Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

So then you can’t judge/compare morality, based on a different basis?  You really have no grounding to make moral judgement on another.

Of course I do. But I make those judgements based on the values and viewpoints I was educated with, just like everyone else does. Everyone has 'grounding' to make moral judgements. That is part of being one in a social species.

I don't think moral values need to be objective and eternal to be useful as guiding principles. I think we can learn how to live with each other in more mutually beneficial ways as we learn.

So then, you can’t really condemn those who where raised with a different system? You can’t say that one is wrong or right. Just different. It’s whatever is best pragmatically best for society. Would you agree then:that what you call moral, is just a personal preference, or way of thinking? Do you think that those here, howling so much moral indignation should be more compassionate towards those they have a difference of moral preference with?

[polymath257]

Of course I do. But I make those judgements based on the values and viewpoints I was educated with, just like everyone else does. Everyone has 'grounding' to make moral judgements. That is part of being one in a social species.

I don't think moral values need to be objective and eternal to be useful as guiding principles. I think we can learn how to live with each other in more mutually beneficial ways as we learn.

So then, you can’t really condemn those who where raised with a different system?  You can’t say that one is wrong or right. Just different.   It’s whatever is best pragmatically best for society. Would you agree then:that what you call moral, is just a personal preference, or way of thinking?  Do you think that those here, howling so much moral indignation should be more compassionate towards those they have a difference of moral preference with?

No, I can and do condemn them. Just like they might condemn me. Which wins depends on how many people we can convince, just like with much of life.

When you say it is 'just' a way of thinking, you miss the whole point. Some ways of thinking lead to happier people than others. Some lead to oppression and unhappy people. Some things produce happiness in the short term but not in the long term. So, yes, the long-term pragmatics are central.

Howling with indignation is one way of presenting a moral argument, but often not the best. Playing to a sense of fairness and compassion tends to work better because those values are more universal in our species.

Much of morality, just like much of politics, boils down to what sort of society you want to live in: one that allows for freedom and fulfillment or one that is rule-bound and restrictive.

[RoadRunner79]

So then, you can’t really condemn those who where raised with a different system?  You can’t say that one is wrong or right. Just different.   It’s whatever is best pragmatically best for society. Would you agree then:that what you call moral, is just a personal preference, or way of thinking?  Do you think that those here, howling so much moral indignation should be more compassionate towards those they have a difference of moral preference with?

No, I can and do condemn them. Just like they might condemn me. Which wins depends on how many people we can convince, just like with much of life.

When you say it is 'just' a way of thinking, you miss the whole point. Some ways of thinking lead to happier people than others. Some lead to oppression and unhappy people. Some things produce happiness in the short term but not in the long term. So, yes, the long-term pragmatics are central.

Howling with indignation is one way of presenting a moral argument, but often not the best. Playing to a sense of fairness and compassion tends to work better because those values are more universal in our species.

Much of morality, just like much of politics, boils down to what sort of society you want to live in: one that allows for freedom and fulfillment or one that is rule-bound and restrictive.

So then might makes right? It’s all about who wins, and has more power, and the others are immoral?

I don’t think that being moral is about making the most people happy. It also seems that we appeal to morality, even when it makes a large group of people unhappy. What do you think about the number of people here, who seem to want to make Christians unhappy..., are they immoral?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don’t think that being moral is about making the most people happy. It also seems that we appeal to morality, even when it makes a large group of people unhappy.  What do you think about the number of people here, who seem to want to make Christians unhappy..., are they immoral?

Hurting people's fee fees is a generally bad thing™..that doesn't mean we won't do it, lol.

In any case, and as poly already said...there are many different important distinctions between what may, for example..inconvenience you today, that will produce a greater, more consequential, or more uniform well being.  It would be a mistake to think that utilitarian consequentialism with a hedonistic basis is about chasing whatever feels good now, and running away from whatever doesn't.  While the position has many problems, the moral status of bruising some nitwits fragile ego isn't one of them.

[polymath257]

No, I can and do condemn them. Just like they might condemn me. Which wins depends on how many people we can convince, just like with much of life.

When you say it is 'just' a way of thinking, you miss the whole point. Some ways of thinking lead to happier people than others. Some lead to oppression and unhappy people. Some things produce happiness in the short term but not in the long term. So, yes, the long-term pragmatics are central.

Howling with indignation is one way of presenting a moral argument, but often not the best. Playing to a sense of fairness and compassion tends to work better because those values are more universal in our species.

