morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Rhondazvous]

I believe moral standards evolved under the influence of social pressures. Our species seems to have a survival instinct, and over time we recognized certain actions as conducive to that survival.

This is subjective only in that different societies come to different conclusions. As we evolve into a global society so will our conclusions. For instance, in the west, we recognize intellectual property. China does not. China’s desire to get along with the west will give it an objective reason to respect our standards, while we in the west wanting to get along with China have an objective reason not to judge their society based on our standards as long as they don’t plagiarize what we consider to be ours.

Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.

Aw, social evolution in the eyes of a Kantian dilemma. History is replete with such acceptance on a national rather than a global scale. And this is usually the result of some megalomaniac deciding he had an objective standard by which everyone else needs to live. Just calling a standard objective has throughout history dehumanized, demonized and called for the extermination of those who object.

[Catholic_Lady]

You lost me lol. Is that a yes or a no?

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be unlikely that such a-social behavior would ever -be- selectively beneficial to human beings.....but, that could be engineered without the need of any "evolution".  We make it illegal to help people all the time, and the implication there is that it is immoral to illegally help someone...like, you know, an illegal.  Or a jew.  A runaway slave.  This or that group of apostates.

[Tiberius]

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

Not sure if this has been pointed out already but apologies if it has (I don't have time to read 30 pages).

If there is no free will, then there is no need to justify any kind of response, because that response isn't a choice. So it's not like someone chooses to get angry because a person acts a certain way. They get angry that a person acts a certain way because that is the way their brain works and responds to that stimuli.

It's like asking a car why it goes forward when it's in gear and its gas pedal is pushed. It doesn't choose to do that, that's how the internal mechanism works.

[Catholic_Lady]

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

Not sure if this has been pointed out already but apologies if it has (I don't have time to read 30 pages).

If there is no free will, then there is no need to justify any kind of response, because that response isn't a choice. So it's not like someone chooses to get angry because a person acts a certain way. They get angry that a person acts a certain way because that is the way their brain works and responds to that stimuli.

It's like asking a car why it goes forward when it's in gear and its gas pedal is pushed. It doesn't choose to do that, that's how the internal mechanism works.

Yeah, it was addressed, I forgot by who though. Mister agenda I think?

I'll see if I can find it.

---

I don't think I'm really in the categories you're addressing, and sorry if this has already been dealt with, but how is a person without free will supposed to act any other way?

I just figured if an individual has the knowledge that someone had 0 choice over what they did, she/he wouldn't feel angry at the person for having done it. 

But Aroura already explained that while the anger does happen regardless, she acknowledges that the anger is not rational or justified.

[Aroura]

I don't think it is morally acceptable to kill old or sick people against their will. That being said, I live now, and in a society that would back me up.
If it ever get's to like, road warrior levels, people might change their tune. IDK. A lot of morals have to do with group survival, not individual survival.
I already think it is immoral to have more tan 2 kids, and more an more people are agreeing with me, because we are essentially killing the future by doing so.

And again, if you look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, you'll see that people who have their basic needs taken care of are more likely to spend time worrying about morality. If you haven't eaten in 3 days, and have no idea when you'll get a chance to eat again, you probably won't be worrying much about the morality of stealing a loaf of bread, because it's pretty minor compared to starving to death.
I mean, it's clearly immoral to eat other people. Most of humanity has prescripts against this. But you know, more than once people have done that when their other option was dying, too.

You see the same thing in animals. A very hungry animal will simply eat when given the chance. But an animal that is well fed and is not worrying about a safe place to live will suddenly be able to care about others, not just it's own species even. Dogs raising cats, and vice versa, Hippos saving duckies, etc. The more we take care of each other, the more those people can help take care of each other.

No one asked you to answer for Original Sin, CL, you did that on your own. I specifically addressed Steve (because he mentioned 2 year olds, and wilfull misbehavior and sin). You jumped into that one to defend him. Hive mind behavior, defending something you don't even agree with. Don't blame us for that!

---

Not sure if this has been pointed out already but apologies if it has (I don't have time to read 30 pages).

If there is no free will, then there is no need to justify any kind of response, because that response isn't a choice. So it's not like someone chooses to get angry because a person acts a certain way. They get angry that a person acts a certain way because that is the way their brain works and responds to that stimuli.

It's like asking a car why it goes forward when it's in gear and its gas pedal is pushed. It doesn't choose to do that, that's how the internal mechanism works.

Yeah, it was addressed, I forgot by who though. Mister agenda I think?

I'll see if I can find it.

---

I just figured if an individual has the knowledge that someone had 0 choice over what they did, she/he wouldn't feel angry at the person for having done it. 

But Aroura already explained that while the anger does happen regardless, she acknowledges that the anger is not rational or justified.

It isn't rational.  But I don't have any choice in my behaviors except that knowledge.  And since when did knowing you shouldn't get angry stop you from getting angry?  Anger is a nearly instant response, and one that is....not a choice. : I can try and control it with the tools I now have, but t's a potent emotion,not easily controlled.

You know that mentally ill people have no control (You did agree with this, correct?)  If a severely mentally ill person harms you or your family, your response will be hurt, anger, fear.  Even though they aren't rational responses for you either.  You might get over them faster than someone who thinks the person who harmed you chose it, but you also might not, because they still hurt you/your family.

