Atheism and morality

[genkaus]

You're just confusing normative ethics with metaethics. This is in essence the mistake that G.E.Moore was keen to point out and labelled 'the naturalistic fallacy'. Basically, it involves confusing what morality tells us to do and be (normative ethics) with what morality is, in itself.

This is also what I've been trying to do throughout this thread.

But, anyway, rather than pointing out your fallacious inferences I'll just point out that a concept can't issue an instruction, much less an instruction that has inescapable rational authority. So your view is, er, silly.

Morality has to be something that issues instructions, because that's what it does. And it has to be something capable of lending those instructions inescapable rational authority, because that's what moral instructions have.

You can keep repeating the same statement ad nauseum - doesn't make it true. You are the one who fails to understand that everyone here - including Simplexity - is addressing the metaphysical nature of morality. And not only that, they are justifying its metaphysical nature by giving suitable reasons - all of which you have failed to address.

Morality is a system of ideas. It is a concept formed of a collection of concepts. That is - at the core - the nature of its existence. It does not issue instructions - it contains them. It does not act and is not an agent in any form or manner. And there is no reason for it to be issued from an inescapable rational authority.

Your mistake - a most abysmally foolish mistake - is to regard a form of speech literally. The idea that morality instructs is just a fancier way of saying "as per the instructions contained within a particular morality". It does not confer any sort of agency unto the concept itself and your continued insistence on how "morality has to be something that instructs" simply demonstrates your failure to understand this simple semantic concept.

[simplexity]

Basically, it involves confusing what morality tells us to do and be (normative ethics) with what morality is, in itself. It is a set of ideas, stemming from the mind, having to do with 'right' and 'wrong'.

I have already told you what morality is in itself.

It is the set of of thought patterns generated from the mind which differentiate 'right' from 'wrong'(having to do with self suffering - and it follows from this self suffering that is has to do with others suffering.) We can also have a concept of these thought patterns, so we have a concept of our own morality.

I know you will just say, 'well this view of morality is still only a 'concept' so this is not really what morality is'. NANANA. This IS what morality is, a set of thought patterns, and thought patterns are real things. They exist as physical patterns.

But, anyway, rather than pointing out your fallacious inferences I'll just point out that a concept can't issue an instruction, much less an instruction that has inescapable rational authority.

I gave you examples of how internal moralities are not concepts and do issue instructions, through a sort of neural 'blackmail' system.
Once again you are just asserting that morality gives inescapable rational instructions, which is baseless. And you are asserting there is only one morality. Again - baseless.

So your view is, er, silly.

My view would be silly, I agree, if your baseless assertions were true.

Morality has to be something that issues instructions, because that's what it does. And it has to be something capable of lending those instructions inescapable rational authority, because that's what moral instructions have.

More baseless assertions. My views are not fallacious. You can assert it if you wish...

The point is, there is evidence pointing in the direction of what I am arguing. And there is no scientific evidence pointing elsewhere. All of the evidence fits the current local mind theory(see experiments regarding removing parts of the brain), that we all have our own internal morality, and that our morality is affected by others. If there were even a shred of evidence of this ONE external morality that instructs everyone, then I might have reason to suspect it could be true.

And even if your premises are true(highly doubtful let alone unrealistic) and a god exists that is giving moral instructions, it does not mean they are inescapably moral, just that a powerful being is giving them.

[genkaus]

I have already told you what morality is in itself.

It is the set of of thought patterns generated from the mind which differentiate 'right' from 'wrong'(having to do with self suffering - and it follows from this self suffering that is has to do with others suffering.)

Not to distract you from Inigo's riveting arguments, but this is a very commonly held view that I often argue against.

The most commonly held definition of morality is a system of ideas to differentiate between good/right and bad/wrong. When asked about right and wrong, the common answer is what causes pleasure and what causes suffering. And since commonly accepted morality often runs contrary to one's own pleasure or pain, the suffering under consideration always becomes that of others or of the society. And thus arises the most commonly held view that the meaning of morality is "a system of ideas, applicable in a social context, regarding how one should act so as to maximize happiness and minimize suffering". And that, I think, is an extremely parochial view of morality.

