Devil's advocate..

[genkaus]

No. Would you derive my favorite food from a rational consideration of facts about me?

Sure: I'd need a lot of specific facts from you, though - the correlation between your taste buds and your brains pleasure center, the relative strength of different tastes and what response they produce, how your brain reacts to different textures, which olfactory stimuli best stimulate your limbic system for a positive response. Then I'd need facts about your past - what kind of food you grew up eating, the context in which that food was eaten etc. After that, I'd draw up a checklist with different aspects I find you respond positively to - with appropriate weights assigned to each and see which food fits the most criteria. That should be your favorite food.

I assume the point you were trying to make was this - morality, like food, is a matter of subjective preference - that you pick one based on what feels best to you - and making one choice over another doesn't make much of a difference. So rational considerations have no place in the decision. The rest of the argument applies only if this is correct.

However, there is a fundamental differences between the two cases:

As long as the food isn't detrimental, it really doesn't make a difference which one you pick. As long as your favorite food isn't hemlock, you're good to go. Also, not eating your favorite food wouldn't have negative effects on your psyche - not following your morality would result in guilt and shame.

Morality, on the other hand, would be the guiding principle for a lot of your actions. That question is not comparable to "what should be my favorite food", it is comparable to "what should be my diet" - and that one is subject to rational consideration. Picking one on a whim is would result in negative consequences down the line.

[Mr Greene]

Ok, let's stop right there !

Quoting atrocities as proof is not a proof.. There are billions of muslims that don't want heinous crimes committing in their name.

I'm on your side guys, I'm an atheist and want so much for the world to wake up to the facts and be peaceful.
But my point is more the mundane, if muslims want to make law that chops hands off for theft, are they wrong? we have the death penalty.. I suppose I'm looking for qualifiers.. why are we right and them wrong?

Actually 'WE' don't. The Death Penalty is illegal in the EU. The US is the only non-totalitarian dictatorship to retain the use of this form of barbarity.

[Angrboda]

I assume the point you were trying to make was this - morality, like food, is a matter of subjective preference - that you pick one based on what feels best to you - and making one choice over another doesn't make much of a difference. So rational considerations have no place in the decision. The rest of the argument applies only if this is correct.

I didn't say that. It was an example of misapplying rationality. Morality isn't subjective preference but it is contingent, it matters where and when you live what morality you will end up forming. What culture you inherit cannot be predicted by a rational analysis and it's from there that the values which you would apply your rational considerations to derive. There is no universal platform because where you are born is purely arbitrary, thus the morals you end up forming have an arbitrary basis. It's like religious belief; the best predictor of religious belief is where you are born. Any attempt to apply rational considerations to which is the most reasonable religious belief will generally be futile (again, this is an analogy, nothing more; don't over-extend it). The rest of your post goes back to trying to establish rational standards where there are none by sneaking in a value statement as if it were universal. Morality works at a subconscious level; we don't choose how our subconscious reacts.

[genkaus]

I didn't say that. It was an example of misapplying rationality. Morality isn't subjective preference but it is contingent, it matters where and when you live what morality you will end up forming. What culture you inherit cannot be predicted by a rational analysis and it's from there that the values which you would apply your rational considerations to derive. There is no universal platform because where you are born is purely arbitrary, thus the morals you end up forming have an arbitrary basis.

So, you regard where and when to be relevant to forming morality and not what and who. More specifically, human beings, by their nature, have certain basic needs that are common and can be regarded as universal. Needs such as life, autonomy, security - the values based on these needs, therefore, would not be arbitrary, but predicted by rational analysis.

The rest of your post goes back to trying to establish rational standards where there are none by sneaking in a value statement as if it were universal.

Except, freedom is identified as one of the universal values.

Morality works at a subconscious level; we don't choose how our subconscious reacts.

I disagree on both counts. We can affect how our subconscious reacts based on what ideals we consciously adopt and morality doesn't necessarily work at subconscious level.

[Jackalope]

Ok, let's stop right there !

Quoting atrocities as proof is not a proof.. There are billions of muslims that don't want heinous crimes committing in their name.

I'm on your side guys, I'm an atheist and want so much for the world to wake up to the facts and be peaceful.
But my point is more the mundane, if muslims want to make law that chops hands off for theft, are they wrong? we have the death penalty.. I suppose I'm looking for qualifiers.. why are we right and them wrong?

Actually 'WE' don't. The Death Penalty is illegal in the EU. The US is the only non-totalitarian dictatorship to retain the use of this form of barbarity.

This news will come as great surprise to India and Japan, amongst others.

[lifesagift]

Ok, I stand corrected... !
In context, in recent history, we've had the Death Penalty, after judicial review.... and I guess it's possible if voted in again that we could capitally kill people. But I'm comparing this to what's real in Islam.... apart from shariah courts that calmly allow atrocities, we're talking all manner of testosterone filled religious numpties cutting people up in the name of the unicorn!!

Sorry for my typo..

[FatAndFaithless]

Kay....which is why basing a govt on Islam is a bad idea.

[lifesagift]

Kay....which is why basing a govt on Islam is a bad idea.

Well I didn't intend doing that... but given my recent track record,, I'm happy that we bail these posts and move on..

[FatAndFaithless]

Fair enough

[lifesagift]

Ta!...