(May 27, 2015 at 7:45 am)Iroscato Wrote:

Randy Carson Wrote:What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

Evolution, baby.

As I have pointed out in a recent post, evolution is based on survival of the fittest. 

Stalin, Mao, Putin...these men have clawed their way to the top. Life is very good for them at the expense of others. Their minions are rewarded for doing their bidding including killing, torturing, etc. at the strong man's command.

Too graphic? Try politics. Or any large corporation. The same principles may be observed. 

So, have we really evolved to the point that we are no longer selfish and self-centered - putting our interests above others when it suits our purposes?

(May 28, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 1:10 am)robvalue Wrote: I think "why be good" is perhaps the wrong question.

Instead, "why are we good" is the right question. Because clearly, we are good, by enlarge. 

Rob-

I have a LOT of posts to respond to, and I need to cover as much ground as I can with limited time.

You haven't actually answered my question, which has to do with our motivations and not our being. I'm going to state it again with a little more substance...I typed this up in Word earlier today.

I will look back at your post when I'm not pressed to answer so many others.

Why Be Good?

Atheists believe that science will eventually prove that God does not exist – if it has not already done so. This fails, however, to take into account that science is concerned with the material, natural things in the universe that can be observed, measured and tested, etc. Since God is immaterial, science is not equipped to answer questions concerning the existence of God – questions that are more properly suited to philosophy.

Morality is part of the world in which we all live and even atheists follow moral norms out of a desire to be "good." But what possible meaning can the word "good" have in a truly atheist universe in which God does not exist?

Terms such as "good" and "evil" would be essentially meaningless in any absolute sense because, if God does not exist and there is no transcendent moral law revealed by God which prescribes how we should act, one cannot say that any given action is good or evil. It just is what it is. One may not like or approve of a particular action, such as murder or theft, but it would be impossible to deem it "evil" in any sense beyond one’s own subjective, personal preferences. This is an example of an incoherence at work within atheism.

The atheist conviction is that human beings should be "good" for the sake of being good, as well as for the general personal and social benefits that accrue from being "good," "moral," etc. – and not because God wills that we be good.

But this is where the problems begin for atheists. Science informs us of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which entails the "survival of the fittest" principle of natural selection in which the strong dominate and kill off the weak, etc. This principle can be readily observed in the animal kingdom, where stronger, faster, more aggressive alpha males get to mate with the females and produce offspring. Weaker, less dominant males do not.

A significant incoherence in atheist thought becomes clear when atheists insist, on the one hand, that the natural order is governed by the blind, random forces of nature, resulting in the "survival of the fittest" evolution of species and yet, on the other hand, they complain about the problem of evil, or decry violent acts of Muslim terrorists, or excoriate those who engage in "immoral" behavior – most especially among Christians.

But if, as atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s "survival of the fittest," why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it?

IOW, why be good?

And if it true that our ancient ancestors did live by the “survival of the fittest” code, then has that code been set aside in our more enlightened era? And if so, when?

But if that code has not been discarded, then isn’t it actually a “good” thing for an individual or group to be “bad” at the expense of others who are weaker or less dominant in order to benefit one’s self, one’s family, one’s social group and even humanity as a whole?

god exists outside of space time

Nothing can exist outside of space time

god is everywhere 

god would have to be a type of energy and energy has wave lengths even light and objects so if that is the case we would be able to detect it but you know there is no wave length for to determine there is a god so no god. 

god is all powerful

infinite energy requires infinite mass simple physics. If god had all that energy and compressed himself down to a human being he would collapse in on himself creating a black hole destroying himself. 



god is all knowing

Well believe it or not no one can know the future no one can determine or predetermine anything get over it. 

god is good.....

really just really...read the fucking bible no he is not. 

(May 28, 2015 at 9:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 9:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I would not say such a man had pedophilia in his heart.  I'd say he had a sexual dysfunction and should he be able to control that attraction rather than exercise it on children, I would consider him to be good man.  I would hope he got treatment and limited his contact with children.  Condemning him in advance of his actions doesn't see likely to lead to that outcome. You see, it is actions that count.

Lust is not adultery and attraction to children is not pedophilia.  Wanting a triple banana split is not not gluttony, but eating one is. Condemn a man in advance of his actions and you behave immorally yourself, and ally yourself with Big Brother, Communist China, the Inquisition, and various other unsavory punishers of thought crimes.

By stating the man needs treatment you acknowledge that his thoughts are clearly wrong.

Here is the question, would you be comfortable leaving him alone with a child.....

His thoughts are about doing wrong things, but they aren't crimes, or immoral acts.    And no, I wouldn't leave him a lone with a child.  I would consider that to be doing a disservice to both he and the child.  I wouldn't give vodka to a recovering alcoholic either.  Or a cake to a diabetic.

