Moral standards

[GodsRevolt]

Complex life has worth because it's the life that considers morality and acts upon it. The reason sentient life has moral worth is because without it the entire concept of morality becomes meaningless. There'd be nobody to discuss it, and no actors to perform moral deeds. The conversation would be over.

Morality comes from life; our nature as evolved organisms sculpts the values we use to come to moral conclusions. Our ecological niche, the thing that allows us to succeed, is cooperation and social grouping; it's no coincidence that the traits that made us the dominant species on the planet also happen to be the things we prize as moral goods, like romantic love, self sacrifice, and so on. It's just a function of how the moral conversation takes place: we need to frame morality in terms of benefit to ourselves and others because without us- without life,- there would be no conversation to have.

This is a circular argument. You are basically saying - life is valuable because we are able to consider and determine morals, and those morals carry weight because they come from life with value. Life gets value from the morals it conceives, morals get value from the life that conceives them. Similar to the "Bible is truth because the Bible tells me so" argument.

Also, romantic love is a great example. Rape is considered immoral, considerably also unromantic, yet it could give the same results to the survival of the human race. And yet we value treating a woman as a person with inherent worth and dignity. Saying that morals strictly come from some evolved sense of cooperation for survival falls short.

At the point at which there are no beings, who is there to perform the act of torture, and who is to have it performed upon them? What you're asking is akin to asking me if, without any rocks, would the concept of rocks still exist? If there's nothing around, then evidently neither are we to be talking about it. All I can really say is that torture would be morally wrong when there are beings around that would have the same reactions to it that we do.

If another life form were present that somehow benefited from torture, then the morality of the act would change for them, as there would be no harm being inflicted. But that's a much larger issue that's just hypothetical.

This is off as well. What I am proposing to you is that treating life with dignity is a concept that remains consistent even after life has passed. The idea that torture can be an act involving no pain is an attempt to redefine the word "torture" and is a sidestep to the idea that I am proposing. Torture must be the act of deliberately causing discomfort. Im not pulling my dictionary out on this one because I think that we are both intelligent enough to understand what the term implies with any life form.

Well, the reason that life is the first parameter is because we, generally speaking, enjoy life. There is potential in life, happiness and success to be had, and so on. When I brought up euthanasia I was speaking in the context of people with incurable diseases or injuries that rob them of that potential and leave them in irreversible pain for the rest of their life. It's still their choice, but at that point the benefits of living might be outweighed by the pain- aversion to pain being another parameter, for obvious reasons- to the point where they might find ending that life to be preferable.

A hazy line to draw, particularly with your first parameter.

I feel like you're trying to look for easy, blanket answers, and taking the fact that other people are factoring in contexts as a sign of weakness. Could you just get to the point you were trying to make?

I don't see that. I see general rules of morality being thrown at me as a way to brush off a difficult question for any atheist to answer. When these rules are put into a specific context they often fall short. It is one things to put a bumper sticker on your car or tattoo a quote on your shoulder. It is a much different thing to deal with the complexities of life and what it presents.

My point here being that without specific moral standards people tend to fall into a moral relativity which, when tested, actually exposes itself as "whatever is easiest and makes me feel good at that point in time."

When you have a specific set of moral standards that you are expected to uphold, even when it is hard to do so, there is no excuse. And when you fall short of those standards, there is no ignoring it. This is why many people look at Christians and pull the hypocrite card, because there are high standards.

[Mudhammam]

My point here being that without specific moral standards people tend to fall into a moral relativity which, when tested, actually exposes itself as "whatever is easiest and makes me feel good at that point in time."

When you have a specific set of moral standards that you are expected to uphold, even when it is hard to do so, there is no excuse. And when you fall short of those standards, there is no ignoring it. This is why many people look at Christians and pull the hypocrite card, because there are high standards.

What are these specific moral standards you speak of and how are they known outside of our ability to conceive them?

[GodsRevolt]

I'm not sure this is grounds for bonobo ambassadorship quite yet. Like I said, the Alphas or the dominate (in this case human) doles out the justice and the rest submit. This is only keeping order.

Exactly like your god.

Bonobos = Creator?



The problem here is the ever so popular problem of pride. Thinking that God is some sort of super human and that we should have all the same powers as Him and be able to eat lunch with Him as we watch the girls walk by. But we forget that He created us. No bonobo alpha can say that about his day.

And if you didn't notice, we have free will. The little bonobos do not. You can live your whole life and not listen to a thing God has asked you to do.

[Mudhammam]

The problem here is the ever so popular problem of pride. Thinking that God is some sort of super human and that we should have all the same powers as Him and be able to eat lunch with Him as we watch the girls walk by.

Speaking of which, maybe you should drop the male pronouns and pretenses... "It" would do just fine, ya know, considering that "He" and "Him" kind of runs counter to your statements on "pride" and seeing God as a "super human."

