Atheism and morality

[Silver]

The happy sensation isn't causing the hallucination.

I would not go so far as to make that claim. When an individual feels a particular sensation, especially when listening to music, it is the body releasing dopamine. Many theists confuse the sensation with feeling god.

[paulpablo]

The happy sensation isn't causing the hallucination.

I would not go so far as to make that claim. When an individual feels a particular sensation, especially when listening to music, it is the body releasing dopamine. Many theists confuse the sensation with feeling god.

Well you only quoted one small part of what I said, I gave a specific example of someone who was already religious feeling happy and then believing the happiness was a sign of god, but happiness on its own would not be considered to be causing the hallucination, at least not by me. It wouldn't even be considered to be a hallucination, it's just a guy who feels happy who already believes in god .

[simplexity]

No, I see morality as composed of the instructions and favourings of an agent, a person, a mind. For I think only something like that is in the business of instructing, commanding, favouring and so on. Is a mind a physical thing? I do not think so, but some do - but it is beside the point.

These 'instructions and favoring' as you call them are only products of your own mind, or at least a part of your mind. It is only illusion that you think they are coming from another person. Some things seem more favorable because the consequence of doing the opposite would have an unfavorable effect in your own mind(signals of pain). Your mind gives you the reasons later. And it is possible to have a reason to go against a part of your own mind. You might have a sensation that tells you someone else is conferring reasoning to you. Maybe you are talking to yourself. Everyone does that. So?

Morality is composed of your own minds built in instructions and outputs. It is based off your own beliefs. Not only that, it is your own beliefs about what you should and shouldn't do based off those same built in instructions. Backtrack to the evolutionary theory part of this thread. You probably won't.

There is nothing to back up your points that there is an actual intelligence at all times giving you favor ever time you do something good. What you think is meaningless since you have no reason to believe it. It really seems like you are just ignoring everything anyone posts on here and you are just continuing to just repeat your premises over and over. hmm...

No, I see morality as composed of the instructions and favourings of an agent, a person, a mind.

You said morality exists only in the sense that a theory exists. That is another way of saying morality does not exist'.

So you agree. Morality doesn't exist according to your own definition. It is instructions/concepts from an agent.

[max-greece]

Have we differentiated morality from instinct anywhere in either of these threads?

If it is the fact that morality instructs and that therefore we need an instructor then we need to find an example of something else that no-one would put down to a God but that also instructs, and not always in our own interests.

The answer came to me this morning:

Fashion!

[Inigo]

All we are talking about in this much too long thread is altruism. Which has been studied in a lot of non-human species.

"Morality" is nothing more than the instincts of a social animal relating to how it should treat members of its own group.

No we're not and no it isn't. The existence of altruism is not in any serious doubt. People are altruistic all the time. Hell, even I am sometimes. But the mere existence of altruism does not establish the existence of morality. Altruistic acts are sometimes morally required, sometimes morally permissible, and sometimes wrong (for instance, taking time out of your schedule to help a friend kill someone he dislikes is altruistic but very immoral). When altruistic acts are morally required they are, well, 'required' by morality - morality is instructing us to do them. When altruism is morally permissible morality does not mind us performing them. When altruistic acts are morally wrong morality is instructing us not to perform them.

But only an agent can issue instructions, so morality is an agent. Furthermore, if morality favours us acting altruistically on a given occasion then we come to have reason to do so (moral instructions confer reasons). This could only happen if the instructor has an immense amount of control over our future welfare such that she can see to it that our interests are compromised if we do not comply. An agent with that amount of power over our interests would need to have control over our interests in an afterlife. And an agent like that is someone we'd call 'a god'. Thus morality requires a god.

Altruism exists. But for altruism to be 'moral' requires the existence of a god.
If you think it obvious that altruistic acts are sometimes morally required then you should accept the existence of a god. If you think it obvious no god exists, then you should accept that your impressions and beliefs about the morality of altruistic acts are hallucinations and 'false' respectively.

