(May 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly? 

Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.

(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)

(May 22, 2017 at 5:21 pm)SteveII Wrote: I have not changed my position one iota. 

Children are not taught how to be selfish, hurtful, disobedient, dishonest etc. yet they are. There is only one possible conclusion--they are born that way. 

Since in Christianity, we call those acts sinful, it follows: children are sinful. Sin is a description of an act/intention/or omission--and not a description of moral responsibility which is why I stated over and over that I do not think that young children are morally responsible for their actions.

I stated over and over that we (and nobody I know) teach young children that they are "tainted sinners". They get age appropriate explanations long after toddlerhood. If you find someone who did not give age appropriate information to the child, that simply calls into question good judgement--not doctrine.

Agree, born that way, by nature. Do they stay that way, no. And it's not because of christian religion. It's because their mind continues to grow and develop within society/culture. 

If they grow up in a non christian culture do they retain these behaviors, usually not. Christians, or any religion, does not the exclusive answer for raising/producing moral adults. Quite frankly, they seem to produce more fucked up adults but that's just my opinion.  

You may not think that they are morally wrong yet you label them as sinners. Sinning in the christian religion is bad. So the child is labeled bad. Stating that toddlers are sinners because they have not fully developed is just wrong. Telling them at a later date that their behavior as a toddler was sinful is just wrong. 

This process of indoctrination, viewing the child as bad and then saving the bad child/individual is no different than cult behavior.

(May 22, 2017 at 8:25 pm)Regina Wrote: Personally I struggle to understand the amount of atheists who talk about morality being subjective too

There are certain aspects of morality that are, but I think they concern smaller trivial things, like whether it's justified to be rude to people if you're having a bad day or if spending your own money on useless shit you want rather than need is ok. It can also concern what is considered to be the "correct" consequence for a certain action.

When it comes to bigger shit like murder, rape and child molestation though, those are pretty objectively fucking bad. I don't know how anyone can sit there and say there's any subjectivity on that, and that those things can be acceptable within the context of "culture" or a different "societal opinion". Are you going to willingly submit to your own murder and suddenly feel good about having a knife thrust into your stomach, because the person doing it to you thinks it's morally right? Ugh no.

I think it's a simple misunderstanding.  That moral disagreement exists is a fact.  This moral disagreement is subjective morality regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality.   

IRL, those points of contention often regard what is or is not any of those three things.  Just because moral disagreement exists, that doesn't mean I have to accept contradictory moral value judgements.  That's kind of why moral disagreement exists in the first place.  OFC I'm not going to submit to the societal opinion of some nutjob that bloodgod is righteously thirsty, but they do exist.

(May 23, 2017 at 10:27 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is. 

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly? 

Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.

(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)

I agree that free will is just an illusion. I believe more in nature than nurture, including when it comes to the formation of our character. A good example is risk appetite, which is greater in some than in others. Someone with zero risk appetite is not going to do something risky "by nature", while someone else does. From the outside it might look like free will, but the decision is already precast by our genes expressed in our emotions and feelings.

(May 25, 2017 at 6:38 am)eggie Wrote:

(May 23, 2017 at 10:27 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote: I basically agree with that there is no objective morality. And I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of free will. Basically, I think we think we experience free will while we don't really. But that just means it comes down to a difference in how we wish to determine a term, it doesn't really matter. The world is what it is. And if we are to call our actions 'truly free' or only 'seemingly free', that still won't change one bit about the reality we live in. We are still to be held accounteable for our actions, otherwise coexistance and order would be impossible.
My own subjective take on morality being different than that of any other person but similar to most does not diminish why I feel angry if someone does something I or the collective deems immoral. I don't see why it should. What exactly is the problem of me being angry at someone who murders my friend, for example? Or even a random stranger on the street? The murderer knows the consequences of his actions, the sorrow and pain and loss and loss of life it brings with... Yet does it anyway. The action and the results are still there. The person that did it still did it. Even if there is free will or not. My reaction will still be there. I don't have 'free will' choose how to feel either, so how is that a hurdle for this exactly?   BE

Also I feel obliged to say that if there is a God that is all-knowing, all-powerful and created this entire world and all the people in it, the belief in 'true free will' should be impossible too. If you believe in a deity like that and in free will, I think you probably hold contradicting views.

(P.S. I didn't go through the entire thread. Sorry if my points have already been mentioned. But then again, you asked for our views.)

I agree that free will is just an illusion. I believe more in nature than nurture, including when it comes to the formation of our character. A good example is risk appetite, which is greater in some than in others. Someone with zero risk appetite is not going to do something risky "by nature", while someone else does. From the outside it might look like free will, but the decision is already precast by our genes expressed in our emotions and feelings.

Good point. Though to me, nature vs nurture doesn't even come into play to us having free will or not. Even if it were 100% nurture, it wouldn't change things. If your previous experiences, conditioning, cultural upbringing... every single possible variable that has come into play regarding you up to the present would still determine your choice. Be it biological or sociological variables.

(May 23, 2017 at 9:45 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 22, 2017 at 5:38 pm)Zenith Wrote: What about they are living beings that, like all other creatures, first value themselves (selfishness)? It is the primal instincts of survival and the lack of ability to "read minds" that make them easily understand their own needs but harder to understand the others.

