Subjective Morals and Societal Whims

[Brian37]

Wrong.   Watch me:

Slavery is wrong.  Misogyny is wrong.  Racism is wrong.

The moral basis for these statements is in human empathy.

Is empathy quantifiable different than other evolved human feelings and instincts like jealousy, xenophobia, and contempt? Surely there is more to the story.

Nope, our species emotions are a result of evolution, no need to fill in that gap with a fictional story of a fight between a super hero vs a super villain.

Nobody here is saying having emotions is bad, we are simply saying there is no magic to life.

[Ravenshire]

I just love it when these closeted deviant mother-fuckers come here projecting their shit on everybody else. Yes, I'm looking at you, InteresedUser.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is empathy quantifiable different than other evolved human feelings and instincts like jealousy, xenophobia, and contempt? Surely there is more to the story.

Quantifiably different, of course not.   How would that even work?  Quantifying qualia appears to be a category error, IMO.

I'm sorry the spell-checker took over giving my question an entirely different meaning. I meant to ask if their was a quality that distinguished empathy from other feelings and instincts such that giving it priority over the others is warranted.

[Edwardo Piet]

Empathy certainly requires a theory of mind.

[Jackalope]

Quantifiably different, of course not.   How would that even work?  Quantifying qualia appears to be a category error, IMO.

I'm sorry the spell-checker took over giving my question an entirely different meaning. I meant to ask if their was a quality that distinguished empathy from other feelings and instincts such that giving it priority over the others is warranted.

Perhaps not, but the overarching point still stands - there exists a plausible natural basis for subjective human and animal moral behavior.

The OP's off the rails.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm sorry the spell-checker took over giving my question an entirely different meaning. I meant to ask if their was a quality that distinguished empathy from other feelings and instincts such that giving it priority over the others is warranted.

Perhaps not, but the overarching point still stands - there exists a plausible natural basis for subjective human and animal moral behavior.  

The OP's off the rails.

Plausible, yes. At the same time, unless their is a reason to prefer empathy as the natural basis of morality, social dominance hierarchies and contempt are just a plausible.

[Whateverist]

Atheism liwrally has nothing to do with morals. Neither does theism.

Morals change with society, correct, no matter if that society is religious or not, because morals come from societies, ans societies constantly change.
People agree what is or is not moral, then test it. Often times after testing, people will change their views on a moral code, based on personal or group observations, and then attempt to convince others of the new view.

Morals exist. They change constantly. Therefore they are subjective. No objective moral code has ever existed nor been handed down intact through generations.
You didnt answer, just dodged.

Also, as someone else said, use the search funtion. There are many threads on this topic already. Join one of those, and say hello first! Hello.

---

Dude, I just read your full response, and it is just full of wrong. Sorry.

Some atheists believe in the supernatural, just not in god. There are plenty of theists who think god is natural part of the universe, too. Christianity and Islam arent the only theistic religions, you know.

It's like you are saying a lot of words but don't really know what any of them mean.

Well, welcome anyway.

The 10 commandments seem like good morals to me. How come not you? These morals never change. You've made the point while one day in your atheism pedophilia is evil the next day you believe it is good. This is why all Atheists are pedophiles.

Your position is evil.

Well I'm glad I didn't waste my time on this thread. To your credit you did respond to some people's comments. Unfortunately you did so, as in the exchange here with Aroura, as a horse's ass. I can't take you seriously after a response like this. Bye.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

The whole argument about the Lord's Super Duper Unchanging* Superior Objective Universal Moral Standards isn't really an argument for the veracity of the Wholly Babble. It's rather how we as True Christians ™ get to feel morally superior to unsaved heathen trash. 

"Neener neener, we have a big Sky Daddy to tell us what's right and wrong. GodWillsIt. Simple answer. What have YOU got? A Social Contract based upon the principle of reciprocity reinforced by utilitarian outcomes and best understood through Secular Humanism, likely a system that is the natural result of our being social/community animals that depend on one another for survival and thus have been reinforced by evolution? LOL! Yeah, right. Don't make me laugh."

PRAISE THE SWEET NAME OF JEBUS! 



* Unchanging and universal except for the OT laws which only counted for the ancient Hebrews. The Lord changed all of that when he sacrificed himself to himself upon a cross as the only means to convince himself to change the rules that he made in the first place.

[brewer]

[edit]
The 10 commandments seem like good morals to me. How come not you? These morals never change. You've made the point while one day in your atheism pedophilia is evil the next day you believe it is good. This is why all Atheists are pedophiles.

Your position is evil.

[edit]

Exactly how do the first 4 have any moral value?

[Jackalope]

Perhaps not, but the overarching point still stands - there exists a plausible natural basis for subjective human and animal moral behavior.  

The OP's off the rails.

Plausible, yes. At the same time, unless their is a reason to prefer empathy as the natural basis of morality, social dominance hierarchies and contempt are just a plausible.

I don't disagree, it happens to be the mechanism I prefer, but I do disagree with the hard stance taken by the OP.

(As you may recall, the point that the OP made that I took issue with was that a naturalist worldview could not account for morality. It can, and it appears that you think so as well.)