---

Have we differentiated morality from instinct anywhere in either of these threads?

If it is the fact that morality instructs and that therefore we need an instructor then we need to find an example of something else that no-one would put down to a God but that also instructs, and not always in our own interests.

The answer came to me this morning:

Fashion!

Well, I keep saying what I understand morality to be (instructions and favourings that have inescapable rational authority). And I keep distinguishing morality itself from moral sensations and beliefs (which I term 'moral phenomena'). But most seem to ignore these important distinctions and continue to think that all one needs to do is provide some kind of causal story about the development of our disposition to have moral sensations and form moral beliefs to have accounted for 'morality'. When in fact all that person is doing is explaining the existence of moral phenomena - something whose existence is not in doubt. But unless one identifies morality with moral phenomena (which would be as cretinous as identifying a belief about a chair with a chair) one is saying nothing about morality itself.

you are absolutely correct in thinking that to challenge my premise that morality is an agent one would need to provide an example of an instruction that has not been issued by any agent yet is a real instruction nonetheless. And then one would need to show that morality could be made of the instructions of this alternative kind of thing and that those instructions would be ones that have inescapable rational authority. It is a tall order. Good luck!

[max-greece]

Well, I keep saying what I understand morality to be (instructions and favourings that have inescapable rational authority). And I keep distinguishing morality itself from moral sensations and beliefs (which I term 'moral phenomena'). But most seem to ignore these important distinctions and continue to think that all one needs to do is provide some kind of causal story about the development of our disposition to have moral sensations and form moral beliefs to have accounted for 'morality'. When in fact all that person is doing is explaining the existence of moral phenomena - something whose existence is not in doubt. But unless one identifies morality with moral phenomena (which would be as cretinous as identifying a belief about a chair with a chair) one is saying nothing about morality itself.

you are absolutely correct in thinking that to challenge my premise that morality is an agent one would need to provide an example of an instruction that has not been issued by any agent yet is a real instruction nonetheless. And then one would need to show that morality could be made of the instructions of this alternative kind of thing and that those instructions would be ones that have inescapable rational authority. It is a tall order. Good luck!

You still haven't differentiated morality from instinctive behaviour, which, in reality is harder to over-ride than is morality.

You keep referring to moral phenomena. Which came first? The phenomena or morality? It would seem to me that morality cannot exist in a vacuum where there are no moral phenomena to describe.

In fact I would say the phenomena were probably happening for thousands of years prior to the formation of the concept of morality.

This would imply that morality only exists because of the phenomena that support it. That you wish to externalize it is your problem.

It would appear, in fact, that morality is merely the sum of the phenomena that support it. This is going to head down the set theory route.

[paulpablo]

Describe the difference between moral phenomena and morality, give an example if you can?

Morality and morals are defined as a code of conduct, beliefs held in cultures religions or groups of people, or beliefs of an individual, so what are the difference between these beliefs and actual morality?

[LostLocke]

Word salad word salad word salad.

Morality does not instruct.

Saying that morality instructs you on how to live and act is like saying velocity instructs you on how to control the speed of your car while driving.
A person can instruct you about velocity, which you can than utilize to help you drive a car, but velocity itself can not teach you anything.

You keep repeating that you believe morality instructs us directly. So if you think I'm wrong, provide one simple direct real world example of what you keep repeating about 'morality instructing'.
Or can you even do that in this case? Is this one of those types of philosophies that once broken down to basic, logical parts ceases to function or make sense, and then in turn just breaks apart as nonsensical? (Like the stereotypical, "What is the sound of one hand clapping" types?)

[pocaracas]

Locke, the logic is sound... the premise isn't... and that's the big problem with all these people trying to arrive at a god from some non-tangible thing that humans have decided to name...
like:
- math
- logic
- love
- emotion (all or just one)

At one time or another, any of these things have been used as a premise for the existence of a god.
Now, we just add
- morality

I wonder what's next?
- intelligence?
- thought?

[Cyberman]

I doubt it.