their beliefs to excuse rape the most often.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/598...-Mimousini

I am not arguing from authority here, or implying that atheists should advocate for the same ideas, but I think that this guy demonstrates that we can philosophize any moral position to the realm of acceptable if we don't have some ultimate reference.

Well I don't know why not believing in your silly idea leads to rape.

But I have seen people using religion to justify murder and rape. They do thos things in the name of god.
The Nazis had "god is with us" on their belt buckles.

In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

Yes and the explanation is a because:
A: we have evolved as a social animal were antisocial behaviour would cause issues and
B: we are sophisticated people that can have empathy.

If anything the idea of god is often used to remove those things and leads to more evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

The batshit arguments and condescension are just minor side effects of a person discounting shared attributes of humanity on account of the other person not believing in pixies, or the right pixies. The full effect of that beyond the boards is a great deal worse.

Anywho, it's probably not accurate to state that empathy defines right and wrong. Empathy is recognition. Empathy tells us that we're looking at something meaningful to us, a situation with moral import, but it doesn't tell us why that situation has moral import to recognize. Approached from another angle, failures of empathy - the lack of empathy in an individual will not certify that the thing apprehended is not wrong. It suggests, instead, that human moral agency is fallible, which probably doesn't surprise anyone.

Empathy as the right or wrong-making property is actually the same moral assertion as god defining right and wrong. Natural subjectivism as opposed to supernatural subjectivism.

[downbeatplumb]

The batshit arguments and condescension are just minor side effects of a person discounting shared attributes of humanity on account of the other person not believing in pixies, or the right pixies.  The full effect of that beyond the boards is a great deal worse.

Anywho, it's probably not accurate to state that empathy defines right and wrong.  Empathy is recognition.   Empathy tells us that we're looking at something meaningful to us, a situation with moral import, but it doesn't tell us why that situation has moral import to recognize.  Approached from another angle, failures of empathy - the lack of empathy in an individual will not certify that the thing apprehended is not wrong.  

Empathy as the right or wrong-making property is actually the same moral assertion as god defining right and wrong.  Natural subjectivism as opposed to supernatural subjectivism.

I think that me feeling bad if I hurt someone is because I can put myself in their position. I think it is kind of telling that its bad. I know its more complex than that but I do think it plays a role.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the hope, that our empathy can function as a sort of warning system. It's not certain (and almost certainly untrue) that moral content is what empathy as an evolved trait is adapted to recognize, though.

In the way that realists have it figured, empathy compels us to action through a manufactured emotional attachment, but isn't the bad-making property or even a valid method of moral assessment. It's a nifty trick that biology has come up with to broaden the umbrella of self interest to those nearest to us. Very useful for a social species, as you noted.

It might not actually be more complex than that - things being good or bad, despite all of our protestations to the contrary, may actually be based on some subjective fact - like the presence of empathy in a viewer. That's a valid position. Depending on how you view or handle that empathy it would be a non cognitivist or subjectivist view.

Regardless, our empathy is a useful tool in the moral field..and an empathetic person who doesn't have much of a desire to do bad is probably going to manage their entire life as a moral agent without ever being aware of any of these terms or distinctions or similarities between moral propositions. They will not need to make up their minds or take any particular stand on any moral system. Between not wanting to skullfuck their neighbors' kid and being capable of imagining that from their neighbors, and their neighbors kids pov....it's a no-go no matter what the bad making properties are..assuming there are bad-making properties..or properties..at all.

[Simon Moon]

The batshit arguments and condescension are just minor side effects of a person discounting shared attributes of humanity on account of the other person not believing in pixies, or the right pixies.  The full effect of that beyond the boards is a great deal worse.

Anywho, it's probably not accurate to state that empathy defines right and wrong.  Empathy is recognition.   Empathy tells us that we're looking at something meaningful to us, a situation with moral import, but it doesn't tell us why that situation has moral import to recognize.  Approached from another angle, failures of empathy - the lack of empathy in an individual will not certify that the thing apprehended is not wrong.  

Empathy as the right or wrong-making property is actually the same moral assertion as god defining right and wrong.  Natural subjectivism as opposed to supernatural subjectivism.

I think that me feeling bad if I hurt someone is because I can put myself in their position. I think it is kind of telling that its bad. I know its more complex than that but I do think it plays a role.

Indeed.

A secular moral system, that is superior to any religious moral 'system', is not rocket science. As long as the goal of the moral system is well being. First of all, theistic moral 'systems' are not systems at all, they are moral edicts, set down by some god.

Secular morality:

We are all physical beings, living in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws.

We can all agree (with some exceptions; terminal illness for example), that: life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, pleasure is preferable to torture, freedom is preferable to slavery. etc.

What is harmful to my well being, is almost certainly harmful to other's well being.

From those simple precepts, it is not hard to come up with a moral system, that tries to achieve the best for our well being.

It's not too difficult to understand why murder, slavery, theft, rape are immoral. Just ask the f'n victims if their well being is being harmed. Zero gods required.

