Morals are as different as the people who have them. Morals differ, there is no ultimate one set that holds true for everyone, regardless of how fiercely some would love to believe otherwise.

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:So what happens when people disagree about something based on moral grounds?

Aunty Entity generally has us fight it out in the Thunderdome.

Honestly, when are your lot going to come up with an original question? This question has been answered about 10 000 times just on this forum. A quick perusal of atheist literature would have provided you with our position on morality and moral authority.

Boru

If it has been answered so many times I would think that the simple question would have a well rehearsed and simple answer.

As for my 'lot', generalizations are generally useless in serious conversation. I do not consider this conversation "us vs. them" but "you and I".

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:34 am)Alice Wrote: Morals are as different as the people who have them. Morals differ, there is no ultimate one set that holds true for everyone, regardless of how fiercely some would love to believe otherwise.

Is it wrong to torture someone for fun?

Do you know that bonobo apes have a sense of morality and justice!
Proven in repeatable experiments.
I'll ask you the same question, where do they get it from?

@GodsRevolt
-What is the standard that they measure it by? Two people arguing a moral difficulty, what does the third person say, do, or show that ends the argument?
Many people have many opinions, so I think you could say that the best decision can be found when you combine them. The person that ends the argument is the one that manages to satisfy both sides.
So, I guess that is a moral standard? What is your moral standard?

Quote:What is the standard that they measure it by? Two people arguing a moral difficulty, what does the third person say, do, or show that ends the argument?

The third person just needs to point out what the laws are and the likely consequences of the proposed action. There is obviously a pretty big difference between the idea of morality and the idea of justice. We cobble together our best attempts at justice through laws. So you could say we band together to protect one another while also trying to avoid regulating the joy out of people's lives. It is a delicate balance.

But where does fine art come from? Where do great recipes come from? What makes some sounds noise and others music? Morality comes from the same place as these other phenomena. The remarkable thing is that there is so much agreement in all these areas, though there is also variety. But some noises will never be deemed music by anyone's sensibility and some acts will never be deemed moral for the same reason.

Of course people will still do these things sometimes. Life is not black and white and people are not simple. Just think of all the scumbag Christian television personalities who have used money needed by old people barely getting by to buy gold plated bathroom fixtures. Or the ones who keep getting caught abusing drugs or having affairs with people in their own 'flock' or paying for a homosexual prostitute. God's commandments don't seem so very hard to disregard even for those who profess to embrace them as true believers. I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about what atheists may do without this ineffectual device of yours.

(August 1, 2014 at 3:36 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Is it wrong to torture someone for fun?

Many would find that to be utterly despicable.

Me, I'm too busy having fun to care whether others think it is right or wrong or otherwise fluffy.

(August 1, 2014 at 3:37 am)ignoramus Wrote: Do you know that bonobo apes have a sense of morality and justice!
Proven in repeatable experiments.
I'll ask you the same question, where do they get it from?

The way I understand the bonobo experiments is that when a conflict arises the alphas or dominate members take control of the situation, dole out justice as they see fit, and the rest submit.

This is only keeping order under the might is right rule.

Unless there is an experiment that shows how bonobos react when placed against a separate community of bonobos and only enough resources for one?

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:38 am)Baqal Wrote: @GodsRevolt
-What is the standard that they measure it by? Two people arguing a moral difficulty, what does the third person say, do, or show that ends the argument?
Many people have many opinions, so I think you could say that the best decision can be found when you combine them. The person that ends the argument is the one that manages to satisfy both sides.
So, I guess that is a moral standard? What is your moral standard?

Person A wants to kill the human baby for food. Person B wants to wait.

What is the standard here?

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Maximum benefit?

Morality is based on the largest amount of gain? Such as killing one man to save a thousand?

What about killing one baby to save two elderly yet healthy people?

I think I am a bit leery of the the idea of "benefit" in morality.

The largest amount of gain, within a set of general parameters. Life being preferable to death being the first among these, and please don't insult both our intelligence by asking me why life would be preferable to death in a system that values conscious entities.

In your examples, if one was forced to kill, then yes, one man dies to save a thousand and so on, but I don't think that's what you were talking about. I think you were asking within a context in which nobody had to die, in which case the life principle would prevent you from killing anyone. Please note that it's a blind principle that applies to everyone, to be suspended only if one can offer a well justified argument for why it should be so, based upon good evidence, that doesn't fall victim to logical fallacies.

You may be tempted to try and offer such an argument to show a weakness in the system. I think you'll find that harder than you'd expect.

@GodsRevolt
-Person A wants to kill the human baby for food. Person B wants to wait.
What is the standard here?
You are bringing up these tough moral decision scenarios and think that you are making a point. If you think that your moral standard can handle them easily, then please explain what your moral standard is and what you would do if you were in charge of bringing a decision in these scenarios you keep mentioning.

(August 1, 2014 at 3:42 am)whateverist Wrote: Just think of all the scumbag Christian television personalities who have used money needed by old people barely getting by to buy gold plated bathroom fixtures. Or the ones who keep getting caught abusing drugs or having affairs with people in their own 'flock' or paying for a homosexual prostitute. God's commandments don't seem so very hard to disregard even for those who profess to embrace them as true believers. I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about what atheists may do without this ineffectual device of yours.

You name acts done by Christians and seem to be labeling them as wrong, would it be different if an atheist was doing these things?

Or is the problem that Christians say things are wrong and then do them?

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:50 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Maximum benefit?

Morality is based on the largest amount of gain? Such as killing one man to save a thousand?

What about killing one baby to save two elderly yet healthy people?

I think I am a bit leery of the the idea of "benefit" in morality.

The largest amount of gain, within a set of general parameters. Life being preferable to death being the first among these, and please don't insult both our intelligence by asking me why life would be preferable to death in a system that values conscious entities.

The question isn't why life is preferable to death, but why the value on conscious entities, as you put it. Where does that value come from, because you seem to throw it in without much basis.

Is this the standard you present? To begin by maintaining life and then go from there down a hierarchy of values?

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:58 am)Baqal Wrote: @GodsRevolt
-Person A wants to kill the human baby for food. Person B wants to wait.
What is the standard here?
You are bringing up these tough moral decision scenarios and think that you are making a point. If you think that your moral standard can handle them easily, then please explain what your moral standard is and what you would do if you were in charge of bringing a decision in these scenarios you keep mentioning.

You wait.