Atheism and morality

[Angrboda]

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

Once again, your assumption is incorrect.

The point of my posting that was the date on which it was posted, prefiguring the substance of your arguments.

Regardless, it appears that you have no takers on the first of your two syllogisms. However, since your argument requires both syllogisms to be true, perhaps you can set aside the dispute over the acceptability of the first syllogism and speak to why you think the second syllogism is valid and compelling. Why, if morality is instructions from some unspecified agent, does your second syllogism demonstrate the required characteristics that agent has to have in order for their instructions to qualify as morality? You've suggested that the Euthyphro dilemma might be an obstacle to your account, but beyond that, it's not clear to me that your second syllogism works either. While it's certainly possibly true that the reality that I might suffer for eternity for having sexual relations with another woman provides me a compelling reason not to have sexual relations with another woman, it's unclear how such infinite punishment in the afterlife yields an instruction that is morally compelling rather than simply compelling due to the nature of my self interests in a purely instrumental and non-moral way? (As a suggestion, you might create a separate thread, to allow the current debate over the first syllogism to continue its present trajectory.)

---

Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition, this is one case where quoting an authority on the usage of the term is fallacious and invalid, as the current debate is about the very nature and substance of morality, so appealing to what a group of people think is the case can be seen as both an appeal to consensus, as well as begging the question.

(Besides, much as I find the SEP useful, there are many annoying peculiarities about the composition of entries in the SEP, and if I have an option, I look elsewhere.)

[simplexity]

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.

What I was describing was the agents system itself. You can describe us as agents, but you just proved all of our points again. Morality does not require anything outside of our own system of awareness. It is a system of ideas generated from a a group of instincts and thought patterns(sometimes these are manifested as desires). At least this is the most probable. And if you try hard enough you can stop yourself from blinking when something is thrown at your eyes. You are merely going way beyond the basis of morality and assuming it is both rationally inescapable and provides instructions, which it does not. Every morality only contains instructions, it does not instruct. We, as agents are the only ones that can use these ideas(instructions/codes) to instruct one another, or ourselfs, ie reflect.

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.

Once again you are assuming without any reason that moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. I don't need to account for anything as moral instructions are simply not inescapably rational and they need not be. It is only a system of ideas regarding what we 'think' is right or wrong depending on our internal system. It does not even have to be slightly rational.

[Inigo]

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

And yet, you don't recognize yours.

'Should' is a favouring, you total moron.
Here's my impression of you"

'Morality doesn't favour or instruct, it favours and instructs.
Morality is an idea. Ideas can't favour or instruct. But morality doesn't. It favours and instructs. It doesn't favour or instruct. It is an idea. ideas can't favour or instruct. So morality doesn't. It is a code of instructions. But those aren't instructions. They are instructions. Not instructions. Instructions. Not instructions.

I'm afraid I can't argue with someone this stupid, so byeeee

---

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.

What I was describing was the agents system itself. You can describe us as agents, but you just proved all of our points again. Morality does not require anything outside of our own system of awareness. It is a system of ideas generated from a a group of instincts and thought patterns(sometimes these are manifested as desires). At least this is the most probable. And if you try hard enough you can stop yourself from blinking when something is thrown at your eyes. You are merely going way beyond the basis of morality and assuming it is both rationally inescapable and provides instructions, which it does not. Every morality only contains instructions, it does not instruct. We, as agents are the only ones that can use these ideas(instructions/codes) to instruct one another, or ourselfs, ie reflect.

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.

Once again you are assuming without any reason that moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. I don't need to account for anything as moral instructions are simply not inescapably rational and they need not be. It is only a system of ideas regarding what we 'think' is right or wrong depending on our internal system. It does not even have to be slightly rational.

So, if an act is morally right you don't necessarily have reason to do it? It can be irrational to do what is moral, can it?

[simplexity]

So, if an act is morally right you don't necessarily have reason to do it? It can be irrational to do what is moral, can it?

And you don't always have reason to act on instinctual ideas. So what? What is morally right as defined inside of your mind is only one subroutine in the operating system called your mind. Sorry, I am using all these computer science terms, but it's the only way I can describe this atm. It can be overridden by other subroutines.