Another way to think about it, is John Rawls' 'Veil of Ignorance'.

Let me make a late addition:

This moral system is not subjective, it is based on the objective facts about reality and the universe. The goal, well being, could be said to be subjective. But, anyone that doesn't agree with that goal, probably ended their own life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well being would only be subjective if or when an addicts novel ideas about their own wellbeing were considered to be equally as valid as a physicians - as an example.

[Magilla]

I'll repeat once again, and hopefully for the last time: right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" that gives them meaning.
Is rape wrong? Everyone, atheist or theist, will say it is. Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people.
.
.
.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

@ Klorophyll {" right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" "}.

Then perhaps a godless reality sucks, but we have to live with it.

As evolved creatures, there are built-in drives, which aid the survival of the species, and the survival of the genes within the body's cells, and especially within the gametes, to be passed on to new generations. For example, there is a usual drive for adult humans of the opposite sex to procreate, so allowing the genes within the species to go on . . . and on.

There is also a drive to care for our young, further promoting the genes within the species to go on . . . and on.
The drive to care for our young involves looking after their health and well-being. This promotes their survival until they are old enough to join in with the usual drive for adult humans of the opposite sex to procreate.

So we have an innate drive to care for health and well being. Humans have evolved to be social creatures, which use said social structures, inter-relationships and co-operation, to survive more proficiently than if there was no societal structure. Thus we have an inbuilt drive to look after one another, within our own social groups. Threats from out groups are opposed, and defended off. Friendships and helpfulness from out groups tend to be welcomed - that adds to the ability of all to survive better.

We have an evolved ability to empathise with others, which allows for better defense of the members of our social groups health and well-being. Loss of the health or well-being of members of a society are equivalent of loss of aid and support from  said unwell people or those with limited and insufficient well being.

So we look after other members of our species, and s*u*l*f*c*i*g* your neighbors' kid is the antithesis of that. So that action will raise protestestations, and feelings of Eww/Ughh reactions.
It is known that the human brain has collections of mirror neurones, which arouse feelings in observers, akin to those felt by others in pain, who are ill, or in a state of low well-being.

So morality can be viewed as a pursuit of maximising the health and well-being in all of our species, because we are better off that way, and because we feel the lack of those, when others also lack them, and we know what that feels like from our own experiences. So actions and attitudes that maximise the health and well-being of all other humans is an inbuilt desire, and knowing the consequences of taking various actions allows us to evaluate those actions in terms of how apt they are at doing so.

Health and well-being can be investigated and evaluated scientifically, and doctors and psychologists are professionals, who make it their chosen profession to help in that aim, in particular, using the results of the investigation to guide them. We can study how to look after the health of populations, and we can study how to look after the well-being of those same populations.

However, you do not have to be a professional to be able to mirror the pain inflicted on one's neighbour's kid, by s*u*l*f*c*i*g* your neighbors' kid. So all that is necessary to be moral is to subscribe to maximising the health and well-being in all of our species.

However, it is not necessary to subscribe to that, and as a measure to help in maximising the health and well-being in all of our species, the majority of us can take measures to exclude from society, those who are inclined to do ridiculous things like s*u*l*f*c*i*g* your neighbors' kid, (or theft, or murder or any of the actions deemed to be criminal by a sane and rational society). So we humans get to define what is right or wrong, what is allowed or not, and what adheres to our chosen basis for moral action . . . maximising the health and well-being of all.

And no god is needed for that, and it is therefore a way to live better, with a  reality might 'suck', but with which we have to live. This task is not easy, and does not always work out well, but humanity has come a long way in being more moral, and life is better for all, using the principle I've described. We improve by careful thought and consideration of reality, and how we affect it, and that includes how we affect one another, and reciprocally affect ourselves. Discussion of all of this, and finding any holes in it would be steps in improving it, within the same general framework, and that would be a moral endeavour.

In the spirit of promoting well-being, I wish you health and happiness, Klorophyll.

---

Cheers, Magilla.

[The Grand Nudger]

....and in pursuit of that

What Kloro is looking for is not an explanation of why skullfucking our neighbors kid is antithetical to an (or our) orderly society, but why it's antithetical -to good-.

Things which provide human beings or a human society with a survival advantage are not interchangeable with "the good" unless it's impossible for the right thing™ to disadvantage human beings or a human society. That doesn't appear to be impossible. We might contend that there's broad overlap, but that's as far as we can take that one in an objective system. Utility to an individual or a particular society is the definition of relativism. It's a fun baby to split, because cultural relativism is a true comment on applied morality - and being a true comment it seems like it must have some role to play in an objective morality - but it doesn't. It's more an example of compelling reasons to do one set of things, which may contain plenty of good, but also bad.

