(August 1, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: [quote='GodsRevolt' pid='721719' dateline='1406914179']
Well, I'd like to think that some things cross all kinds of boundaries, but truth be told, yeah - it's clearly been morally "okay" to torture this or that person or group of people at particular points in time or location(sometimes based upon a difference in moral frameworks-no less). That's the changing face of humanity, and our evolving "moral sense". Doesn't mean that you or I have to consider it as such (even they[the torturer]could change their minds in that regard).

Good point, it is more of a cultural phenomenon than a psychological one.

It strikes me that a fluid morality is more fitted for flawed human beings than would be an absolute morality imposed by an extra-human authority. A few examples:

-The Bible states flatly (and more than once) that stealing is a sin. This is a prohibition that carries right across all sects of all the Abrahamic religions and can be found in many others as well. Even we secularists agree that - by and large - stealing is morally wrong and shouldn't be condoned. But aren't there some cases where it is a moral imperative to steal something? The classic examples are stealing food to feed a starving child and stealing medicine for a desperately ill one. But in either situation, (most) religions make no exception for the circumstances.

-The proscription against telling lies also comes to mind. What sort of lunatic tells the bald truth all the time? Granted that we should be honest most of the time (and I think most people are, but I'm a cynic), would you tell a lie to spare someone's feelings? Would you tell a new mum that her baby is beautiful, even though you think it looks like a poorly shaved ape?

-'Love thy neighbour as thyself', sounds wonderful on paper, dunnit? But suppose that your neighbour is a thoroughly unlovable person. He may an arsonist, a serial rapist, a paedophile, a drug dealer who targets children, etc. What is lovable about that? Being nice to people is all well and good, but we are 'commanded' to love everyone ALL the time. Some folk simply don't merit my love. Isn't it more morally reprehensible to attempt to put a child rapist on your own moral level ('love' him) than it is to condemn him and turn him into the police?

Absolute moral strictures are unsuited for human beings. Our moral code has enough fluidity in it to accommodate exceptions like those mentioned above. It has all the hallmarks of something that evolved right along with us - answers good enough to get by with.

Boru

My initial reaction to this thread:
Oh, for fucks sake. Not another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

My reaction after reading it:
Oh, for fucks sake. Another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

Seriously, our morality (yours, mine, pretty much everyone's) comes from their empathy for their fellows and the society they live in. If I lose my empathy, the society I live in will usually suffice to maintain my morality. If my society fails, my empathy will carry me along. If both fail, well that's why some assholes are in prison.

You don't get your morals from a book or from some magic sky-fairy father figure. You get them from the exact same places everyone else gets them from. Deny it all you like, but there a morally upright people from all faiths and no faith, in all walks of life that give lie to your claim that morality comes only from the realm of the supernatural.

(August 2, 2014 at 6:38 am)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: My initial reaction to this thread:
Oh, for fucks sake. Not another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

My reaction after reading it:
Oh, for fucks sake. Another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

Seriously, our morality (yours, mine, pretty much everyone's) comes from their empathy for their fellows and the society they live in. If I lose my empathy, the society I live in will usually suffice to maintain my morality. If my society fails, my empathy will carry me along. If both fail, well that's why some assholes are in prison.

You don't get your morals from a book or from some magic sky-fairy father figure. You get them from the exact same places everyone else gets them from. Deny it all you like, but there a morally upright people from all faiths and no faith, in all walks of life that give lie to your claim that morality comes only from the realm of the supernatural.

Yeah, what you said...

Boru

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think I am a bit leery of the the idea of "benefit" in morality.

I'm more than a bit leery about someone who's morality is dictated by an organization that teaches it is better to let a woman die of septicemia than to let a doctor cut the rotting piece of meat that was her fetus out of her just because it still has a heartbeat.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I may be repeating some things.

Morality is all about the well being and thriving of others.

We all live in the same physical universe and are subject to the same physical laws. From this, we can extrapolate that what I need and want for my well being and ability to thrive, is extremely similar to what the vast majority of humanity needs and wants also.

Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to slavery, comfort is preferable to discomfort, etc.

We can use rationality and critical thinking to evaluate every situation that requires a moral decision to come up with the best possible choice or choices to maximize the above criteria. We may get it wrong, the choice may be ambiguous, there may be more than one choice, the outcome may not be what is expected, but this method is still much better than your god's 'divine command' method or 'might makes right'.

I don't even have to bring up the evolutionary basis for our morality to explain why secular morality is superior to theistic morality.

(August 2, 2014 at 9:37 am)Simon Moon Wrote: I haven't read the entire thread, so I may be repeating some things.

Morality is all about the well being and thriving of others.

We all live in the same physical universe and are subject to the same physical laws. From this, we can extrapolate that what I need and want for my well being and ability to thrive, the vast majority of humanity needs and wants also.

Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to slavery, comfort is preferable to discomfort, etc.