[NoahsFarce]

No, your moral actions do not need reason other than that's just the what you feel is the right thing. Does this mean it's okay for you to rape? There's no magic answer to that. But know that there are consequences to that action regardless of whether or not you feel is wrong.

So what am I really trying to say? You're reading into it way too much. That's okay though, people argue over morality all the time.

There seems to be a set of universal morals, though the paths taken to reach those morals differ. Does that mean there is a golden set of morals that has been encoded by some being? Not necessarily. Human beings are a social species. For a social species to thrive, they need to be kind to one another overall. The problem currently is, we have not gone past the tribal stage. We are most loyal to those immediately around us. We are separated by various groups, particularly religious groups. But overall, within those groups, people are kind to one another.

Back to the rape topic. While rape might individually benefit you, it does not benefit humans as whole. It is detrimental to the victim's mental health. Perhaps you love to kill babies? Sure, might be fine for you, but that is detrimental to the survivability of our species. If the majority were killing babies, our species would die off.

Too long didn't read? Morals are useful from an evolutionary standpoint for those beings whose minds can sort through such thoughts and actions. No god needed.

[genkaus]

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.

Go through the definition once again. Try seeing what is actually written there, instead seeing what you want to see. Try to understand the meaning of the phrases and infer only what can be logically deduced.

Firstly, the definition says that morality is a code of conduct - which mean it is a system of ideas. By definition.

Secondly, being 'put forward by all rational persons' is not another way of saying that the instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. All that means is that the instructions have rational justification for them.

Thirdly, and as has also been specified, the instructions are issued a rational person - not by a rationally inescapable authority figure. Such a person does not need to have authority over this life - let alone the hypothetical afterlife.

Your entire line of thought is corrupted from the beginning.

[Inigo]

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

Once again, your assumption is incorrect.

The point of my posting that was the date on which it was posted, prefiguring the substance of your arguments.

Regardless, it appears that you have no takers on the first of your two syllogisms. However, since your argument requires both syllogisms to be true, perhaps you can set aside the dispute over the acceptability of the first syllogism and speak to why you think the second syllogism is valid and compelling. Why, if morality is instructions from some unspecified agent, does your second syllogism demonstrate the required characteristics that agent has to have in order for their instructions to qualify as morality? You've suggested that the Euthyphro dilemma might be an obstacle to your account, but beyond that, it's not clear to me that your second syllogism works either. While it's certainly possibly true that the reality that I might suffer for eternity for having sexual relations with another woman provides me a compelling reason not to have sexual relations with another woman, it's unclear how such infinite punishment in the afterlife yields an instruction that is morally compelling rather than simply compelling due to the nature of my self interests in a purely instrumental and non-moral way? (As a suggestion, you might create a separate thread, to allow the current debate over the first syllogism to continue its present trajectory.)

---

Regarding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition, this is one case where quoting an authority on the usage of the term is fallacious and invalid, as the current debate is about the very nature and substance of morality, so appealing to what a group of people think is the case is both an appeal to consensus and begging the question.

(Besides, much as I find the SEP useful, there are many annoying peculiarities about the composition of entries in the SEP, and if I have an option, I look elsewhere.)

Why do you think I give rat's arse what the Stanford said? Some other twit decided to quote its definition of morality and I merely noted that it accorded with mine and then showed that twit why such a thing would require a god.

You can define morality how you want. Define it as a pad of butter if you want. You won't be addressing me. For I have defined it as that which instructs with inescapable rational authority. It seems to be something of this nature that moral philosophers are concerning themselves with. Would you like some big names? YOu seem to crave the need for an authority figure. How about Kant? That do you?

Anyway, if - if - there is a god who has control over your interests in an afterlife and she doesn't want you having sex with another women and will mess you up big-time if you do, then you have reason not to have sex with another woman. And you have reason not to even if you really, really, REALLY want to. Want it all you like, you have reason not to.
That's what moral instructions are like. That's why I think moral instructions would need to be the instructions of a god of the kind I've just described.

You admit that you would indeed have reason to comply with such an instruction were one issued. But you say that this reason would be 'instrumental' and not 'moral'. That's question begging in this context. One cannot simply stipulate that moral reasons are not instrumental reasons: they may be. Granted, they do not appear to be. But that's precisely because moral reasons are inescapable whereas instrumental reasons are not.........unless a god of the kind I've just described exists!

