(August 31, 2012 at 5:33 am)apophenia Wrote: Second is that our wills are what I call "cognitively opaque". We can inspect the results, for example by apprehending a feeling of wrongness when we contemplate some act, but the reasons for that judgement aren't accessible to our introspection — the reason we came to that apprehension is computed somewhere below consciousness. It's like math. If someone asks you, "What is 8 times 7?" the answer 56 quickly pops into mind, but there's no knowledge of how your mind determined it was 56, nor why it was able to accurately select the answer. Morality is the same way. We know that we feel murder is wrong, but not why we feel that way. And certainly there have been plenty of attempts to explain why the things we consider moral are moral, but these are all post hoc; they are attempting to explain the feeling, not attempts to suggest what moral feelings we should have. (e.g. if an ethicist attempted to argue that we should think of examples of the color orange next to the color blue as immoral; we would consider the arguments ludicrous, not on the basis of the argument he makes, but because it so clearly contradicts our intuitive moral judgement on the matter. Ethics justifies intuition, not the reverse.)

I'd disagree both with regards to mathematics and morality. I don't think that either the feeling of moral wrongness or the determination of mathematical answer could be achieved without the concepts being taught at some point in life. A person who has never attended a math class wouldn't know that 8x7= 56. Similarly, you wouldn't think that murder is wrong unless you have been explicitly or implicitly exposed to the idea of valuing human life while growing up. It is when we accept and internalize those concepts - whatever the reason for that acceptance may be - that we can experience those moral feelings seemingly intuitively. For example, if a person is taught from the beginning that the only morally correct sexual relations are between a man and a woman and he accepts it because either it comes from an authority he trusts or because it seems rational in his worldview where purpose of sex is to produce children or because of his own single-target sexual preference or simply because it doesn't contradict anything in his worldview - then, upon encountering the idea of homosexual relations, he genuinely would feel the "moral wrongness" of it.

The job of an ethicist would then be much more nuanced. He would be required to provide a template against which our automatic intuitions can be measured and corrected. He'd be required to not only explain why we feel what we feel, but also if we should feel that way. He'd be required to tell where moral judgment is inapplicable. For example, based on a personal preference of finding raw meat to be icky, I can easily use post-hoc justifications to translate it into a moral principle and declare sushi fans to be immoral. However, an ethicist would point put that since it is a matter of personal preference, moral judgment is inapplicable here. Further, based on Christian morals pounded into me since childhood, I may genuinely consider homosexual relations as immoral - even though my own personal preference may lie that way. Again, I'd require an ethicist to tell me that the basis, i.e. the learned concept, is wrong and therefore, my intuition in this case is unjustified.

(August 31, 2012 at 5:40 am)greneknight Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Atom Wrote: How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

I don't think it's at all a mystery where atheists get their morality from. What's truly surprising is where do we Christians get our morality from? It's easier for atheists because they just do the right thing. For some of us, we have to distinguish the immorality taught in the Bible in order to do the right thing. So it's less spontaneous for us because we must get round the hideous immorality that the Bible teaches.

...Holy shit I never thought I would see this day. A Christian who admits the immoralities of the bible and the conundrums Christians must face in the realms of morality.

My mind. You just exploded it. And my day just got a little brighter. ...Though that might be the residual effects of the cranial detonation...

You missed Socrates, the Eloquent Peasant, and the Code of Ur-Nammu.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure research could find more. (While the Jain's reverence for the principle of no harm is certainly exaggerated, it has its roots in recognition of the effect of the Jain's action on others as analogized to harm of self.) Moreover your analysis of the golden rule's relevance to Buddhism is ridiculous; the entire metaphysics of Mahayana Buddhism is the rule writ large. The concepts of Shì shì wú ài, Anatman and Sunyata all lead inexorably to a much broader conception of reciprocity in relation to other beings than you suggest.

(August 31, 2012 at 7:54 am)Atom Wrote: I did a study on Golden Rules a few months ago. Here's part of it

ARE ALL RELIGIONS THE SAME? A COMPARISON OF “GOLDEN RULES”
Christianity: Matthew 7:12 New International Version (NIV) 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
The Christian Golden Rule is far more comprehensive and inclusive than the comparable “rule” in other religions. Most other religions only say that you shouldn’t do bad things to others, an omission that leaves out the love and kindness that is the character of Christ. Some religions such as Islam and Taoism encourage only positive regard or include only some people. Christianity excels!
Judaism "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary" (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad. Applies only to actions that are substantial enough to qualify as “hateful”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything.”
Brahmanism (a form of Hinduism) "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:5157).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad. Applies only to actions that are seen as “pain”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything”
Buddism "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana-Varga 5:18).
Does not tell the follower to do good to others; tells them only not to do bad. Applies only to actions “you yourself would find hurtful”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything”.
Islam “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself" (Sunnah)
Applies only to thoughts, not to action. Includes only to those regarded as “brothers”. Excludes women. Includes the judgment that one isn’t “a believer” if he doesn’t wish his brother well.
Confucianism "Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you" (Analects 15:23).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them only not to do bad.
Taosim "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss" (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien).
Applies only to thoughts, not to action. Lacks the important qualifier in Christianity, "in everything." Excludes those that are not perceived as neighbors.
Zoroastrianism "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself" (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad.

Actually, if what you said about other religions is true (though its not. I can see a lot of logical screw-ups in your argument), then Christianity screws-up majorly by trying to overreach. The other religions take care as to restrict themselves to the negative form of the rule, i.e., using the rule to dictate which acts you should refrain from, not telling you which acts you should commit. If the Christian interpretation is followed, refraining form committing an act in accordance to the rule is immoral as well. Therefore, according to Christianity, if you don't spend you life giving away your money to others and serving them, you are being immoral. Ergo, Christianity sucks!

(August 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Atom Wrote: How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

The Golden Rule. It's about 4000 years old, maybe you've heard of it?

I get my morality from Bob Ross.

(August 31, 2012 at 12:25 am)idunno Wrote: lol, sorry it is a joke

I'm glad you clarified your position on that. Nothing pisses me off than idiots claiming a type of plant that's been cultivated by humans over millennia to look almost nothing like its original ancestor is somehow proof of some religious shit.

'Real' bananas might not fit as well in Ray Comfort's hand, but I'd bet with a bit of maneuvering they'd make a more satisfying butt plug than Kirk Cameron's cock.

We are getting it from that ass hole in the sky





Now go wait in that corner so when you die you can go to hell or heaven or what ever you believe in. Enjoy afterlife you douchebag we are going to enjoy this one instead