The issue here is the definition we start with. Morality is a system of ideas - that much is correct. But primarily, it is a system of ideas about how one should act - not right and wrong. The words right and wrong or good and bad are - by their very nature - judgments made according to some standards. For example we have right and wrong answers in mathematics and science or good and bad answers in literature and there they have nothing to do with moral judgement. Thus, morality is the standard - the set of guidelines to make a judgment by - and right/good and wrong/bad are judgments given on its basis. Thus, while saying that morality is a system of ideas to differentiate between right and wrong is correct, it shouldn't be regarded as a primary definition, since they are the consequence and not the cause of the system.

The justification for morality comes from our capacity to reason and reflect. We are not automatons - acting reflexively and without any awareness of our actions. We are capable of reflecting upon our actions, thoughts and motivations and thus we need some standard or code to direct them. This would be necessary even if we did not live in a society with other similarly capable entities.

However, the ultimate goal or goals of morality need not be rational or justified. We can choose "maximizing happiness and minimizing pain" as the purpose or "self-actualization" or "getting into heaven" or "release from reincarnation" or "achieving popularity and leaving a legacy" and so on. All of these would give rise distinct set of ideas about "how one should act" and all would have instructions regarding what is good and what is bad. Each of them is a morality in its own right, since each fits the definition.

[simplexity]

I have already told you what morality is in itself.

It is the set of of thought patterns generated from the mind which differentiate 'right' from 'wrong'(having to do with self suffering - and it follows from this self suffering that is has to do with others suffering.)

Not to distract you from Inigo's riveting arguments, but this is a very commonly held view that I often argue against.

The most commonly held definition of morality is a system of ideas to differentiate between good/right and bad/wrong. When asked about right and wrong, the common answer is what causes pleasure and what causes suffering. And since commonly accepted morality often runs contrary to one's own pleasure or pain, the suffering under consideration always becomes that of others or of the society. And thus arises the most commonly held view that the meaning of morality is "a system of ideas, applicable in a social context, regarding how one should act so as to maximize happiness and minimize suffering". And that, I think, is an extremely parochial view of morality.

The issue here is the definition we start with. Morality is a system of ideas - that much is correct. But primarily, it is a system of ideas about how one should act - not right and wrong. The words right and wrong or good and bad are - by their very nature - judgments made according to some standards. For example we have right and wrong answers in mathematics and science or good and bad answers in literature and there they have nothing to do with moral judgement. Thus, morality is the standard - the set of guidelines to make a judgment by - and right/good and wrong/bad are judgments given on its basis. Thus, while saying that morality is a system of ideas to differentiate between right and wrong is correct, it shouldn't be regarded as a primary definition, since they are the consequence and not the cause of the system.

The justification for morality comes from our capacity to reason and reflect.

Thank you for providing me the respite of having to argue against such unreasonable assertions. I have to say I mostly agree with what you are saying here. There are a few things I might disagree on. Yes the justification for morality does come from our apparent ability to reason and reflect back on past outcomes, but this justification is itself outside what morality actually is. We have a system of ideas, and we can justify them later. We probably agree.

Edit:
Yes, guidelines would be a better term, since what is right in one situation is not always right in another. Another disagreement I may have is I see the way you 'should' act as what is right. They are basically the stating the same thing. What is wrong is the same as how you should not act. Differentiating them doesn't really make sense.

Maybe what you are trying to say here is that morality is actually the system of ideas about the method of getting to the right answer. There is a pattern behind this and we call this morality.

We are not automatons - acting reflexively and without any awareness of our actions.

The nature of awareness has yet to be discovered, so it itself could be a necessary illusion. In my last response, I admit that I was only describing a very small version of what morality actually is. That is, only our subjective version of the set of ideas about what should be done, and I tried to reason it out through the aspect of suffering, which I think is the main awareness related cause behind the generation of these moral ideas. I agree I did not talk about the societal version of morality, that is the conglomeration of ideas of right and wrong throughout an entire society.