Much of morality, just like much of politics, boils down to what sort of society you want to live in: one that allows for freedom and fulfillment or one that is rule-bound and restrictive.

So then might makes right?   It’s all about who wins, and has more power, and the others are immoral?

I don’t think that being moral is about making the most people happy. It also seems that we appeal to morality, even when it makes a large group of people unhappy.  What do you think about the number of people here, who seem to want to make Christians unhappy..., are they immoral?

Power doesn't always devolve into physical might. The power of persuasion is also very high. And, again, the vast majority of people prefer to live in situations where they don't have to fear that their government will come and kill them.

[RoadRunner79]

So then might makes right?   It’s all about who wins, and has more power, and the others are immoral?

I don’t think that being moral is about making the most people happy. It also seems that we appeal to morality, even when it makes a large group of people unhappy.  What do you think about the number of people here, who seem to want to make Christians unhappy..., are they immoral?

Power doesn't always devolve into physical might. The power of persuasion is also very high. And, again, the vast majority of people prefer to live in situations where they don't have to fear that their government will come and kill them.

However power either way works in your ideology... correct? What about the minority views, which don’t have such power. Is it moral to suppress their views?

I also asked if the ends justify the means. It seems that your view only has the end calculus involved, what about the individual. Do their rights and happiness get negated by the group? Could those who are an overall drain on society be justifiably ellinated or perhaps enslaved?

[polymath257]

Power doesn't always devolve into physical might. The power of persuasion is also very high. And, again, the vast majority of people prefer to live in situations where they don't have to fear that their government will come and kill them.

However power either way works in your ideology... correct?  What about the minority views, which don’t have such power. Is it moral to suppress their views?

I also asked if the ends justify the means. It seems that your view only has the end calculus involved, what about the individual. Do their rights and happiness get negated by the group?  Could those who are an overall drain on society be justifiably ellinated or perhaps enslaved?

Most groups are composed of individuals. And most individuals prefer fair rules. That is enough for morality. When 'might' oppresses, people tend to get unhappy and overthrow it. That is simply asserting their moral authority.

The problem is that morality is all about how people interact with other people. it is *only* about that, not something independent of people.

[RoadRunner79]

However power either way works in your ideology... correct?  What about the minority views, which don’t have such power. Is it moral to suppress their views?

I also asked if the ends justify the means. It seems that your view only has the end calculus involved, what about the individual. Do their rights and happiness get negated by the group?  Could those who are an overall drain on society be justifiably ellinated or perhaps enslaved?

Most groups are composed of individuals. And most individuals prefer fair rules. That is enough for morality. When 'might' oppresses, people tend to get unhappy and overthrow it. That is simply asserting their moral authority.

The problem is that morality is all about how people interact with other people. it is *only* about that, not something independent of people.

Yes... so as you said... a thing isn’t right or wrong in itself, it’s just culturally taboo. So then you can’t really judge another’s morality, or really even condemn them for being immoral. Just state that you personally don’t like it.

Also, to add: When you talk about asserting moral authority, that is only if they win. Otherwise, they might be immoral; it all depends on whose point of view. But neither has a moral right to appeal to, outside of themselves.

[Deesse23]

Formula:
#1 I like "x" to be true, because i would dislike the consequences of "x != true".
#2 Starts looking for evidence to support his biased position
...
..
.

Insert:
x1 = god
x2 = objective morality
x3 having won a million in the lottery

Life sucks, there is neither a god nor objective morality, particularly not derived from an immoral monster like the christian god (which would make his morals pronouncements subjective too btw.). The universe doesnt give a fuck if you like or dislike those facts.


P.S.: Disclaimer: I just made some (over)simplifications to make a point.

[Belacqua]

Formula:
#1 I like "x" to be true, because i would dislike the consequences of "x != true".
#2 Starts looking for evidence to support his biased position
...
..
.

Insert:
x1 = god
x2 = objective morality
x3 having won a million in the lottery

Life sucks, there is neither a god nor objective morality, particularly not derived from an immoral monster like the christian god (which would make his morals pronouncements subjective too btw.). The universe doesnt give a fuck if you like or dislike those facts.


P.S.: Disclaimer: I just made some (over)simplifications to make a point.

Moral realism may be true or it may be false, I'm not sure.

But it's unfair to say that people who argue in favor of moral realism do so because they dislike the alternative. These are serious people, and we don't have the right to dismiss them based on mind-reading their motives.