However, if we condemn him before he acts, how likely do think it is that he will seek treatment?  And how likely do you think it will be that he would tell anyone that he should not be left alone with a child?  The point is that rather than condemn him for his thoughts and declare him a bad man, one should help him to resist.  And part of helping is not condemning him for having thoughts.

(May 27, 2015 at 8:14 am)Alex K Wrote:

Quote:What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

You are begging the question here a little. There is no basis for objective morality if there is no objective morality. However, there is a sort of objective human morality which stems from our makeup as a social animal, our capability of empathy (which most of us share), and our very real desire for a stable  and peaceful society. It is not objective beyond human standards, and it doesn't need to be.

I certainly didn't intend to beg the question. Are you saying that there is no objective morality?

Female genital mutilation is bad here but okay there, and who are we to judge others? That kind of thing?

---

(May 27, 2015 at 8:16 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

Firstly, there is none. 'Objective' moral behaviour doesn't exist. All morality is subjective. So if we correct your question to 'What is the basis for moral behaviour?', you've already been given the answer. I'll repeat & simplify:

The basis for all moral behaviour, like everything else in our evolutionary development, is survival. Humans developed as a social species because those who behaved socially survived and reproduced more effectively thus propagating the genes for social behaviour. Further along human development, those societies which developed ethical standards (commonly referred to as social contracts, the precursors of law) survived better because they increased the effectiveness of social behaviour.

That's the basis, that's where morality comes from, all of it. No gods required.

Thank you, Ben.

That's a very clear, straightforward answer. Now, given the fact that we've spent what? 3 million years or so evolving as a species under the "survival of the fittest" paradigm, when did this shift to the "let's work together for the common good" approach that you're suggesting actually occur?

I'm not convinced this is the reason for "good" behavior, but I'm interested your opinion.

(May 28, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 9:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: By stating the man needs treatment you acknowledge that his thoughts are clearly wrong.

Here is the question, would you be comfortable leaving him alone with a child.....

His thoughts are about doing wrong things, but they aren't crimes, or immoral acts.    And no, I wouldn't leave him a lone with a child. 

I would consider that to be doing a disservice to both he and the child.  I wouldn't give vodka to a recovering alcoholic either.  Or a cake to a diabetic.

However, if we condemn him before he acts, how likely do think it is that he will seek treatment?  And how likely do you think it will be that he would tell anyone that he should not be left alone with a child?  The point is that rather than condemn him for his thoughts and declare him a bad man, one should help him to resist.  And part of helping is not condemning him for having thoughts.

Then you contradict yourself.

(May 28, 2015 at 9:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Condemn a man in advance of his actions and you behave immorally yourself,

By not being able to trust him with a child, you are clearly condemning (DEFINITION: to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.) him based on his thoughts. Besides you wouldn't give alcohol to an alcoholic because he has been PROVEN to have a problem with alcohol...

(May 27, 2015 at 8:16 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

Firstly, there is none. 'Objective' moral behaviour doesn't exist. All morality is subjective. So if we correct your question to 'What is the basis for moral behaviour?', you've already been given the answer. I'll repeat & simplify:

The basis for all moral behaviour, like everything else in our evolutionary development, is survival. Humans developed as a social species because those who behaved socially survived and reproduced more effectively thus propagating the genes for social behaviour. Further along human development, those societies which developed ethical standards (commonly referred to as social contracts, the precursors of law) survived better because they increased the effectiveness of social behaviour.

That's the basis, that's where morality comes from, all of it. No gods required.

(May 27, 2015 at 8:24 am)Tonus Wrote:

(May 26, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If God does not exist, why be good?

It seems like the best option by a pretty good margin.  Most creatures seek out some kind of optimal life, and humans have become pretty sophisticated at it.  If all food is nourishing, why bother spending time finding and preparing the best foods?  If all clothing provides utility, why care about how it looks?  If all homes provide shelter, why care about how big the kitchen is?

Without a god or old book to tell us, what is the basis for wanting to present an attractive appearance?  Or wanting to prepare and eat the best foods?  Or wanting to live in a nice home?  Or wanting more than just to stumble through life without caring whether we're enjoying it or not?  Easy: we seek an optimal life.  An orderly and civilized society that follows certain rules that have stood the test of time and experimentation seems like a good starting point, so it's something we pursue without having to be ordered to by a divine being.

I hear you both, but it seems to me that while all the sheep are working together to find the pastures, there are still wolves looking to make a meal of them all. 

Somehow, the evolutionary process does not seem to have had an equal affect on all of us.

And the point of the OP is: Why should anyone be a sheep when the advantages of being a wolf are numerous?

---

(May 27, 2015 at 10:41 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Ha ha! Man did those goalposts move pretty quick!


Went from why to where in a flash.

The questions are naturally related.

The key question is: Why be good? Under the theory of evolution, there is not real reason that I can see. Simply getting along with everyone is a warm and fuzzy reason (and it may be legit for some), but I'm not sure it's applicable to all (or even any) of us. It's true when food is plentiful, but what happens when an EMP takes out the power grid?

Where morality comes from simply seeks to place an origin for the behavior which, allegedly, is good. 

(May 28, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: As I have pointed out in a recent post, evolution is based on survival of the fittest. 

Stalin, Mao, Putin...these men have clawed their way to the top. Life is very good for them at the expense of others. Their minions are rewarded for doing their bidding including killing, torturing, etc. at the strong man's command.

Too graphic? Try politics. Or any large corporation. The same principles may be observed. 

So, have we really evolved to the point that we are no longer selfish and self-centered - putting our interests above others when it suits our purposes?

First of all that organisms evolve is a fact.  Organisms have and do evolve.  The Theory of Natural Selection, is a theory about what drives evolution, and it is not what you think it is.  First of all the fittest means the fittest to reproduce viable offspring who also reproduce, or to foster the reproduction of those with very similar genes to yours.  Generally speaking being a dictator or violent criminal is not a good way to go about that.

Any idea how many children Stalin had?  Four, not bad at all but hardly phenominal, but you see they mostly committed suicide before reproducing so they don't count.  In the evolutionary stakes Stalin was a failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin  How about Mao?  He did rather better, ten children, but only twelve grandchildren.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Children  Putin had two, possibly three children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#Family  These dictators tend be be poor fathers.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 8:16 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Firstly, there is none. 'Objective' moral behaviour doesn't exist. All morality is subjective. So if we correct your question to 'What is the basis for moral behaviour?', you've already been given the answer. I'll repeat & simplify:

The basis for all moral behaviour, like everything else in our evolutionary development, is survival. Humans developed as a social species because those who behaved socially survived and reproduced more effectively thus propagating the genes for social behaviour. Further along human development, those societies which developed ethical standards (commonly referred to as social contracts, the precursors of law) survived better because they increased the effectiveness of social behaviour.

That's the basis, that's where morality comes from, all of it. No gods required.

(May 27, 2015 at 8:24 am)Tonus Wrote: It seems like the best option by a pretty good margin.  Most creatures seek out some kind of optimal life, and humans have become pretty sophisticated at it.  If all food is nourishing, why bother spending time finding and preparing the best foods?  If all clothing provides utility, why care about how it looks?  If all homes provide shelter, why care about how big the kitchen is?

Without a god or old book to tell us, what is the basis for wanting to present an attractive appearance?  Or wanting to prepare and eat the best foods?  Or wanting to live in a nice home?  Or wanting more than just to stumble through life without caring whether we're enjoying it or not?  Easy: we seek an optimal life.  An orderly and civilized society that follows certain rules that have stood the test of time and experimentation seems like a good starting point, so it's something we pursue without having to be ordered to by a divine being.

I hear you both, but it seems to me that while all the sheep are working together to find the pastures, there are still wolves looking to make a meal of them all. 

Somehow, the evolutionary process does not seem to have had an equal affect on all of us.

And the point of the OP is: Why should anyone be a sheep when the advantages of being a wolf are numerous?

Were all evolved creatures whether you like it or not. Religion and preachers are the wolves among people. It seeks to control and gain wealth while in turn calling money evil. hypocrasiy that what it truly is and what i boils down to. A religious institution never truly cares for its members only enough to keep the money and power in check and flowing. Because when is the last time you heard or even seen christians or any other abrahamic belief talking nice about atheists without saying they are going to burn in hell because they are not delusional like they are. 

(May 28, 2015 at 9:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I certainly didn't intend to beg the question. Are you saying that there is no objective morality?

"I think he's got it.  I really think he's got it. "

---

(May 28, 2015 at 10:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: By not being able to trust him with a child, you are clearly condemning (DEFINITION: to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.) him based on his thoughts. Besides you wouldn't give alcohol to an alcoholic because he has been PROVEN to have a problem with alcohol...

Hardly.  I would admire him for telling me before I left him with that child.

Here's a question for you Huggy,

Is is it condemnation of a man with small pox to prohibit him from entering a nursery full of unvacinated children?

(May 27, 2015 at 10:43 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

Well, that's a different question to the one you originally asked, and there's two important points to keep in mind here, but one really important thing we need to get out of the way before we can even get to that:

There is no objective morality in EITHER of our positions.

From a purely secular point of view, there is no objective morality; there is, however, an objective framework through which we can develop a situational, context-driven system of morality. You may have heard of it: it's called reality. You can use reality to develop a sense of what's good or bad, because in reality we are beings of a specific nature, who react in predictable ways to stimuli, and for whom that stimuli has specific ramifications; we generally feel pain universally, and it denotes a specific thing for us all, namely bodily damage. Therefore, since pain not only feels bad, but has a specific function biologically that is objectively bad for us, we can determine that causing pain is bad, as its effects are uniformly bad for humans, which we are also, and pragmatically we don't want to be hurt, nor do we want to live in a society that permits that. There are exceptions- vaccinations being an obvious one- but this is a situational ethical scenario, and there is an overriding benefit to vaccinations that renders the temporary pain useful. That's all you really need; a series of at times very basic observations about how we live and interact in reality, and an understanding that occasionally the rules we derive from that may conflict with each other, and that this happens in every ethical system. Morality isn't some incredibly complex thing that's a huge puzzle to figure out without god, it's just a lengthy process to fully encompass, full of ifs and buts and conditional statements. That doesn't mean the benefits of having it aren't obvious, if you take a moment to think about it.

Conversely, from a theistic standpoint there's no objective morality either. You've already asserted that god determines your morality, but god is a subject, by literal definition; if his opinions on morality are what determines its nature, then what you have is a subjective morality that you happen to have imbued with a lot of authority. But that doesn't make it objective, and calling it that inverts the meaning of both those terms, so why even bother using them, at that point?

Either way, the one with the thing closest to objective morality is the atheist, not the theist. But objectivity also doesn't matter, given that neither of us can produce a truly objective morality, since morality doesn't exist as some quantity independent of minds to apprehend it; it's just that I'm not willing to pretend that's otherwise, while theists generally are.

Well said and noted. I will consider whether the term "objective" has value in the discussion.

---

(May 27, 2015 at 11:13 am)wallym Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 10:43 am)Esquilax Wrote: Well, that's a different question to the one you originally asked, and there's two important points to keep in mind here, but one really important thing we need to get out of the way before we can even get to that:

There is no objective morality in EITHER of our positions.

From a purely secular point of view, there is no objective morality; there is, however, an objective framework through which we can develop a situational, context-driven system of morality. You may have heard of it: it's called reality. You can use reality to develop a sense of what's good or bad, because in reality we are beings of a specific nature, who react in predictable ways to stimuli, and for whom that stimuli has specific ramifications; we generally feel pain universally, and it denotes a specific thing for us all, namely bodily damage. Therefore, since pain not only feels bad, but has a specific function biologically that is objectively bad for us, we can determine that causing pain is bad, as its effects are uniformly bad for humans, which we are also, and pragmatically we don't want to be hurt, nor do we want to live in a society that permits that. There are exceptions- vaccinations being an obvious one- but this is a situational ethical scenario, and there is an overriding benefit to vaccinations that renders the temporary pain useful. That's all you really need; a series of at times very basic observations about how we live and interact in reality, and an understanding that occasionally the rules we derive from that may conflict with each other, and that this happens in every ethical system. Morality isn't some incredibly complex thing that's a huge puzzle to figure out without god, it's just a lengthy process to fully encompass, full of ifs and buts and conditional statements. That doesn't mean the benefits of having it aren't obvious, if you take a moment to think about it.

The faulty assumption here, is that other humans being harmed is bad.  What we'd do in your line of thinking, which I think starts out right, is determine what we need to do to assure we don't feel pain (if we care about that).  If the best way is to form a global team human with a bunch of rules that say 'no hurting' eachother, then so be it.  But that's fairly impractical, inneffective, and certainly not the only path.

As we've seen through out history, a popular solution is to amass a bunch of power to protect yourselves from others being able to hurt you.  Another is to form small groups that takes care of themselves.  

So what we're talking about here with your reality based system isn't really related to morality.  It's just self-preservation.  Because from the actual framework, being a brutal dictator is just as legit a solution as being a hippy in a commune or being a psychopath mass murderer who doesn't view his own death as a particular problem.

Hmmm. This is where the OP was pointing. As you imply, one "small group" may be more "fit" or stronger than another, and it survives by taking the food, women, etc. of the weaker "small group".

It will be interesting to continue reading the thread to see how the "warm and fuzzies" responded to you.

---

(May 27, 2015 at 11:18 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 1:10 am)robvalue Wrote: So why are we good? The simplest answer, I think, is evolution. Those who have been good at cooperating and at caring for society as well as themselves have fared better, so it has been promoted by natural selection.

This.

We evolved to be a social species and certain behaviors/values promote our success as a social species.  So part of our evolving social behaviors involved developing a meta-cognitive faculty we call moral judgement.  We intuitively value good behavior, and are repulsed by impulses to engage in bad behavior.  It's a subconsciously driven system of influencing what our consciousness wants so as to promote behavior that benefits a social animal.  In short, evolution built us to desire the good.  (This basic desire is also shaped and reinforced by childhood training, along with an inbuilt desire to belong.)

jorm-

Stalin killed 30 million well-evolved men, women and children who were weaker than he was. Their evolution did not help them. 

And from HIS perspective, why be good when being bad reaped such benefits?