We are capable of reflecting upon our actions, thoughts and motivations and thus we need some standard or code to direct them. This would be necessary even if we did not live in a society with other similarly capable entities.

Yes, I agree and a set of ideas relating to what is right or wrong is built into us and can ever change depending on what we experience.

However, the ultimate goal or goals of morality need not be rational or justified. We can choose "maximizing happiness and minimizing pain" as the purpose or "self-actualization" or "getting into heaven" or "release from reincarnation" or "achieving popularity and leaving a legacy" and so on. All of these would give rise distinct set of ideas about "how one should act" and all would have instructions regarding what is good and what is bad. Each of them is a morality in its own right, since each fits the definition.

Yes, I agree. Since Inigo seemed to be looking for more than just a set of ideas for what morality is, at the time I tried to give a simple method of instruction behind it, that being suffering. Of course this is much to simplified for the actual method, but it is a start, and there is evidence for it.

[Inigo]

You're just confusing normative ethics with metaethics. This is in essence the mistake that G.E.Moore was keen to point out and labelled 'the naturalistic fallacy'. Basically, it involves confusing what morality tells us to do and be (normative ethics) with what morality is, in itself.

This is also what I've been trying to do throughout this thread.

But, anyway, rather than pointing out your fallacious inferences I'll just point out that a concept can't issue an instruction, much less an instruction that has inescapable rational authority. So your view is, er, silly.

Morality has to be something that issues instructions, because that's what it does. And it has to be something capable of lending those instructions inescapable rational authority, because that's what moral instructions have.

You can keep repeating the same statement ad nauseum - doesn't make it true. You are the one who fails to understand that everyone here - including Simplexity - is addressing the metaphysical nature of morality. And not only that, they are justifying its metaphysical nature by giving suitable reasons - all of which you have failed to address.

Morality is a system of ideas. It is a concept formed of a collection of concepts. That is - at the core - the nature of its existence. It does not issue instructions - it contains them. It does not act and is not an agent in any form or manner. And there is no reason for it to be issued from an inescapable rational authority.

Your mistake - a most abysmally foolish mistake - is to regard a form of speech literally. The idea that morality instructs is just a fancier way of saying "as per the instructions contained within a particular morality". It does not confer any sort of agency unto the concept itself and your continued insistence on how "morality has to be something that instructs" simply demonstrates your failure to understand this simple semantic concept.

YOu say morality 'contains' instructions. So, er, morality is - in part anyway - composed of instructions. (do you see how annoying this is for me - I say 'morality instructs' or 'morality is composed of instructions' and the response is 'no it doesn't.....it instructs'. You can't challenge my premise by affirming it!!)

Now, instructions require an instructor. If you know of a way in which an instruction can exist - and be a genuine, real instruction and not just an apparent one - without it having to have been originated by an agent of some kind, I'm all ears. But until or unless you can do this, instructions require an instructor: an agent of some kind. (There is, after all, no doubt that this is one way in which an instruction can come into being).

If there is no instructor then all we have is the appearance of instructions.

Talk about 'ideas' all you want. Ideas don't instruct. And morality is not an idea. It is something we have an idea 'of'. It is not itself an idea. The only thing that is an idea is an idea. A chair is not an idea. But it is something we have an idea of. A horse is not an idea, but it is something we have an idea of. A god is not an idea, but it is something we have an idea of. And so on and so on.

Morality is NOT an idea anymore than a chair is. Only someone who is fundamentally confused would think otherwise.

We have an idea of morality. And that idea is of something that instructs, favours etc, and instructs and favours in a way that is rationally authoritative. That's the idea. And that idea will only have something answering to it in reality if there really are external instructions that are inescapable rationally authoritative. And that requires the existence of a god and an afterlife.

Talk about the idea all you want. Talk about how it has evolved, etc. you're not talking about morality until you talk about what the idea is of. And the idea is of external instructions that have inescapable rational authority.

I am going to keep on saying this until someone gives me reason to think otherwise. So far all you've done is continue confusing morality for the idea of morality, which is......stupid.

[Foxaèr]

I am going to keep on saying this until someone gives me reason to think otherwise.