If disobedience is sin, then what is the virtue, slavery?
Why should obeying the "Do what I tell you!" be a virtue?

What if children are not "broken", but rather they grow and learn? And what if social skills are being learned rather than being built into their DNA?

And what if children need to disobey you in order to learn that they have freedom of choice, also so that they learn what happens if they do otherwise?

What if "wrong" does not equal "broken" but rather is an opportunity to learn?

You are rationalizing their actions, not showing that they are not that way by nature (which is and has been my point for this entire discussion). The fact would still remain that they ALL do these things and Christians (and most people) have defined these things as not acceptable in the long term.

Of course I rationalize them. That's the opposite of assuming one's nature is "evil" just because "the bible says so" The same as people rationalized about diseases and tried to find natural explanations when everybody believed that it was demons who caused them.

And if you claim that a child is "sinful by nature", then I believe that it is not on me to prove that it is not, but you to prove that it is.

1. Morality is an interesting topic. In my opinion even if there was an objective morality, like say, if morality was based on survival and the continuation of our
species and everything done in support of it is what is considered moral - it would still be subjective because what one person does for his survival wouldn't
be what another person does for his survival and both can find each others actions immoral in accordance with their own values.

In short, a person would consider what advantages that person moral and what disadvantages immoral. An action that advantages him could be what
disadvantages someone else, this is the origin of subjective morality. The downfall of objective morality is that it doesn't factor in circumstances leading to
an action, according to it certain actions are immoral no matter the circumstances. If taking the life of another was objectively immoral a person killing in
self defense would be immoral. A selfish interest is always at play whenever an action is carried out and thus morality is ultimately subjective no matter the
circumstances.

2. Free will is yet another interesting topic. I do believe in free will. If we have options we have free will. I don't think a single course of action is the only possible action in any given situation. We always have
the choice to do or not do something. I believe that constitutes free will.

(June 4, 2017 at 11:10 am)pool the matey Wrote: 1.    Morality is an interesting topic. In my opinion even if there was an objective morality, like say, if morality was based on survival and the continuation of our
      species and everything done in support of it is what is considered moral - it would still be subjective because what one person does for his survival wouldn't  
      be what another person does for his survival and both can find each others actions immoral in accordance with their own values.
 
      In short, a person would consider what advantages that person moral and what disadvantages immoral. An action that advantages him could be what
      disadvantages someone else, this is the origin of subjective morality. The downfall of objective morality is that it doesn't factor in circumstances leading to
      an action, according to it certain actions are immoral no matter the circumstances. If taking the life of another was objectively immoral a person killing in
      self defense would be immoral. A selfish interest is always at play whenever an action is carried out and thus morality is ultimately subjective no matter the
      circumstances.

I was actually considering starting a new thread on morality, to explain this. I see morality as man's understanding of what's "helpful" and what is "harmful" for the community the man lives in. And I believe that there is no "abyss" between harmful and helpful in such a way that a thing could be either "helpful" or "harmful" but not both. Rather people usually try to find the thing that is most helpful and does the least harm in a specific circumstance, using the understanding and the knowledge they have available - that's morality.

Trying to declare morality as "objective", i.e. as something unchangeable, is basically forcing a solution that worked 2000 years ago onto a problem that exists in completely different circumstances, and therefore is no longer helpful.

(June 5, 2017 at 8:39 am)Zenith Wrote: I was actually considering starting a new thread on morality, to explain this. I see morality as man's understanding of what's "helpful" and what is "harmful" for the community the man lives in. And I believe that there is no "abyss" between harmful and helpful in such a way that a thing could be either "helpful" or "harmful" but not both. Rather people usually try to find the thing that is most helpful and does the least harm in a specific circumstance, using the understanding and the knowledge they have available - that's morality.

Trying to declare morality as "objective", i.e. as something unchangeable, is basically forcing a solution that worked 2000 years ago onto a problem that exists in completely different circumstances, and therefore is no longer helpful.

Harmful vs helpful -is- an objective morality.  Just as "more than and less than" is an objective description of two piles of money, even when the size of each pile keeps changing.

(June 5, 2017 at 9:23 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 5, 2017 at 8:39 am)Zenith Wrote: I was actually considering starting a new thread on morality, to explain this. I see morality as man's understanding of what's "helpful" and what is "harmful" for the community the man lives in. And I believe that there is no "abyss" between harmful and helpful in such a way that a thing could be either "helpful" or "harmful" but not both. Rather people usually try to find the thing that is most helpful and does the least harm in a specific circumstance, using the understanding and the knowledge they have available - that's morality.

Trying to declare morality as "objective", i.e. as something unchangeable, is basically forcing a solution that worked 2000 years ago onto a problem that exists in completely different circumstances, and therefore is no longer helpful.

Harmful vs helpful -is- an objective morality.  Just as "more than and less than" is an objective description of two piles of money, even when the size of each pile keeps changing.

No. "Harmful" and "helpful" ARE objective, but they are NOT morality. Morality is about belief, i.e.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio...h/morality Wrote:Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong.