Morality versus afterlife

[Excited Penguin]

Just wanna prod some brain cells and spark some thought.

Oh, well.

I am shocked. What a bigoted thing to say. This is just religious intolerance. You think certain groups of people don't have brains. Bigoted, I say. Bigoted!!!

[Excited Penguin]

I will answer as someone who recently believed.  

The answer is no.

My primary reason for following God was self preservation, i.e. fear of Hell.

I'm not going to say that I didn't consider God's rules to be truly moral.  I did.  I just failed time and time again to live up to that standard.  Had I learned that there would ultimately be no consequences for my "dirty thoughts", I would never have put so much pressure on myself to be what I couldn't be.  Instead, I would have probably rationalized God's standard as his way of just showing us how hopelessly corrupt we are and how tolerant and longsuffering He is for letting us be that way.

I think this is true for all a lot of people, but they'll never admit it, naturally, for shame of being thought of as cowards and not true believers even by fellow Christians/Muslims. They believe in it because they're fearful, that is. And this is very hard to get out of in a world where 1)your beliefs are not challenged on a regular basis because of (FUCKING) P.C. 2) You were raised in this system of thought which taught you that to doubt is impermissible. When you take these two facts into consideration it's no wonder such a surprise that a lot of people believe in this crazy bullshit. What we can do, as non-believers, if we care enough about our fellow citizens, is first of all identify as such and then help them understand there's no good reason to think these preposterous ideas are even true. But to attack people for being the victims of a religious upbringing and for living in a vacuum of irrationality their whole lives is particularly unhelpful.

[SofaKingHigh]

You are no different to an Islamist extremist.  Some of your views on morality and history are truly repugnant.  Yet they're justified, in your eyes at least, because God allowed it.

If you were from the Yemen, or Palestine, you would have blown yourself up a long time ago.

what are you talking about? I started out Buddhist or at least grew up in the shadow of Buddhism. I did not follow a religion simply because that was how I was raised. I would like to think I would have done the same and seek God no matter where I started out.

And as far as History is concerned WE are the authors of it. WE Demand blood, WE demand total and absolute control. WE decide to kill everything not like us. GOD Stops us.

You seem to have lied to yourself as to the nature of who is responsible for both holocausts. God lets us do our own thing, we are the evil of this world, the only problem is 'we' don't like admitting it so 'we'/you blame God.

As happens quite often Drich, you have spectacularly missed the point.

[Angrboda]

This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

God's Law is Righteousness, Man's 'want to do' version of God's Righteousness is 'morality.'

Keeping in mind that man's 'morality' changes from culture to culture and from generation to generation. does not make what pop culture defines as 'morality' moral or right for a lack of a better term. it is simply 'right' for those in the majority..

That said without an absolute like God's standard of righteousness what keep society grounded in any sense of right and wrong? for instance what keeps a more advanced society from pushing a more primitive culture off it's lands and drives those people off the edge of extinction? Kinda like what America did with it's Indians? Or what Germany did with it's Jews? or what the world does with unborn babies it does not want.. Without some form of God's Righteousness pushing us to act in all instances, their wouldn't be Indians in America any more, Jews in Europe, or any restrictions on abortion.

So given the two choices of living under evil incarnate/man's morality and God's righteousness I choose God's righteousness and system of redemption, eternal life or not.

So a moral standard that is fixed and doesn't change is superior to one that does? In what sense?

[robvalue]

Good point.

Also, there are an infinite number of possible versions of objective morality. It could be fixed in absolutely any way you like. So you could say objective moralities "exist" (but not in a literal sense as they are still abstract concepts).

The problem comes in choosing which one out of this massive pool to follow.

Everyone who has ever lived will probably have had their own unique choice, and their choice will also have changed throughout their life. So at any given point they may subscribe to a particular objective morality, but as they live their lives this may change and they may select new ones.

So how do we pick which one? Any finite, fixed source such as a holy book can never suffice because there will always be scenarios it either doesn't cover at all, or not in sufficient detail. At this point, you're forced to decide for yourself what path to choose.

[RoadRunner79]

---

OK, you define morality as "right" and "wrong". Now what do those words mean? Specifically. This is important, because without precise definitions those words are entirely subjective. If you want there to be an objective standard, you need to say exactly what those words mean, in a way that isn't at all dependent on anyone's opinion.

Until we can agree that, the discussion can't continue. No, I don't think "right" and "wrong" exist independent from my opinion. Not at all. Nor do I believe there is such a thing as a correct morality. I do however care very much about morality.

My morality is based in a very simple premise: try to do things that help people (and animals) and don't do things that harm them. That deals with most situations pretty easily. It's when conflicts arise and compromises have to be made that it becomes difficult, and people will disagree as to the best way to proceed.

Again, you've talked about torturing someone or not torturing them. There is no conflict. If morality is only objective in extremely obvious cases, then it's of no use. Of course I will agree that there are some things which are "always wrong". But always wrong in my opinion, subject to what I consider to be important, not objectively wrong. Because objectively wrong doesn't mean anything. If it does mean something, it needs to be precisely defined. The universe moves from one state to another. How do you determine which state is better or worse, without first agreeing on what is important within the universe?

I'll give you an example. A baby has been diagnosed with a condition so that it will live with a certain amount of pain for the rest of its life. The only way to stop this pain is to administer a treatment, which must be done before its first birthday. The treatment will stop the pain, but will reduce the lifespan by a certain amount.

So we have an undesirable outcome, whatever we choose. We have leaving someone in pain constantly, or we have reducing their lifespan. How do we decide what is the "objectively moral" thing to do?

Yes, someone without empathy will have a different morality than me. This is not surprising, as everyone has a different morality. What you're referring to is that it is probably more different. I define morality as a value judgement rather than a measurement. If it's objective, it should instead be measurable. If you can tell me how to measure the morality of an action, in a way that everyone would get the same "answer", then that would be objective. But then I'd argue that it is also useless, because you have subjectively decided on that standard by which it will be objectively measured. Whether you base it on your empathy or on your interpretation of a book, it's still subjective.

As an example, the "mass" of an object is determined by a procedure, which arrives at the same answer no matter who does it. The mass is objective. However, by deciding on this procedure, we're subjectively choosing an aspect to measure in the first place. The "mass" of the object is an abstract notion, it doesn't exist independently as a number floating above the object. If we measured it in a different objectively defined way, we'd get a different number. But it so happens that this "mass" is incredibly useful and has practical applications. Whereas if a particular person fixes morality to be measured by what they think is important, or what they think the general consensus is, then what use is it to anyone else? It could represent an average, that's all. Literally almost everyone will disagree with the results, since they won't mindlessly follow the "measurement" in the same way they would use the measurement of "mass" because it has very specific, demonstrable purposes.

---

So, just to be clear; are you saying, that one action or behavior is no more or less moral than another?  That contradictory statements can both be moral and immoral; depending on the subject?   If one (or a group or a culture) decided that it was moral to kill atheists, then subjectively it would be moral....correct?

You asked for the definition of "right" and "wrong".  I find it difficult to believe that you do not know what these words mean.  One may also substitute the words "good" and "evil", or the way one ought to behave.  I have a feeling, that you are wandering into the epistemology of morality and how we know what is "right" or "wrong".  This however is separate from the ontology of morality, and the nature of "right" and "wrong" in regards to behavior or character in which to make the comparison.  

You ask for precise definitions and then deny that they exist. You want to measure morality, as you would mass.  This however; is a category mistake.  Morality is not a physical object, that you can measure in that way.  Similarly can you provide a precise numerical value to your logic which I can reproduce, for your thinking here?  Is logic objective; or am I free to subjectively determine that you are being illogical?

You said that you care very much about morality, but also say that "right" and "wrong" do not exist. So I am left wondering how you define morality?   You gave a premise, that "your" morality is based on helping other people and animals, and not doing them harm.  However this doesn't define what the abstract concept of morality is (unless you are pressing your own subjective definition upon everyone else).  You are making the very word morality meaningless or that everyone is free to make it mean whatever they want.

With what you have said so far, it seems that you:

• Cannot accuse others of doing wrong
  
• Cannot complain about the problem of Evil
  
• Cannot place blame or accept praise for moral behavior
  
• Claim that anything is unjust or unfair
  
• Cannot improve your morality
  
• Hold any meaningful discussion concerning morality
  
  

[Esquilax]

You asked for the definition of "right" and "wrong".  I find it difficult to believe that you do not know what these words mean.  

I always get a little leery when people refuse to define the terms they're using on the basis that those definitions are "just obvious," because what it indicates to me is that they themselves don't have a firmly worded definition beyond their intuitions. When you say that you find it difficult to fathom that Rob doesn't already know what the terms mean, I feel I need to remind you that their usage is not actually a given, and that people do use them in different ways. Have you seriously never met a christian who defines right and wrong around how given actions deviate from their specific religious interpretation? Can you just not see the difference between that usage of the term and a more secular one, based around wellbeing?

This is where the subjectivity comes in, and it's where proponents of objective morality completely fail, because everyone interprets data through the lens of their own values before they come to moral conclusions. Even the supposedly iron-clad dictates of a god go through your own personal moral filter, which leads you to then determine whether those dictates are worthy of your adherence or not. It's useless to denigrate those who can at least admit to the subjectivity of the values they use to come to moral conclusions, since it's not as though anyone has anything better.

[RoadRunner79]

---

You asked for the definition of "right" and "wrong".  I find it difficult to believe that you do not know what these words mean.  

I always get a little leery when people refuse to define the terms they're using on the basis that those definitions are "just obvious," because what it indicates to me is that they themselves don't have a firmly worded definition beyond their intuitions. When you say that you find it difficult to fathom that Rob doesn't already know what the terms mean, I feel I need to remind you that their usage is not actually a given, and that people do use them in different ways. Have you seriously never met a christian who defines right and wrong around how given actions deviate from their specific religious interpretation? Can you just not see the difference between that usage of the term and a more secular one, based around wellbeing?

This is where the subjectivity comes in, and it's where proponents of objective morality completely fail, because everyone interprets data through the lens of their own values before they come to moral conclusions. Even the supposedly iron-clad dictates of a god go through your own personal moral filter, which leads you to then determine whether those dictates are worthy of your adherence or not. It's useless to denigrate those who can at least admit to the subjectivity of the values they use to come to moral conclusions, since it's not as though anyone has anything better.

---

[robvalue]

Fine, you won't define them. End of conversation then I guess.

I suspect your meaning of the words is very different to mine, hence the question. We're discussing the very fundamentals of morality, without you being willing to even define what you personally mean by it. If it's so obvious, why not spell it out for me? We could use my definition, but you're likely to just disagree with it, so...

The problem, when discussing morality with a religious person, is precisely this point. If you can't or won't define them, then you make my point for me.

[RoadRunner79]

Fine, you won't define them. End of conversation then I guess.

I suspect your meaning of the words is very different to mine, hence the question. We're discussing the very fundamentals of morality, without you being willing to even define what you personally mean by it. If it's so obvious, why not spell it out for me? We could use my definition, but you're likely to just disagree with it, so...

The problem, when discussing morality with a religious person, is precisely this point. If you can't or won't define them, then you make my point for me.

How much did you read, before you decided to make a spectacle? I discussed quite a bit, and did define them. But if you don't want to converse, then you keep acting as if morality is objective, and I'll keep believing it.

And if you think that your definition differs, then please share.