Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

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.

Because the rational authority of the instructions of such a person would not be inescapable. You would only have reason to comply with such a person's instructions so long as you stay alive. if you were planning on, or about to kill yourself/die you would have no reason to comply with this person's instructions to you.
Moral instructions are not like this. Moral instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife would be like that.

---

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.

Just nonsense. the laws of physics are not instructions. You're not 'instructed' to obey the laws of physics, are you?! They describe how things behave, they do not prescribe.

Instructions DO require an instructor. Provide me with an example of one that doesn't have an instructor or shut up.

[paulpablo]

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.

Because the rational authority of the instructions of such a person would not be inescapable. You would only have reason to comply with such a person's instructions so long as you stay alive. if you were planning on, or about to kill yourself/die you would have no reason to comply with this person's instructions to you.
Moral instructions are not like this. Moral instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife would be like that.

---

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.

Just nonsense. the laws of physics are not instructions. You're not 'instructed' to obey the laws of physics, are you?! They describe how things behave, they do not prescribe.

Instructions DO require an instructor. Provide me with an example of one that doesn't have an instructor or shut up.

What about if you care about others outside of your own life, or what happens to people after you die. In this case there are reasons to follow a code of ethics without there being a need for a god.

This whole thread seems flawed to me if I understand it correctly, you're basing evidence upon what a word means.

You're basically saying "this word (normative morality) means an instruction which is inescapably rational to follow, only a god could give such instructions" Well maybe if you don't care about anyone else or what happens to you after you die and you do just want to kill yourself there are no normative morals. It's like me saying "I invented a word bozwollocks, its the feeling you get when the invisible elephant wraps its trunk around your stomach and you feel a bit weird, the word exists, the feeling exists, the invisible trunk must exist." It's only other people who get to decide who is rational, and their decision is surely effected by their own rationality, so logically no one can truly decide perfect rationality, absolute morality, none of these things, they aren't actual things which exist they are just ideas and words, just because someone out there had an idea that there are certain behaviors that all rational people should do and that these are normative morals what makes you think the idea behind all of this is actually true:?

[simplexity]

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.

Because the rational authority of the instructions of such a person would not be inescapable. You would only have reason to comply with such a person's instructions so long as you stay alive. if you were planning on, or about to kill yourself/die you would have no reason to comply with this person's instructions to you.
Moral instructions are not like this. Moral instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife would be like that.

---

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.

Just nonsense. the laws of physics are not instructions. You're not 'instructed' to obey the laws of physics, are you?! They describe how things behave, they do not prescribe.

Instructions DO require an instructor. Provide me with an example of one that doesn't have an instructor or shut up.

Instincts, already provided one. Descriptions are a form of instruction. You don't have to follow them because there are other subroutines(descriptions) that can override them. In that method they provide instructions. You keep asserting instructions require an instructor(argument from ignorance), thinking that because you say it's true without evidence it obviously must be true. I get instructions from non-agents all the time, every day, through interacting with the environment.

You say instructions require an agent so therefore god did it. Same nonsense again and again. Please spill it somewhere else. That is all there is to your argument when you simplify it. And you say I'm spouting nonsense.

[Foxaèr]

This whole thread seems flawed to me.

That is because it is. His entire flawed argument hinges on the illogical assumption that an instruction needs an instructor.

[Angrboda]

Now, instructions require an instructor.

[genkaus]

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!!)

How is this basic concept of the English language beyond your understanding? 'Morality instructs' and 'morality is composed of instructions' do not mean the same thing. One indicates an action taking place - by using the verb "instructs", while the other simply outlines composition. One phrase says "what morality is" and the second "what morality does". As it is, what morality is is a collection of instructions and what it does is nothing - because it is not an agent with the capacity to do anything. Even a beginner should be able to grasp this much.

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).

Yes - human agents. Moral philosophers. Priests high on mushrooms. Carpenters with delusions of divine grandeur. These are the agents who issue the instructions contained within different moralities. These are the instructors.

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

There are instructors. Many of them. Which is why there are many moralities.

Talk about 'ideas' all you want. Ideas don't instruct.

Neither does morality.

And morality is not an idea.

Yes, it is.

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.

All you are doing here is showing that you have no idea about how ideas work. Your understanding of concepts is even below that of a first grader's. This is how an infant would see the world - for him every idea must have a physical, tangible reference. He does not have the mental capacity to understand that adults have multiple levels conceptualization and abstraction and that they can have ideas about ideas about other ideas about certain concretes - and clearly, it is beyond your mental capacity as well.

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

Ofcourse it is. And only someone fundamentally retarded would think otherwise. Morality is an idea of "how one should act".

We have an idea of morality.

Clearly, you don't.

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.

That's the wrong idea. On both levels.

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.

Wrong again. As indicated time and again, there is nothing inescapable or rational or authoritative about either god or 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.

No, the idea is of a set of instructions which need not be external nor have an 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.

Ooh, calling me stupid. What a uniquely infantile response. You just love proving me right, don't you?

[Inigo]

Now, instructions require an instructor.

Is this an attempt at refutation by cartoon? What probative force does merely repeating something in a sneering tone of voice have?

Perhaps you think familiarity with a certain claim somehow reduces the likelihood that the claim is true.

I assume you cannot find a flaw in my reasoning or assumptions and so this is what you're driven to.