Rationality is not reality.  We aren't vulcans.

[Catholic_Lady]

No one asked you to answer for Original Sin, CL, you did that on your own.

Oh, I wasnt referring to that lol. I was referring to Mr agenda saying we should take some accountability for fundamentalist evangelicals who are teaching their kids about hell and/or using too much corporal punishment, etc.

---

It isn't rational.  But I don't have any choice in my behaviors except that knowledge.  And since when did knowing you shouldn't get angry stop you from getting angry?  Anger is a nearly instant response, and one that is....not a choice. : I can try and control it with the tools I now have, but t's a potent emotion,not easily controlled.

You know that mentally ill people have no control (You did agree with this, correct?)  If a severely mentally ill person harms you or your family, your response will be hurt, anger, fear.  Even though they aren't rational responses for you either.  You might get over them faster than someone who thinks the person who harmed you chose it, but you also might not, because they still hurt you/your family.

Rationality is not reality.  We aren't vulcans.

Its not about knowing you shouldn't get angry. It's just that I wouldn't think you would in the first place. It's like how I said before, when I hear about an animal killing someone, I dont feel anger towards the animal bc I don't hold them morally responsible the way I do with people. When I hear about a person murdering someone, I do hold them morally responsible so i feel angry. (unless the person is innocent for reason of insanity or something, in which case they wouldn't be morally responsible and i wouldnt feel angry at them either)

But yeah, I haven't argued about anyone feeling angry regardless. I get that feelings arent voluntary. I was just explaining why I asked the question.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, it is horrible. All of it. Any bit of it is too much. No disagreement there, as im sure you all know.

But my issue is this: are you trying to say then that these acts/belief represent mainstream Christianity? Because thats the impression im getting, and the generalization is the only thing ive objected to. (EDIT TO ADD: I reread your post, and sorry... you did indeed acknowledge that this isn't mainstream behavior in Christianity, but might be mainstream in evangelicals specifically. Are you trying to say I should be more vocal about it? Raise awareness, etc?)  

There are more than 2 billion of us world wide. I just don't like being put into a box with the most horrible people out of the group. I also find irony in so many people being quick to say "not all Muslims ________", and being super quick to shut down any generalization or criticism of Islam, yet have no problem doing it to christians. No one wants to be generalized or put into a box. Not Muslims and not us Christians either.

You don't have to raise awareness. That's not specifically your job though more power to you if you're up to it. Acknowledgment that it's not rare is all that I'm looking for here, and that it has to do with traditional Christian teachings that were mainstream in living memory.

I do not recall that time when the atheists on this forum had to argue with, say, a Syrian Muslim that there's a problem with religious violence in their country. If they are against the violence, that's fantastic, but if their response were 'it's not mainstream, I haven't personally experienced it, it's just the extremists' I don't think we would consider that anything but defensive posturing.

If someone said all Christians teach their kids that they're sinners who deserve hell before they're seven years old, I would agree that is an incorrect statement. I think it's a minority, but it's not a tiny one.

When someone complains about white people, I don't say 'not all white people' Because I know that if they didn't say 'all white people' they didn't actually mean every single white person without exception, and they probably didn't really mean it if they did say all white people. If they really do mean it, and it's not something like 'all white people are Caucasians', I'm happy to disagree with them if they're worth the trouble or it would be educational for onlookers.

---

Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.

Hmm. Perhaps fortunately, our genes operate according to game theory for the most part and natural selection acts on individuals. It will always be in the 'interest' of your genes for you to propagate, and it will always be organisms that do propagate that will be selected for. There would probably be fewer extinctions if a species could act in its own long-term best interest instead of each member of the species being selected for their own ability to propagate (which can include pro-social behavior).

At least we've evolved the ability to see where we're headed, so it's at least theoretically possible for us to choose to sacrifice our own propagation for the continuation of the species...but those are exactly the sort of people natural selection operates against.

[Catholic_Lady]

That's fair enough.

[Mister Agenda]

Mister agenda, just wanted to let you know that I'm reconsidering my response above.

I appreciate that. It's one of the reasons I respect you.

On one hand i think the world would be a better place if there was more accountability being taken so that things can be addressed and fixed.

On the other hand, I feel like it's not fair to ask someone who has nothing to do with something to have any sort of answer for it. Especially since we are talking about fundamentalist evangelicals, of which I am not.

Thoughts?

I think you're on board with a good answer: 'they shouldn't do that.'

I think the only area we really differ on in this matter is the extent of the problem. I know that less than 1% of Muslims are terrorists and that most Muslim terrorists come from the Middle East and North Africa but most Muslims don't actually live there. Non-Muslim Americans do about double the mass shootings as Muslim Americans do as a percentage of our population, they've got a legitimate case that although it is a problem it is rare and it's consistent to condemn it while saying 'it's only extremists'. It gets a little harder to justify saying that, I think, if you're a Muslim in Iraq, where there's a lot more sectarian violence, and more public support for it. A Muslim in that situation I think should condemn the violence and acknowledge that it's not just a few outliers at the root of it. It's also perfectly legitimate for them to say the extremists are 'Sunnis and not doing Islam right the way we Sufis do', but not try to evade the fact that it's pretty easy for violent extremists to find religious justification for their violence in the Quran, which wouldn't be as useful for justifying violence if it was considered a human document instead of a divine one.