Would you also agree it is quite a dangerous view? Since it allows all things if the majority acted on pure reason rather practically.

How is my view dangerous? I believe it is correct therefore realistic. What, you mean because it's perhaps rather politically incorrect that I might in future possibly have some trouble about it? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

And as for not believing in free will, I think it makes absolutely no justifiable reason for seeking vengeance in and of itself (it should only be done if it actually makes batters better).

I think vengeance is a very destructive emotion indeed, and it doesn't make sense without free will.

EvF

You are saying there are no real morals arn't you? If everyone lived that wouldn't the world turn to chaos? There would be no reason protect the weak from the strong and so the strong could carry out what ever desire took their fancy at the time.

I am saying that the way people behave already, both the moral and the immoral, is only moral or immoral in a subjective sense. This doesn't change whether people are good or bad or not.

Some people just 'carry out whatever desire takes their fancy at the time' - but that's the case whether morals are subjective or objective. I just know of no evidence that they are objective, that's all I'm saying. I only have reason to believe that they are subjective.

Finally, if people believe they absolutely know what is moral or immoral when they don't and it's in fact it's ultimately a subjective matter (as I believe it is), then that kills moral debate. And I, subjectively, think that it is better for people if things are discussed rather than people acting like tyrants, whether there's evidence for objective morals or not - that's my own subjective opinion on the matter. What's yours?

EvF

What I am trying to say is that if moral are not absolute and everyone knew this and didn't act practically on it, it would be chaos. The only reason to act practically would be for your own personal benifit.

Im just saying that many atheists claim there are no real morals but act as if there are (maybe because there is an innate understanding of good and evil in them).

Personally I think there really are morals and that what Hitler did really was evil and not a mere subjective feeling. That there is a real moral difference between the murder of millions of people based on race and playing wii sports in your living room.

I think what Hitler did was what indeed grossly immoral. As do the majority of people I think! Now whether morals are objective or not, this doesn't change this fact.

If everyone didn't believe in subjective morals, then those who think that means there's no reason to be moral, obviously don't really care - they are only interested in morality if there were rules to follow...

It would be a huge misconception to think that because morals aren't objective then we can't do good. If some people would think that, then they are mistaken and that doesn't change the fact of whether there actually are objective morals or not. In either case, whether that would make the world better or worse because of how people reacted to the lack of belief in objective morals - that wouldn't change the fact of the matter. Are there actually any objective morals? I know of no evidence of any...

And also, if everyone didn't believe in objective morals, you couldn't really say that many people would then not give a fuck...because if no one believed in objective morals then we would be living in a completely different world wouldn't we? Because some people of course do believe in objective morals like yourself.

Whether you think it's more moral or not if morals are objective, that has got nothing to do with the reality of the matter, nothing to do with the actual question "Do objective morals actually exist?" ... "Is there actually any evidence of them?"

Since, I myself know of no evidence of objective morals, and since i don't believe in them - I think for some people to claim they exist and to absolutely know what they are: That form of absolutism causes much more trouble than if they simply trusted their own empathy and weren't so obstinate about their views.

EvF

You don't think Hitler was grossly immoral, you just don't agree with it. From his point on view it was ok and if there are no objective morals there is no difference between what you and he thinks.

I see where you are comming from with the whole no evidence thing, but morals tend to be on of the basic beliefs of people, along with the fact other people exist. There is no evidence to say that other people exist and there I am not dreaming, etc, but I have to assume its true because it seems so. Maybe the same can be said of morals. In the basic sense most people have the same sort of morals, that lying, thieft, muder are wrong, things like that.

I know thats not a wonderful arguement

Considering the Hitler thing, it is quite possible that one of his victims, if they had not been murdered, would have become a tyrant equal to or more "evil" than Hitler himself. In this instance, Hitler murdering this person (or even many people including this person) could be seen as a good thing, given that it has prevented the possible evil of the future.

This is the problem with any ethical system. There are many ethical dilemmas you can have, the most common one is this:

There are 100 people on a train that is going to run off the tracks and crash, killing everyone. You can save the 100 by switching the train to another track, but there is an innocent baby on the tracks, and you haven't got the time to save it. What do you do?

Do you save the baby and let the 100 die, or do you "sacrifice the few to save the many" and kill the baby? Moral absolutists wouldn't be able to do either, and would leave the situation as unjustifiable. Ironically, leaving the situation (i.e. ignoring it and not doing any course of action) results in the deaths of 100 people, of which you could be said to hold the blame since you had the opportunity to do something but didn't. Moral relativists (or even nihilists like myself) would switch the tracks, killing the one to save the 100 on the train.

The second question is whether the ends always justify the means, such that if the end result is the most favorable, does it matter how we got to it, or even if we were planning on getting to it. What if Hitler's actions (though deplorable given he was acting on racial-cleansing alone) gave us the most favorable outcome. What if one (or many) of the victims would have become more tyrannical, and ended up causing more mayhem than Hitler himself? Surely then, Hitler's actions are more "good" than evil, given that the outcome we reached was the best one possible.

Just some things to consider

Morality isn't as black and white (or absolute/relative) as people seem to think it is.

(November 2, 2009 at 1:35 pm)solarwave Wrote: You don't think Hitler was grossly immoral, you just don't agree with it. From his point on view it was ok and if there are no objective morals there is no difference between what you and he thinks.

I see where you are comming from with the whole no evidence thing, but morals tend to be on of the basic beliefs of people, along with the fact other people exist. There is no evidence to say that other people exist and there I am not dreaming, etc, but I have to assume its true because it seems so. Maybe the same can be said of morals. In the basic sense most people have the same sort of morals, that lying, thieft, muder are wrong, things like that.

I know thats not a wonderful arguement

Hitler was a good catholic following the normal anti semitic mores of the time.

But morality is generally down to what is acceptable in your society. In Islam this means covering up the women in a stupidly over the top way. Yet in naturist colonies people can be completely naked and completely moral.

Religion has suckered itself onto morals as its last desperate bid for relevancy.

Maybe Hitler was just doing God's work. I certainly don't think this, I am simply offering up an idea. After all, God did kill many of his chosen people in the bible so why not set the wheels in motion for Hitler to act as the hand of God to cleanse the right amount. Maybe I should write a book about it and in a few hundred years (After the zombie apocolypse of course!) people will canonize it into the newer testament scripture and Hitler will be remembered fondly as an agent of God.

Rhizo