We can use rationality and critical thinking to evaluate every situation that requires a moral decision to come up with the best possible choice or choices to maximize the above criteria. We may get it wrong, the choice may be ambiguous, there may be more than one choice, the outcome may not be what is expected, but this method is still much better than your god's 'divine command' method or 'might makes right'.

Rationality is a ticket to objective morality without god

(August 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(August 1, 2014 at 9:23 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: From the society we live in.

In some parts of Pakistan it is "moral" to kill your daughter for looking at a boy.

It was Moral to burn the wives of dead men.

It is moral in some backwards communities for women to keep completely covered at all times so men aren't inflamed and wont rape them.

Secular societies tend to be less repressive and generally nicer places to live.

Oh and Hi by the way, I think this is our first dance.

Quote:Are you saying that those things are moral based on the location and time in which they occurred?

Not to me but to the backwards societies that cling to superstitious beliefs in higher beings and not in the golden rule..."don't be a dick"

Quote:Surely, you and I would disagree with such a relativistic stance and would look to a standard that carries through time and can be applied to all situations equally.

If we followed the "don't be a dick" rule we could. To do this of course we would first have to discard all religious texts, they are all full of commandments that break the golden rule.

(August 1, 2014 at 2:24 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

same fukin place they do in theist world. Its coded in.

(August 1, 2014 at 2:24 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: In an atheist world, where do the standards by which moral actions are measured come from?

If by 'an atheist world', you mean a world without God, you should consider that all cultures actually DO have moral standards, whether they believe in your version of God (or any), so at least it shouldn't be in question that an atheist world would have them.

If you mean 'a world where most people are atheists', just like this world where most people are theists, different cultures with have different moral standards that only converge on a few key points, like murder being bad.

There's a pretty extensive body of work on moral philosophy that applies here, as well as instinctual moral sentiments such as our senses of fairness and reciprocity that are detectable in our behavior before we can walk.

We can (and do) derive our moral standards from those standards in combination with reason and experience. There are actually ways to behave that make a society safer and more beneficial to participate in. Those of us with normal moral sentiments and reasoning are happy to abide by those norms; and those of us who don't have them are the reason we have laws, police, courts, and prisons.

---

(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?

I'm not sure someone who would let a thousand people die to save one man has the moral high ground.

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: What about killing one baby to save two elderly yet healthy people?

Are you claiming that ethical dilemmas can't arise in your moral system?

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think I am a bit leery of the the idea of "benefit" in morality.

If you think 'imaginary scenarios that never happen in real life' are applicabel to real-world morality, I'm surprised you're not leery of ALL moral ideas, because they ALL fail to cover every imaginable situation.

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:31 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: If history had ended up differently and we all lived in a Nazi society, would that be moral society?

If by moral society you mean 'a morally good society', no. All societies have morals, but some have better morals than others. Nazi society is still where most of the people immersed in it would get their morals, which would still include things like not stealing or murdering, but also include things like turning your neighbors over to the Gestapo if they turn out to be Jews. If we take the scenario literally, there would be an underground moral resistance composed of those who never bought into Naziism and those who escaped the mental trap of the philosophy. Given Nazi oppression of atheists (Hitler boasted of having wiped out the atheist movement in Germany), you'd find atheists in that resistance.

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:36 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

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

Because simple questions never have complicated answers? Really?

(August 1, 2014 at 3:29 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Is it wrong to torture someone for fun?

Yep. If my answer is different from Alice's, it might be to do with the fact two people giving the same answer to a moral question has as much to do with them both being atheists as it does with them both being theists. It's an opinion on a single topic, and that opinion (either way) is separate from morality. Do you have the same morality as a Kali worshiper because you're both theists?

We're diverse, although on this particular mostly Western forum, we tend to be, when it comes to moral stance, humanists.

---

(August 1, 2014 at 3:58 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(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?

Conning old people out of their savings so you can have luxuries seems to be wrong no matter how you cut it. The others are arguable, but breaking moral standards you claim to support adds a level of wrong to the act, even if the moral standard itself is questionable.

Although you didn't address the point at all. Why should we adopt a system of morality based on divine command when the people who aim to follow it are famous for failing to do so?

My moral behavior improved greatly when I understood the practical and logical and emotional reasons why I should behave well: the harm that, say, shoplifting a piece of merchandise does to my community; the joy of helping people less fortunate.

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

One of the things that bothers me about some Christians is how they seem to forget their humanity. For some reason, little things like the love they naturally feel for their family and friends and their desire for them not to be subjected to violence slips their minds as they idly wonder why anyone would value other conscious beings.

---

(August 1, 2014 at 9:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: They organize little cannibal hunting trips (even the females enjoy the sport...which is rare for chimps, or so we think thusfar)- but we don't have to call that fighting, I suppose.

I thought there was only one known case of Bonobo cannibalism, and no sign they killed the dead Bonobo they ate.

Chimps are known to hunt monkeys, and with the Bonobo added to the list, there are no great apes among which cannabilism is unknown.