[GodsRevolt]

It strikes me that a fluid morality is more fitted for flawed human beings than would be an absolute morality imposed by an extra-human authority. A few examples:

-The Bible states flatly (and more than once) that stealing is a sin. This is a prohibition that carries right across all sects of all the Abrahamic religions and can be found in many others as well. Even we secularists agree that - by and large - stealing is morally wrong and shouldn't be condoned. But aren't there some cases where it is a moral imperative to steal something? The classic examples are stealing food to feed a starving child and stealing medicine for a desperately ill one. But in either situation, (most) religions make no exception for the circumstances.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in regards to the seventh commandment. The numbers are the paragraph numbers:

2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

-The proscription against telling lies also comes to mind. What sort of lunatic tells the bald truth all the time? Granted that we should be honest most of the time (and I think most people are, but I'm a cynic), would you tell a lie to spare someone's feelings? Would you tell a new mum that her baby is beautiful, even though you think it looks like a poorly shaved ape?

Also from the CCC in regards to the eighth commandment:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

-'Love thy neighbour as thyself', sounds wonderful on paper, dunnit? But suppose that your neighbour is a thoroughly unlovable person. He may an arsonist, a serial rapist, a paedophile, a drug dealer who targets children, etc. What is lovable about that? Being nice to people is all well and good, but we are 'commanded' to love everyone ALL the time. Some folk simply don't merit my love. Isn't it more morally reprehensible to attempt to put a child rapist on your own moral level ('love' him) than it is to condemn him and turn him into the police?

Also from the CCC regarding man being created in God's image:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the union of the divine persons among themselves (cf chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 The human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

Absolute moral strictures are unsuited for human beings. Our moral code has enough fluidity in it to accommodate exceptions like those mentioned above. It has all the hallmarks of something that evolved right along with us - answers good enough to get by with.

Boru

I concede that there are exceptions in the case of lies and stealing, but those exceptions are not to be taken lightly. There must be just cause behind the exception which upholds the inherent value of the standard.

---

My initial reaction to this thread:
Oh, for fucks sake. Not another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

My reaction after reading it:
Oh, for fucks sake. Another one of these "you can't be moral without the help of my personal deity" ass-cracks. Why do they seem to find this particular argument so compelling?

Seriously, our morality (yours, mine, pretty much everyone's) comes from their empathy for their fellows and the society they live in. If I lose my empathy, the society I live in will usually suffice to maintain my morality. If my society fails, my empathy will carry me along. If both fail, well that's why some assholes are in prison.

You don't get your morals from a book or from some magic sky-fairy father figure. You get them from the exact same places everyone else gets them from. Deny it all you like, but there a morally upright people from all faiths and no faith, in all walks of life that give lie to your claim that morality comes only from the realm of the supernatural.

This is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I never said that a person cannot be moral without believing in God. I am asking on what grounds does an atheist stand when demanding that someone act morally towards them or any other human being. There is no consistent moral standard, and when there is disagreement as to what is moral, the "evolved morals within everyone" falls apart.

Of course an atheist can be a moral person. Anyone can practice morality. The question is, where did that morality come from and how does it play out when the shit hits the fan?

[Esquilax]

This is a circular argument. You are basically saying - life is valuable because we are able to consider and determine morals, and those morals carry weight because they come from life with value. Life gets value from the morals it conceives, morals get value from the life that conceives them. Similar to the "Bible is truth because the Bible tells me so" argument.

It's not circular, it's just that one is contingent upon the other to have any possibility of expression, and therefore must inherently value that which allows it to be expressed. It's also not what I'm saying, in totality. I was speaking within the context of the question you asked, which was about morality itself. From the standpoint of the continuation of morality, moral actors are a must. But that's not the only reason morality values life, it's just a function of the fact that morality is constructed by thinking agents.

To expound, morality values life because it is a construct of life; living things are moral actors, and the purpose of morality as an evolved principle (which it is) is the growth and maintenance of social groups. To see why this is so, simply imagine a universe devoid of life from the outset. Does "immoral" mean anything in a world where immoral acts could never possibly be performed, nor even considered?

In a way, "morality values life because living things construct morals" is roughly as circular as "humans value air because air allows humans to be alive." Of course you value that which you depend upon.

Also, romantic love is a great example. Rape is considered immoral, considerably also unromantic, yet it could give the same results to the survival of the human race. And yet we value treating a woman as a person with inherent worth and dignity. Saying that morals strictly come from some evolved sense of cooperation for survival falls short.

Except that you're excluding some very obvious points, mostly that the gene propagation that evolution depends on requires a stable population to begin with. Humans evolved as social animals, and a large part of what allows us to form a cohesive society is a level of minimum trust, which sexual assault is a detriment to. More harm is done, less trust is formed, group cooperation breaks down in a human species that evolves to promote sexual assault. I hope I don't have to explain why that is.