You do realize what the definition of insanity is, right?

[Inigo]

I have already told you what morality is in itself.

It is the set of of thought patterns generated from the mind which differentiate 'right' from 'wrong'(having to do with self suffering - and it follows from this self suffering that is has to do with others suffering.)

Not to distract you from Inigo's riveting arguments, but this is a very commonly held view that I often argue against.

The most commonly held definition of morality is a system of ideas to differentiate between good/right and bad/wrong. When asked about right and wrong, the common answer is what causes pleasure and what causes suffering. And since commonly accepted morality often runs contrary to one's own pleasure or pain, the suffering under consideration always becomes that of others or of the society. And thus arises the most commonly held view that the meaning of morality is "a system of ideas, applicable in a social context, regarding how one should act so as to maximize happiness and minimize suffering". And that, I think, is an extremely parochial view of morality.

The issue here is the definition we start with. Morality is a system of ideas - that much is correct. But primarily, it is a system of ideas about how one should act - not right and wrong. The words right and wrong or good and bad are - by their very nature - judgments made according to some standards. For example we have right and wrong answers in mathematics and science or good and bad answers in literature and there they have nothing to do with moral judgement. Thus, morality is the standard - the set of guidelines to make a judgment by - and right/good and wrong/bad are judgments given on its basis. Thus, while saying that morality is a system of ideas to differentiate between right and wrong is correct, it shouldn't be regarded as a primary definition, since they are the consequence and not the cause of the system.

The justification for morality comes from our capacity to reason and reflect. We are not automatons - acting reflexively and without any awareness of our actions. We are capable of reflecting upon our actions, thoughts and motivations and thus we need some standard or code to direct them. This would be necessary even if we did not live in a society with other similarly capable entities.

However, the ultimate goal or goals of morality need not be rational or justified. We can choose "maximizing happiness and minimizing pain" as the purpose or "self-actualization" or "getting into heaven" or "release from reincarnation" or "achieving popularity and leaving a legacy" and so on. All of these would give rise distinct set of ideas about "how one should act" and all would have instructions regarding what is good and what is bad. Each of them is a morality in its own right, since each fits the definition.

Morality is not a 'system of ideas'. This is just so horribly confused it hurts. Morality is something we have an idea 'of'.

A normative moral theory is a theory about what morality instructs us to do. So, it is a theory about what all right acts have in common apart from their rightness, or what all wrong acts have in common apart from their wrongness. Utilitarianism is one such theory (not a very good one, but still). Deontological views constitute another family of such views. Virtue ethical views constitute another camp. Pluralist views another. And so on. THese are all views that attempt to articulate a pattern in what it is that morality instructs. But they do not constitute metaethical views. They are not telling us what morality 'is', only what it instructs us to do and be.

What morality 'is' is something that instructs and favours and whose instructions have inescapable rational authority (it has other features as well but these are the least disputable, in my view).

This is inconvenient. For it means it doesn't really exist if atheism is true. Some people - nearly all of you lot - seem to think that you're somehow entitled to it being compatible with atheism. This is just a case of wishful thinking though. You want it to be compatible with it, so you decide it is. But unfortunately whether it is compatible with atheism or not is a function of what it actually presupposes, rather than what you wish to be the case. Frankly, what you want is neither here nor there. Morality instructs and its instructions have inescapable rational authority. There will only be real instructions if there is an agent issuing them. And there will only be instructions with inescapable rational authority if the agent who is issuing them has control over our interests in an afterlife. So that's what morality requires whether you like it or not.

---

I am going to keep on saying this until someone gives me reason to think otherwise.

You do realize what the definition of insanity is, right?

You realise that's NOT the definition of insanity, right?

[Foxaèr]

You realise that's NOT the definition of insanity, right?

The insane never think they are.

[Rahul]

If you think you are insane, you're not insane.

[Inigo]

You realise that's NOT the definition of insanity, right?

The insane never think they are.

The insane often recognise their own insanity. Any other pearls of wisdom to offer?

---

If you think you are insane, you're not insane.

No, if you think you are insane you may be insane.