Evil Atheists

[Skepsis]

A subjective morality can be weighed against another subjective morality by comparing the outsomes from both, and as I have said before the results from being a self centered, "if it works, do it" pragmatist can only have short term social benefits.

[Shell B]

Thankyou Shell B, you may be surprised that I am in agreement with you, so can we dispense with the atheist vs theist approach and deal with the question now? How can one subjective view of morality logically refute the subjective morality of another person without reference to a transcendental objective truth?

If someone chose to refute another person's morality, they would simply have to fall back on action and reaction, cause and effect, etc. norms. What is the usual reaction to such an action? Do people have positive or negative chemical responses in the brain? If the answer is negative, in general, then it isn't a great thing to do. The negative response is fueled by our brains, not by the morals themselves. The morals come from these chemical reactions, which have been bestowed upon us by the wonderful workings of evolution. There you have it, balancing norms with logic. Feelings of sympathy and empathy driving our actions. Will a bible thumper accept this explanation? Of course not. Therefore, I can refute his morality and do it well, in my opinion. However, I cannot convince him to see morality my way without him being willing to do so. I don't really care if people are like me, though. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Now, I object to your use of the term "transcendental objective truth." It operates on the assumption that the reference that you speak of -- which we both know is god's word, killing your attempt at removing atheism and theism from the debate -- is actually objective fact. In my opinion, no one has a transcendental objective truth in regard to morality. Therefore, anyone who has ever refuted someone else's morality has done so without it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's easy, the same way you've been doing so. You could refer to a childrens book, a magazine cover, or the menu at wendys.

That's post number two in this thread. We all challenge each others morality (if we choose to do so) in exactly the same manner; by reference to our own subjective value judgements.

[StatCrux]

I wouldn't try to convince him of anything. I would report him to the authorities, lock my doors until he is arrested and move on with my life. Luckily, the cops tend to have the same morals as I do in regard to murder and theft.

That is simply referring the question of morality to accepted moral majority. The law isn't an arbiter of truth, simply the stronghand of the majority. I am questioning the basis upon which the majority "the law" functions. Where does the views of the majority have their basis? Many laws are at best questionable at worst immoral, depending upon where you derive your moral thinking. The Law and morality are most definately intertwined but to equate the two is false. This is why subjective morality is questonable, moral majority is not moral truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

What exactly is moral truth Crux?

[StatCrux]

Thankyou Shell B, you may be surprised that I am in agreement with you, so can we dispense with the atheist vs theist approach and deal with the question now? How can one subjective view of morality logically refute the subjective morality of another person without reference to a transcendental objective truth?

If someone chose to refute another person's morality, they would simply have to fall back on action and reaction, cause and effect, etc. norms. What is the usual reaction to such an action? Do people have positive or negative chemical responses in the brain? If the answer is negative, in general, then it isn't a great thing to do. The negative response is fueled by our brains, not by the morals themselves. The morals come from these chemical reactions, which have been bestowed upon us by the wonderful workings of evolution. There you have it, balancing norms with logic. Feelings of sympathy and empathy driving our actions. Will a bible thumper accept this explanation? Of course not. Therefore, I can refute his morality and do it well, in my opinion. However, I cannot convince him to see morality my way without him being willing to do so. I don't really care if people are like me, though. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Now, I object to your use of the term "transcendental objective truth." It operates on the assumption that the reference that you speak of -- which we both know is god's word, killing your attempt at removing atheism and theism from the debate -- is actually objective fact. In my opinion, no one has a transcendental objective truth in regard to morality. Therefore, anyone who has ever refuted someone else's morality has done so without it.

So, please correct me if I misunderstand, but your basis for moral action is the degree of sensual or communal pleasure derived from following the moral guidelines? If it makes people generally happy then it is morally just? Am I correct?

---

What exactly is moral truth Crux?

Isn't that what we are discussing? Glad that you acknowledge that there is moral truth..

[Shell B]

That is simply referring the question of morality to accepted moral majority.

No, it isn't. I wouldn't call the cops because I think they are the moral police. I would call the cops because who the fuck tries to convince a sociopath to be moral? I wouldn't. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your initial question, which presupposes that a person would want to spread their own morals around.

The law isn't an arbiter of truth

I didn't say that.

I am questioning the basis upon which the majority "the law" functions. Where does the views of the majority have their basis? Many laws are at best questionable at worst immoral, depending upon where you derive your moral thinking.

That's not what you have been questioning. You didn't mention moral majority at all in your initial question. You're asking how to convince an atheist that is an asshole of your own morals. I'm telling you that atheist or not, I wouldn't bother.

The Law and morality are most definately intertwined but to equate the two is false. This is why subjective morality is questonable, moral majority is not moral truth.

I didn't equate law and morality. I demonstrated that trying to convince a psychopath of morals is unlikely. You would instead call the police.

I saw Rhythm ask you what moral truth is. I have to ask the same question. Is it true because the bible said it? Is it true because mommy said it? Is it true because it is a verifiable process?

[The Grand Nudger]

Did I? I'm pretty sure I was asking you a question.

[Shell B]

So, please correct me if I misunderstand, but your basis for moral action is the degree of sensual or communal pleasure derived from following the moral guidelines? If it makes people generally happy then it is morally just? Am I correct?

Not quite, stat #2. I would use the word universal, rather than communal. Nearly all human beings experience pain when beaten. Not just humans in a specific community. Pain creates a negative reaction for most. In other words, it is unpleasant. Therefore, it is wrong to induce pain on purpose or pain that is not necessary for a positive outcome to a negative situation. That is true anywhere, of anyone. That pain showing that you are hurt and that hurt is bad does not come from a book. It is a fact. It is visceral, not transcendental.

Communal pleasure has nothing to do with it. It's not about "everyone is doing it. It makes us more happy when everyone does it this way." Even if a scant few people cared to do things that created more positive intellectual and physical reactions, I would still find it morally correct to do so. My morality is based on how what I do makes people feel personally, not as a group. I don't hurt a person because it would hurt them, not because society would be more pleased with me if I didn't hurt them. So you see, communal pleasure is not a part of the equation.

[StatCrux]

That is simply referring the question of morality to accepted moral majority.

No, it isn't. I wouldn't call the cops because I think they are the moral police. I would call the cops because who the fuck tries to convince a sociopath to be moral? I wouldn't. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your initial question, which presupposes that a person would want to spread their own morals around.

The law isn't an arbiter of truth

I didn't say that.

I am questioning the basis upon which the majority "the law" functions. Where does the views of the majority have their basis? Many laws are at best questionable at worst immoral, depending upon where you derive your moral thinking.

That's not what you have been questioning. You didn't mention moral majority at all in your initial question. You're asking how to convince an atheist that is an asshole of your own morals. I'm telling you that atheist or not, I wouldn't bother.

The Law and morality are most definately intertwined but to equate the two is false. This is why subjective morality is questonable, moral majority is not moral truth.

I didn't equate law and morality. I demonstrated that trying to convince a psychopath of morals is unlikely. You would instead call the police.

I saw Rhythm ask you what moral truth is. I have to ask the same question. Is it true because the bible said it? Is it true because mommy said it? Is it true because it is a verifiable process?

Before we continue, can you define the term sociopath? This is simply a term used in psychology to describe a particular type of person, whether their bahavior is moral or not is debatable, depending upon the outcome of what you define as moral. The term "sociopath" is generally derogatory when used in the context of morality, but using derogatory labels detracts from the fact that "sociopaths" are still part of humanity and so the question of whether they are "moral" or not depends upon how "moral" is defined, it is simply a label created in modern times.