This is off as well. What I am proposing to you is that treating life with dignity is a concept that remains consistent even after life has passed. The idea that torture can be an act involving no pain is an attempt to redefine the word "torture" and is a sidestep to the idea that I am proposing. Torture must be the act of deliberately causing discomfort. Im not pulling my dictionary out on this one because I think that we are both intelligent enough to understand what the term implies with any life form.

On your latter point, I suppose you're right, but what I was getting at is that what one species would find torture might be beneficial to another, and hence the metric for that specific act of torture is different for that other species.

As to your former point, the best you could say is that, had beings existed at one point and then ceased being, that to those beings treating life with dignity was a moral good. It's kind of a weird hypothetical because at the point at which there are no beings around, who is having this discussion on morality? Morals require moral actors in the same way that chess requires a board.

A hazy line to draw, particularly with your first parameter.

It's a general rule, designed for general purposes. It'd be foolish to never reconsider your position based on context because then you'd have effectively sealed yourself off and decided that the only scenarios you'll consider are the ones you already have considered. You don't know everything, and thus you can't make all encompassing blanket pronouncements on an issue.

More importantly, exceptions aren't a weakness, they're an acknowledgement that the world we live in is complicated.

I don't see that. I see general rules of morality being thrown at me as a way to brush off a difficult question for any atheist to answer. When these rules are put into a specific context they often fall short. It is one things to put a bumper sticker on your car or tattoo a quote on your shoulder. It is a much different thing to deal with the complexities of life and what it presents.

What, exactly, is the question supposedly being avoided?

My point here being that without specific moral standards people tend to fall into a moral relativity which, when tested, actually exposes itself as "whatever is easiest and makes me feel good at that point in time."

Situational morality is different from moral relativity, in that the former actually contains some general principles that persist, plus the possibility that some moral claims can in fact be wrong. Moral relativity doesn't do either of that; this isn't a claim that whatever I think becomes moral merely because I think it.

When you have a specific set of moral standards that you are expected to uphold, even when it is hard to do so, there is no excuse. And when you fall short of those standards, there is no ignoring it. This is why many people look at Christians and pull the hypocrite card, because there are high standards.

No, people pull the hypocrite card on christians because they set themselves up with rigid, unthinking dogmas that don't take into account a rapidly evolving world and yet are somehow divinely inspired, and then break them whenever it's convenient.

But I love how proud you are of never being able to change your mind or accept new information with regards to your moral system. That really does shine the perfect light on just how asinine your initial question was.

[GodsRevolt]

I think I am a bit leery of the the idea of "benefit" in morality.

I'm more than a bit leery about someone who's morality is dictated by an organization that teaches it is better to let a woman die of septicemia than to let a doctor cut the rotting piece of meat that was her fetus out of her just because it still has a heartbeat.

This is inaccurate.

---

Not to me but to the backwards societies that cling to superstitious beliefs in higher beings and not in the golden rule..."don't be a dick"


If we followed the "don't be a dick" rule we could. To do this of course we would first have to discard all religious texts, they are all full of commandments that break the golden rule.

So, you agree that morals are not be relative. But then where did they come from?

[Cato]

I'm more than a bit leery about someone who's morality is dictated by an organization that teaches it is better to let a woman die of septicemia than to let a doctor cut the rotting piece of meat that was her fetus out of her just because it still has a heartbeat.

This is inaccurate.

'This is a Catholic country': Woman dies of septicaemia after being refused an abortion in Irish hospital

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...15609.html

[Mudhammam]

So, you agree that morals are not be relative. But then where did they come from?

Observations made by the senses in the real world, where the fuck else? Lol.

[GodsRevolt]

It's not circular, it's just that one is contingent upon the other to have any possibility of expression, and therefore must inherently value that which allows it to be expressed. It's also not what I'm saying, in totality. I was speaking within the context of the question you asked, which was about morality itself. From the standpoint of the continuation of morality, moral actors are a must. But that's not the only reason morality values life, it's just a function of the fact that morality is constructed by thinking agents.

To expound, morality values life because it is a construct of life; living things are moral actors, and the purpose of morality as an evolved principle (which it is) is the growth and maintenance of social groups. To see why this is so, simply imagine a universe devoid of life from the outset. Does "immoral" mean anything in a world where immoral acts could never possibly be performed, nor even considered?

In a way, "morality values life because living things construct morals" is roughly as circular as "humans value air because air allows humans to be alive." Of course you value that which you depend upon.

Thank you for the explanation and I see more clearly what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong: Humans evolved socially and that evolution leaned upon the development of morals in order to further facilitate the success of the evolutionary process.

This is close?

