Atheist only discussion of morality.

[lrh9]

There are some atheists that believe in an empirical objective morality.

I dispute that idea. Namely because I have seen no empirical evidence for the existence of objective morality and no believer in an empirical objective morality has presented evidence for that empirical objective morality.

They have presented what they think to be evidence, but the 'evidence' has invariably been some version of a non sequitur. Most often, it has been a variant of the naturalist fallacy.

But the conclusion that natural is moral should not be exempt from the necessary proofs of valid evidence and reasoning.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

There are some atheists that believe in an empirical objective morality.

I dispute that idea. Namely because I have seen no empirical evidence for the existence of objective morality and no believer in an empirical objective morality has presented evidence for that empirical objective morality.

They have presented what they think to be evidence, but the 'evidence' has invariably been some version of a non sequitur. Most often, it has been a variant of the naturalist fallacy.

But the conclusion that natural is moral should not be exempt from the necessary proofs of valid evidence and reasoning.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
Acting in a 'moral' manner is so poorly defined that the only clear concepts in it essentially involves treating others as you want to be treated. The golden rule, in other words, along with some BS about ancient religious traditions that no one honestly follows involving promotion of celibacy and abstinence and other retarded sexual and marital restrictions.

It's rooted more in human and animal social behavior that has evolved over time as a part of human sociology. In a sense, it exists, but it's entirely a facility of our social behavior and it changes with different social groups with only some commonalities.

[lrh9]

But I'm not discussing prosocial behavior as the basis for modern law and policy. I'm talking to people who sincerely believe that some things are literally and empirically right or wrong regardless of social or individual benefits or detriments.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't know of any evidence either. I have my own personal ethical views but I'm not sure how they could ever be objective. So I'm still a moral nihilist at the moment.

I'm quite interested in the idea that what we value are the only things we can value, and, since it makes no sense to say we should value what we can't, there's nothing else we should value. If we should value anything that is. And if we're not going to value anything then we're being amoral and not talking of what's moral.

I'm not fully convinced by anything really and as far as I'm concerned I'm a moral nihilist.

[lrh9]

I consider myself a moral nihilist, but I don't think being a moral nihilist precludes the belief in values. I believe in values.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But I'm not discussing prosocial behavior as the basis for modern law and policy. I'm talking to people who sincerely believe that some things are literally and empirically right or wrong regardless of social or individual benefits or detriments.

Oh I see.
I wasn't saying it was the basis for law and policy (though I did make mention of it) - I was trying to make an arguement on an evolutionary/sociological basis in the sense of human relationships. I suppose I could make the arguement that that is the empiricism of a 'right' or 'wrong' in the sense that, among humans, it's virtually universal that murder is 'wrong' so it essentially becomes a self-fufilling natural law. Though that's a long stretch assuming it even has any merit at all.

In other words, somthing is right or wrong entirely because we consider something to be wrong, I'm trying to say, but again this arguement is somethign of a stretch to fit the arguement you're making.

I suppose I agree because it seems to be that you're making the arguement against the idea that there is an actual natural law governing morality, which is what I assume you mean by "empirical objective morality." Mostly because it seems to be the same idea as 'divine law' governing morality that is intrinsic upon all life under god's creation except the explaination is naturalistic. Though that's my current interpretation of your arguement.

Though honestly I think you need to explain a little more on the topic here because the details seem vague to me if the above isn't true.

[lrh9]

This is the extension of atheism and vegetarianism thread. Someone said that since some organisms feel pain it is wrong to kill and eat them.

It's as simple as that.

[Paul the Human]

It seems to me that saying such a thing is nothing more than a reflection of the speaker's personal level of empathy for the animals in question.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

This is the extension of atheism and vegetarianism thread. Someone said that since some organisms feel pain it is wrong to kill and eat them.

It's as simple as that.

Then I definately agree with you.
Granted I do personally believe that forcing things to suffer pain is wrong (I still don't know how I feel about boiling live lobsters - despite my LOVE of lobster), but like hell if I'm not going to eat things that can feel pain. Some of my favorite things to eat can feel pain!

As one guy on futurama said, we'd probably eat people too if they didn't taste lousy. (Though in futurama they do drink soylent cola, so I suppose humans are better in soylent and/or cola form.)

Though I suppose the serious point of mine here is that neurons firing pain signals into the brain or not from the preparation to being eaten does in no way I can see have an intrinsic moral value to it that isn't also assoicated with eating living things in general.
I mean, why discriminate between a broccoli and a cow? They're both precious living things with just as much right to live as one another, why should I discriminate between one or another?
It's this line of thinking that some things, because they are alive and want to live, intrinsicly makes it more moral to make sure they live a full productive life, but another grand, long lived living thing - such as poison ivy or cabbage, are living things also. Why should we discriminate and prey on them in lieu of cows, pigs, and chicken?

If living things are precious and should not be killed, then all murder is wrong - be it mosquito, human, or the human enslavement tree. On that morality we should eat nothing except sunlight and 100% pure water that has been treated to carefully remove all single-celled organisms from being digested or we should eat nothing at all.

It's ridiculous.

[lrh9]

The counterargument was that organisms with a more developed central nervous system and brain are more worthy of not being eating because they can feel more pain and are more aware than lesser organisms.