Similarly, the comment that bad acts,..so defined, are eww/ugh reactions is explicitly non-cognitivist. Like the above, it is absolutely true that people do this, but this isn't an example of objectivism (or any rational position on any issue whatsoever). It asserts that we purport to report facts with moral statements, and don't. Things aren't good or bad based on a particular set of true and mind independent propositions (those things that scientists can study, in your formulation), they're not propositions at all, just "ugh!".

Even more deleterious to any objective system that a rational inference can be applied to, is the notion that humans define..rather than describe, what good and bad are. If there are facts, we don't actually get to decide what those facts are - and a government (to use your example) which simply decides that theft is wrong may be looking out for it's own interests, or the interests of a large number of it's people, but whether or not there is moral import to a legal structure and whether or not it accords to moral facts remains an open question. Very often, at least in our case..there isn't and it doesn't. Robin Hood beckons. It's morally wrong to be a racist twatwaffle...but it's not illegal, and should not be illegal, else we want to prosecute thoughtcrime. It's morally wrong to deprive another person of necessary resources or sustenance, but it's legal and should remain legal....otherwise, we're going to have to hold a trial for every poor starving schmuck who outbids another poor starving schmuck for a can of corn.

Utilitarian consequentialism is popular, especially at the level of policy and process (which is why it so often turns to societal organization and legality for examples)..but utilitarian consequentialism may be a derived good, a prism which we look through while applying our silent but efficacious moral principles....not the good-making system. The products of utilitarian consequentialism could only be as good as (and often much less than) the asserted facts upon which it's premised. Facts which, if they existed, would be the right and wrong making properties. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a persons own subjective report of harm. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a list of useful articles to state authority.

..etc etc etc.

I think that the most relevant criticism of utilitarian consequentialism is that it's ability to handle natural facts is only matched by it's inability to grasp non-natural facts. This is what god botherer's ham fistedly attempt to argue over, but never seem to be able to express without reference to some superstition they hold. Consider the earlier rejection of a utilitarian argument. It doesn't matter to Kloro if or whether the natural facts suggest or demand that we kill one kid to privilege the other - it is wrong for some non natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate. Similarly, in his disagreement over open marriages, it doesn't matter that the natural facts cannot support a conclusion of "wrong" - it is wrong for some non-natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate.

Let's assume for generosity that it may be, that it just is. How would you (or anyone else with thoughts on the matter) express that purported fact in whatever moral system you prefer?

[Simon Moon]

In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

This kind of sentiment from a theist always scares the crap out of me.

First of all, utilitarianism does exactly the oposite of what you saying here, is the 'utilitarian viewpoint'. Utilitarian moral theory places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.

So, you immoral fuck, if one skullfucks an infant, it produces a bad outcome for the infant, and therefore, within utilitarianism, is immoral.

Second, are you saying, that if you stopped believing in gods, would start skullfucking infants? If so, please, continue believing in your immoral religion. As bad as it is, it is better than having you torturing children.

I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

Sure it warrants an explanation. Interesting thing is, there are natural explanations that explain morality, No gods requiresd.

For example. Bonobo chimps, our closest genetic cousins, have moral behaviors.

Examples:
They will share food, even if it is in short supply.
Members will protect weaker members of their group, even if it puts them at risk.
They will adopt orphaned babies.
They will punish violent members.
They mourn the death of kin. The entire troop will mourn the death of a beloved elder.

And so much more.

Which god gave Bonobos their moral compass?

[Belacqua]

Sure it warrants an explanation. Interesting thing is, there are natural explanations that explain morality, No gods requiresd.

For example. Bonobo chimps, our closest genetic cousins, have moral behaviors.

Examples:
They will share food, even if it is in short supply.
Members will protect weaker members of their group, even if it puts them at risk.
They will adopt orphaned babies.
They will punish violent members.
They mourn the death of kin. The entire troop will mourn the death of a beloved elder.

And so much more.

Which god gave Bonobos their moral compass?

I don't think the bonobo argument does much to address morality in humans. Simply because humans aren't bonobos. We are far far worse.

If it's true what they say about bonobos, it is in their nature to be good to each other. But this is obviously not true of people. From Internet bullying, to domestic battery, to school shootings, to evil US foreign policy, people are cruel to each other. People often enjoy being cruel to others. And even worse, we can employ our unique reasoning powers to justify extreme cruelty. Whatever technological superiority we have over bonobos, we use to harm each other. 

What little empathy human beings have for one another is so easily overcome that we clearly need something else to be moral. 

I think that morality is something we need when our human nature fails us, since it clearly fails us so often. We don't operate through empathy, so we need some kind of abstract reasoning, along the lines of "I don't feel any empathy for those people, so how would I treat them differently if I did feel any?" "What guidelines is it good for me to follow, even if I don't really care what happens to those people?" "Even if I have judged that those people are unlike myself, how should I treat them so that I can continue to be a good person?" 

This is NOT to say that when human nature fails us the only alternative is religion mandated by God. I am ONLY saying that bonobo nature, and a fortiori human nature, are not determinate of morality. Morality is largely to combat our human nature.