Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sure it warrants an explanation. Interesting thing is, there are natural explanations that explain morality, No gods requiresd.

For example. Bonobo chimps, our closest genetic cousins, have moral behaviors.

Examples:
They will share food, even if it is in short supply.
Members will protect weaker members of their group, even if it puts them at risk.
They will adopt orphaned babies.
They will punish violent members.
They mourn the death of kin. The entire troop will mourn the death of a beloved elder.

And so much more.

Which god gave Bonobos their moral compass?

I don't think the bonobo argument does much to address morality in humans. Simply because humans aren't bonobos. We are far far worse.

If it's true what they say about bonobos, it is in their nature to be good to each other. But this is obviously not true of people. From Internet bullying, to domestic battery, to school shootings, to evil US foreign policy, people are cruel to each other. People often enjoy being cruel to others. And even worse, we can employ our unique reasoning powers to justify extreme cruelty. Whatever technological superiority we have over bonobos, we use to harm each other. 

What little empathy human beings have for one another is so easily overcome that we clearly need something else to be moral. 

I think that morality is something we need when our human nature fails us, since it clearly fails us so often. We don't operate through empathy, so we need some kind of abstract reasoning, along the lines of "I don't feel any empathy for those people, so how would I treat them differently if I did feel any?" "What guidelines is it good for me to follow, even if I don't really care what happens to those people?" "Even if I have judged that those people are unlike myself, how should I treat them so that I can continue to be a good person?" 

This is NOT to say that when human nature fails us the only alternative is religion mandated by God. I am ONLY saying that bonobo nature, and a fortiori human nature, are not determinate of morality. Morality is largely to combat our human nature.

I’m not sure you’re painting the whole picture. Yes, human beings can be utter shits to each other. And yet, we drop what we’re doing to help look for a missing child. We check on our shut-in neighbours. We volunteer our time help out at homeless shelters. We donate time and money and goods to assist people we’ve never met in countries we’ll never visit. And all of this is done irrespective of religious belief.

Could we be better? Certainly. But if I didn’t have an unshakable conviction that people are more good than they are bad, I don’t think I could get out of bed in the morning.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I don't think the bonobo argument does much to address morality in humans. Simply because humans aren't bonobos. We are far far worse.

If it's true what they say about bonobos, it is in their nature to be good to each other. But this is obviously not true of people. From Internet bullying, to domestic battery, to school shootings, to evil US foreign policy, people are cruel to each other. People often enjoy being cruel to others. And even worse, we can employ our unique reasoning powers to justify extreme cruelty. Whatever technological superiority we have over bonobos, we use to harm each other. 

What little empathy human beings have for one another is so easily overcome that we clearly need something else to be moral. 

I think that morality is something we need when our human nature fails us, since it clearly fails us so often. We don't operate through empathy, so we need some kind of abstract reasoning, along the lines of "I don't feel any empathy for those people, so how would I treat them differently if I did feel any?" "What guidelines is it good for me to follow, even if I don't really care what happens to those people?" "Even if I have judged that those people are unlike myself, how should I treat them so that I can continue to be a good person?" 

This is NOT to say that when human nature fails us the only alternative is religion mandated by God. I am ONLY saying that bonobo nature, and a fortiori human nature, are not determinate of morality. Morality is largely to combat our human nature.

I’m not sure you’re painting the whole picture. Yes, human beings can be utter shits to each other. And yet, we drop what we’re doing to help look for a missing child. We check on our shut-in neighbours. We volunteer our time help out at homeless shelters. We donate time and money and goods to assist people we’ve never met in countries we’ll never visit. And all of this is done irrespective of religious belief.

Could we be better? Certainly. But if I didn’t have an unshakable conviction that people are more good than they are bad, I don’t think I could get out of bed in the morning.

Boru

The question for me isn't "do we want to help each other sometimes?" Clearly we do help each other sometimes.

The question for me is: "what should we say to ourselves when we DON'T want to be good to others?"

[The Grand Nudger]

Bonobos are also petty and cruel and prone to bouts of extreme aggression. We don't just share the good parts of primate behavior.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Bonobos are also petty and cruel and prone to bouts of extreme aggression.  We don't just share the good parts of primate behavior.

But i think we got a lot of it .A lot more then people like Bel think .

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, and when it comes to human nature, it can't be fully or accurately described without reference to our moral nature. Bel has a comically stereotypical view of humanity as fallen..in so many words. Where our morality is some abstract whatsit keeping the concrete and nasty human from being itself.

This is not any ethical view whatsoever - it's the product of religious fiction.

[Rahn127]

Bel, if you don't want to be good to other people, then at the very least don't cause any harm.

That's what you say to yourself. "I won't cause any harm."

[Belacqua]

Bel, if you don't want to be good to other people, then at the very least don't cause any harm.

That's what you say to yourself. "I won't cause any harm."

This sounds very reasonable.

Yet it seems awfully easy for people to justify to themselves the harm that they do.

[The Grand Nudger]

It will always be easy for any human being to rationalize any moral evil - regardless of the system. We're rationalizers, it's what we do.

[LadyForCamus]

Religious people do it ALL the time.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's worth mentioning that we rationalize moral good too. No one is using formal and exhaustive logic in their day to day calculations. That's the whole point of subjecting it to stricter criteria as an ideology. Outside of time constraints and reliable ways to manipulate human agency.