Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

Whereas running 2ks without stopping is quite difficult.

Humans are the only animal that can run long distances without stopping. Having run cross country in high school and college, I have run ten miles a day without stopping.

So you were good at something at school. I'm surprised.

[downbeatplumb]

I don't think we have seen the definition of morality for a while.

From the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Nothing there implies even slightly the need for any sort of controlling law giver it even says code of conduct put forward in the definition of morality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

[Inigo]

I don't think we have seen the definition of morality for a while.

From the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Nothing there implies even slightly the need for any sort of controlling law giver it even says code of conduct put forward in the definition of morality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Well, just look at that last line. A code of conduct is a set of instructions. And 'put forward by all rational persons' is just another way of saying that the instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative.

And once again, instructions can't just exist - they need to be issued by someone. And to be inescapably rationally authoritative the person issuing them would need to have control over our interests in an afterlife and be vengeful. A person like that is what's known as a 'god'. Deal.

[paulpablo]

I don't think we have seen the definition of morality for a while.

From the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.


Nothing there implies even slightly the need for any sort of controlling law giver it even says code of conduct put forward in the definition of morality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Well, just look at that last line. A code of conduct is a set of instructions. And 'put forward by all rational persons' is just another way of saying that the instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative.

And once again, instructions can't just exist - they need to be issued by someone. And to be inescapably rationally authoritative the person issuing them would need to have control over our interests in an afterlife and be vengeful. A person like that is what's known as a 'god'. Deal.

Why would the person issuing the commands have to have control over our interests in the afterlife?

[Inigo]

Well, just look at that last line. A code of conduct is a set of instructions. And 'put forward by all rational persons' is just another way of saying that the instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative.

And once again, instructions can't just exist - they need to be issued by someone. And to be inescapably rationally authoritative the person issuing them would need to have control over our interests in an afterlife and be vengeful. A person like that is what's known as a 'god'. Deal.

Why would the person issuing the commands have to have control over our interests in the afterlife?

So that we'd always have reason to comply with the commands.

If I tell you to do something you don't necessarily have reason to do it. If morality tells you to do something you do, even if you don't want to.

I assume we have reason to do what is in our interests. If there is a god and an afterlife and the god has control over our interests in that afterlife - and is vengeful - then her instructions to us are instructions we all have reason to comply with, even if we don't want to.

[paulpablo]

Why would the person issuing the commands have to have control over our interests in the afterlife?

So that we'd always have reason to comply with the commands.

If I tell you to do something you don't necessarily have reason to do it. If morality tells you to do something you do, even if you don't want to.

I assume we have reason to do what is in our interests. If there is a god and an afterlife and the god has control over our interests in that afterlife - and is vengeful - then her instructions to us are instructions we all have reason to comply with, even if we don't want to.

Why would we have to have a reason to comply with the demands outside of our interest in our current lives?

[Inigo]

So that we'd always have reason to comply with the commands.

If I tell you to do something you don't necessarily have reason to do it. If morality tells you to do something you do, even if you don't want to.

I assume we have reason to do what is in our interests. If there is a god and an afterlife and the god has control over our interests in that afterlife - and is vengeful - then her instructions to us are instructions we all have reason to comply with, even if we don't want to.

Why would we have to have a reason to comply with the demands outside of our interest in our current lives?

If there's an afterlife then your current life doesn't end with your death. It continues. You don't get to not exist.
So, you do not just have mortem interests, you also have post-mortem interests.

[Rahul]

And once again, instructions can't just exist - they need to be issued by someone. And to be inescapably rationally authoritative the person issuing them would need to have control over our interests in an afterlife and be vengeful. A person like that is what's known as a 'god'. Deal.

It's not instructions. It's instinct.

I've noticed a Cicada Killer wasp flying around my house recently. Yesterday I found a burrow it had dug.

The females will dig a burrow in sandy soil about 10-20" deep. Then it will make chambers. For female eggs it lays it will collect 2 or three Cicadas for it to feast on. For male eggs it will only collect 1. Because the females are much larger than the males of their species you see.

What is "instructing" it to do that? It's not like it's mom taught it this.

It's just instinct.

---

If there's an afterlife then your current life doesn't end with your death. It continues. You don't get to not exist.
So, you do not just have mortem interests, you also have post-mortem interests.

Baseless assertion. Prove it.

[simplexity]

Instructions don't require an instructor. They can be contained in a code that is read through already existing patterns. We call these the laws of physics. The code itself is written through already existing patterns. Chemistry/Physics what have you. You keep saying instructions require an instructor when obviously you know nothing about what an instruction is. Keep on asserting an instruction requires an instructor. A code does not require an instructor, only the correct sequence of events. Obviously you skipped over the part about instinct and neural blackmail. These are examples of instructions which we do not necessarily have to follow.

[paulpablo]

Why would we have to have a reason to comply with the demands outside of our interest in our current lives?

If there's an afterlife then your current life doesn't end with your death. It continues. You don't get to not exist.
So, you do not just have mortem interests, you also have post-mortem interests.

But then why does there have to be an afterlife because of morals? Why could the person issuing the demands not be a supernatural being in charge of our current lives, with no afterlife.