[simplexity]

I assume you cannot find a flaw in my reasoning or assumptions and so this is what you're driven to.

Assumptions are always flawed. That's why they're called assumptions.

[Inigo]

Because the rational authority of the instructions of such a person would not be inescapable. You would only have reason to comply with such a person's instructions so long as you stay alive. if you were planning on, or about to kill yourself/die you would have no reason to comply with this person's instructions to you.
Moral instructions are not like this. Moral instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife would be like that.

---

Just nonsense. the laws of physics are not instructions. You're not 'instructed' to obey the laws of physics, are you?! They describe how things behave, they do not prescribe.

Instructions DO require an instructor. Provide me with an example of one that doesn't have an instructor or shut up.

Instincts, already provided one. Descriptions are a form of instruction. You don't have to follow them because there are other subroutines(descriptions) that can override them. In that method they provide instructions. You keep asserting instructions require an instructor(argument from ignorance), thinking that because you say it's true without evidence it obviously must be true. I get instructions from non-agents all the time, every day, through interacting with the environment.

You say instructions require an agent so therefore god did it. Same nonsense again and again. Please spill it somewhere else. That is all there is to your argument when you simplify it. And you say I'm spouting nonsense.

No, because instincts either aren't instructions, or they are only instructional due to being desires, which are things that can only exist in a mind.

When something approaches my eyes I, by instinct, close them. I am not instructed to close them. They just close. So I assume you do not mean this by an 'instinct'.

Perhaps you are referring to certain desires or urges that may arise in us. Well, they can direct us in a very real sense. However, these do not constitute counterexamples as the desires in question are an agent's and so you have merely confirmed that you can't get instructions from something non-agential. The only kind of thing that issues instructions is a mind with beliefs and desires. YOu don't show that to be false by bringing pointing to a mind's desires. I know desires can be a source of directions.

BUt, for the millionth time, if you identify moral instructions with our desires then you will not be able to account for the inescapable rational authority of moral instructions. Hence, moral insstructions need to have their source elsewhere.

---

Because the rational authority of the instructions of such a person would not be inescapable. You would only have reason to comply with such a person's instructions so long as you stay alive. if you were planning on, or about to kill yourself/die you would have no reason to comply with this person's instructions to you.
Moral instructions are not like this. Moral instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife would be like that.

---

Just nonsense. the laws of physics are not instructions. You're not 'instructed' to obey the laws of physics, are you?! They describe how things behave, they do not prescribe.

Instructions DO require an instructor. Provide me with an example of one that doesn't have an instructor or shut up.

What about if you care about others outside of your own life, or what happens to people after you die. In this case there are reasons to follow a code of ethics without there being a need for a god.

This whole thread seems flawed to me if I understand it correctly, you're basing evidence upon what a word means.

You're basically saying "this word (normative morality) means an instruction which is inescapably rational to follow, only a god could give such instructions" Well maybe if you don't care about anyone else or what happens to you after you die and you do just want to kill yourself there are no normative morals. It's like me saying "I invented a word bozwollocks, its the feeling you get when the invisible elephant wraps its trunk around your stomach and you feel a bit weird, the word exists, the feeling exists, the invisible trunk must exist." It's only other people who get to decide who is rational, and their decision is surely effected by their own rationality, so logically no one can truly decide perfect rationality, absolute morality, none of these things, they aren't actual things which exist they are just ideas and words, just because someone out there had an idea that there are certain behaviors that all rational people should do and that these are normative morals what makes you think the idea behind all of this is actually true:?

Something isn't wrong just beusae you say so, or because you don't want others to do it, is it? YOu can't seriously be saying that the reason it is wrong to hurt others is because YOU don't want to hurt others or want others to hurt others???

The wrongness of hurting others has nothing to do with you and your tastes. It is wrong to hurt others because MORALITY instructs us not to. Happily, most of us don't want to either. But even those few among us who really like hurting others, or who sometimes have an urge to, do something WRONG if they do so. They have REASON not to hurt others, whether they realise it or not, whether they want to or not. That's the thing about morality. That's what's distinctive about morality.
If you want to rape someone that doesn't make it right to do so. And by the same token the wrongness of rape doesn't amount to you just not wanting to rape someone.
If I want others to rape someone, that doesn't make it right for them to do so. By the same token, if I don't want others to rape someone that isn't what the wrongness of it amounts to.

---

I assume you cannot find a flaw in my reasoning or assumptions and so this is what you're driven to.

Assumptions are always flawed. That's why they're called assumptions.

No, they are called assumptions because they're assumptions.

[genkaus]

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

You are wrong by the very definition of morality. Morality is defined as a system of ideas differentiating between right and wrong. It is defined as code or a set of guidelines (which is a subset of ideas) to judge human behavior by. To ignore this simple truth and keep repeating that it is not a system of ideas is not just being confused, it is being willfully stupid.

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.

Normative ethics does not address the question of what morality is because it starts with that understanding. You know what all these "moral theories" have in common? They accept and understand that morality is a system of ideas that contains the guidelines to human behavior and then they all attempt to figure out what its content should 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).

Your view is wrong. What morality is is system of ideas that contains instructions as to how one should act - it does not instruct or favor.

---

The insane never think they are.

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

And yet, you don't recognize yours.