And I know that you are not equating air with morals, but this is an important point because humans do not require morals to lives they do air. This would make the occasional adherence to morals acceptable, as you say below, the "minimum of trust" and would excuse ignoring any given moral at any given time granted it did not obstruct the survival of the species. Doesn't this negate the idea of a standard? For example, rape is to be considered ok as long as it is your sex slave and not your wife. Or maybe only with the natives but not the proper ethnic majority.

Except that you're excluding some very obvious points, mostly that the gene propagation that evolution depends on requires a stable population to begin with. Humans evolved as social animals, and a large part of what allows us to form a cohesive society is a level of minimum trust, which sexual assault is a detriment to. More harm is done, less trust is formed, group cooperation breaks down in a human species that evolves to promote sexual assault. I hope I don't have to explain why that is.

I'm with you. But basing your morals strictly on evolutionary results means that your system of morals is solely based on species survival. This would mean that if indeed the Nazis had one and maintaing the aryan race was the social norm, it would be considered moral to kill the Jews as long as they were not needed for propagation of the species in any way.

On your latter point, I suppose you're right, but what I was getting at is that what one species would find torture might be beneficial to another, and hence the metric for that specific act of torture is different for that other species.

A gentleman's concession

As to your former point, the best you could say is that, had beings existed at one point and then ceased being, that to those beings treating life with dignity was a moral good. It's kind of a weird hypothetical because at the point at which there are no beings around, who is having this discussion on morality? Morals require moral actors in the same way that chess requires a board.

I disagree. New circumstances, the technology boom being the best and most recent example, present themselves all the time and while I would agree with you (on what I am assuming you might say, that humans seem to have to bat these new ideas around before they come to a consensus on how to best proceed, I would say that the answer is already existent and the "batting around" is really just a combination of dealing with those things we have not come to fully understand and struggling with a flawed nature we have not come to fully accept.

It's a general rule, designed for general purposes. It'd be foolish to never reconsider your position based on context because then you'd have effectively sealed yourself off and decided that the only scenarios you'll consider are the ones you already have considered. You don't know everything, and thus you can't make all encompassing blanket pronouncements on an issue.

More importantly, exceptions aren't a weakness, they're an acknowledgement that the world we live in is complicated.

I do not consider exceptions a weakness. What is a weakness is an unjustified exception that does not uphold the inherent value of the standard it seems to deviate from.

For instance, with lies. Lies, as a general rule are considered to be immoral. But the inherent value in this rule is that people have a right to the truth, but not everyone has the same rights to the same truths. A homicidal maniac has no right to know that I am hiding the children in the crawlspace, and so I lie to him and tell him that I live here alone. Though it seems to deviate, the lie upholds the inherent value of the standard.

Situational morality is different from moral relativity, in that the former actually contains some general principles that persist, plus the possibility that some moral claims can in fact be wrong. Moral relativity doesn't do either of that; this isn't a claim that whatever I think becomes moral merely because I think it.

You keep assuming that I have a problem with exceptions and situations. I don't. What I am calling for is a system that can account for these exceptions without compromising its basic standards.

You put the first parameter of your system as being the preservation of life, and then made an exception for this base value on the grounds that it can be painful and hard to deal with sickness. This exception does not uphold your base value in that someone with a terminal illness is still able to consider morals (which you have defined as the expression of value within life).

The system you present would disregard its base value on the grounds that living with pain is not pleasing. Instead of upholding, this exception opens the door to a slew of circumstances that compromise the base value (homework is not pleasing, having to eat my vegetables and workout is not pleasing, consistent headaches or injuries that did not heal properly are not pleasing) But these, I believe we can both agree, are not reasons to end life.

No, people pull the hypocrite card on christians because they set themselves up with rigid, unthinking dogmas that don't take into account a rapidly evolving world and yet are somehow divinely inspired, and then break them whenever it's convenient.

I am not sure why atheists believe that Christians do not think. Dogmas are absolute, but that does not make their application simple. As for the rapidly evolving world, I believe I addressed that.

But I love how proud you are of never being able to change your mind or accept new information with regards to your moral system. That really does shine the perfect light on just how asinine your initial question was.

Whoa! Where are the bitter sarcasm and insults coming from? I thought we were having a good conversation?

And in regards to my initial "asinine" question, it has gone unanswered. You have claimed a moral system based on evolution and survival of a social creature, but you are unable to present standards that would hold consistent in the midst of fundamental disagreements over the value of any given life.

---

This is inaccurate.

'This is a Catholic country': Woman dies of septicaemia after being refused an abortion in Irish hospital

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...15609.html

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in regards to the fifth commandment:

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

Me again: So, what it is saying is that you are not allowed to have an abortion for the sake of having an abortion. If there is a situation where the mother requires medical care, every caution must be made to protect both the life of the mother and the baby. Anyone acting on a Catholic standard of morality would not merely let the mother die because it might harm the child.

It is important to separate the standard and the people that claim to follow the standard.