[genkaus]

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.

Wrong again. Having control over afterlife is not an inescapable reason for anything. I wouldn't have to do anything even if god told me to.

---

'Should' is a favouring, you total moron.

And morality doesn't say 'should', you witless cretin. In fact, it doesn't 'say' anything.

Here's my impression of you"

'Morality doesn't favour or instruct, it favours and instructs.
Morality is an idea. Ideas can't favour or instruct. But morality doesn't. It favours and instructs. It doesn't favour or instruct. It is an idea. ideas can't favour or instruct. So morality doesn't. It is a code of instructions. But those aren't instructions. They are instructions. Not instructions. Instructions. Not instructions.

I'm afraid I can't argue with someone this stupid, so byeeee

Bad, bad impression. All you do is show the utter lack of comprehension of the extremely simple logic. Let me simplyfy.

"Morality is an idea. Ideas don't favor or instruct. Thus, morality doesn't favor or instruct. It is a code of instruction. Being a code of instructions doesn't mean it instructs. It simply tells you what it is, not what it does."

[Inigo]

No, your moral actions do not need reason other than that's just the what you feel is the right thing. Does this mean it's okay for you to rape? There's no magic answer to that. But know that there are consequences to that action regardless of whether or not you feel is wrong.

So what am I really trying to say? You're reading into it way too much. That's okay though, people argue over morality all the time.

There seems to be a set of universal morals, though the paths taken to reach those morals differ. Does that mean there is a golden set of morals that has been encoded by some being? Not necessarily. Human beings are a social species. For a social species to thrive, they need to be kind to one another overall. The problem currently is, we have not gone past the tribal stage. We are most loyal to those immediately around us. We are separated by various groups, particularly religious groups. But overall, within those groups, people are kind to one another.

Back to the rape topic. While rape might individually benefit you, it does not benefit humans as whole. It is detrimental to the victim's mental health. Perhaps you love to kill babies? Sure, might be fine for you, but that is detrimental to the survivability of our species. If the majority were killing babies, our species would die off.

Too long didn't read? Morals are useful from an evolutionary standpoint for those beings whose minds can sort through such thoughts and actions. No god needed.

Jack really loves disembowelling prostitutes. He bloody loves it! He's got terminal cancer and is going to die next week. He decides he'll disembowel one last prostitute for old time's sake.

If you think he has reason not to disembowel a prostitute but do not believe there is any god or afterlife kindly explain.

---

Here's my impression of you"

'Morality doesn't favour or instruct, it favours and instructs.
Morality is an idea. Ideas can't favour or instruct. But morality doesn't. It favours and instructs. It doesn't favour or instruct. It is an idea. ideas can't favour or instruct. So morality doesn't. It is a code of instructions. But those aren't instructions. They are instructions. Not instructions. Instructions. Not instructions.

I'm afraid I can't argue with someone this stupid, so byeeee

Bad, bad impression. All you do is show the utter lack of comprehension of the extremely simple logic. Let me simplyfy.

"Morality is an idea. Ideas don't favor or instruct. Thus, morality doesn't favor or instruct. It is a code of instruction. Being a code of instructions doesn't mean it instructs. It simply tells you what it is, not what it does."

I think my impression was spot on.

[genkaus]

Why do you think I give rat's arse what the Stanford said? Some other twit decided to quote its definition of morality and I merely noted that it accorded with mine and then showed that twit why such a thing would require a god.

Except, it doesn't accord with your definition.

You can define morality how you want.

Not in a rational debate - you can't.

For I have defined it as that which instructs with inescapable rational authority.

So you accept that you are redefining morality specifically to cater to your argument?

It seems to be something of this nature that moral philosophers are concerning themselves with.

Not even close.

---

Jack really loves disembowelling prostitutes. He bloody loves it! He's got terminal cancer and is going to die next week. He decides he'll disembowel one last prostitute for old time's sake.

If you think he has reason not to disembowel a prostitute but do not believe there is any god or afterlife kindly explain.I think my impression was spot on.

He will die this week.

I think my impression was spot on.

And as we all know, what you think and what reality is are two very, very, very different things.