Atheism, A Grim Position?

[Esquilax]

[*steve*]

Ok, here's how this would go. I'd ask you why they are indefensible. You'd offer an answer, then I'd ask why that? Next answer. Then I'd ask why that again? On and on. There is no stopping point if there is no ultimate basis of value so any answer would eventually go nowhere or just be a personal (or group) preference. In that case any other position would be just as equally defensible.

So essentially you just want to be a child, when engaged in adult discussions of moral concerns, and just say "why? why? why?" every time anyone gives you a satisfactory answer to a question, until you get to a point where they either admit ignorance or just declare it as axiomatic, upon which time you pretend the umpteen other answers suddenly don't exist, because nyah nyah, you don't know? And your idea of an ultimately satisfying answer isn't one arrived at by rational thought and consideration, but the simple fiat assertion that "magic space wizard said so!"?

Honestly, if you're not willing to come to this conversation like a mature adult then don't even bother.

As it happens though, I do have a stopper answer for your nonsense, so let's see: why is genocide bad? Because it goes against the well being and safety of conscious entities, which is the foundation of complex ethics. Why? Because morality requires conscious moral actors in order to self sustain. Morality needs to concern itself at base with the lives of conscious entities because without conscious entities there are no actors to perform moral actions, nor to consider them as part of any given moral framework. Non-living objects cannot take part in a moral system, only conscious, living beings can.

Why?

... Oh, the answer is exactly the same one as the answer to the last "why?" and it's equally cogent as an answer to this one. Morality really does require moral actors to be a thing, thus the self sustenance of morality features them as a necessity. It's an answer which strikes down to the very core of morality, it's ultimate existence, and it does so without invoking magic, or theism, or any such unverified crap. If you don't answer that last "why?" with anything but what I just gave, morality itself ceases to exist, and you cannot ask any further why questions.

Game, set, match. Do let me know when you'd like to play a grown ups game instead.

Hmmm. So your argument against genocide is that morality needs conscious agents which it would eliminate. So something is morally wrong if it would eliminate morality. Sounds somewhat circular to me. Why not just do away with morality and everyone just does what they want, even if it eliminates all moral agents?

[Cyberman]

Right and wrong are intuitive?

Ok - is it right or wrong to plunge a knife into a living person?

[JuliaL]

So then if "Maximizing my lifetime total of pleasure" entailed killing redheads because it was pleasurable, does that go against atheist ethics? If so, how?

For every complex question there is always a simple wrong answer.
There is almost nothing simpler than 'God said to' so theists go for that.

If there is an absolute, God given, proscription against killing people, why is it that the maker of that law allows, no, insists that mama bears protecting their young kill hikers? Is it moral? immoral? amoral?

Morality is a set of constrained behaviors specific to a replicating pattern which improves its chances of persistence and replication. In the case of 'thou shalt not kill' the replicating pattern is that of social human interaction. Given two societies; in one of which everybody always choses to kill whomever they saw, family or not, friend or foe. In the other there was a rule, written on papyrus, engraved in the hearts (or neural nets) of its members which said, 'lighten up, don't off Fred (or redheads.)' even when you really wanted to. Which of these societies would better survive? The privilege to travel into the future is the only valuable commodity we have. Reality has shaped our minds and bodies and societies to do that via descent with modification sieved by natural selection.
The societies we see and the empathy we experience are the result of this process. These are the behaviors which have survived and propagated. It isn't magic. It isn't absolute. The thou shalt not kill rule pretty much only prescribes against human vs. human killing which is exactly how you would expect it to read given that it essentially only applies to societies protecting their components against each other. Of course, when you look at that don't kill rule from the standpoint of a couple of societies living next to each other, it gets modified to 'don't kill members of your group.' The other guys? Go for it!
The bear is outside those human systems and not held back. She is probably thinking: love cub, kill threat. Or maybe she just likes the way hikers taste.

[*steve*]

But I'm not using normative behavior as the basis for my argument, I'm saying that moral behavior needs to be blind by necessity, in order to stop it just being a set of individual opinions. Approaching the question "is it good or bad to kill redheads?" from a hypothetical perspective where you are to be introduced into a society that adheres to however you answer that question as a randomly generated person- perhaps even a redhead yourself!- the rational answer one would come to is that no, it's not okay to kill redheads, because in that hypothetical you would be forced to consider what it would be like to live in that society, from the perspective of a redhead, and you would conclude that you wouldn't prefer to live in that world over one where the opposite answer would be applied.

But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society? I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

I don't think it was by accident that Thomas Jefferson invoked the creator in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Full stop. All other opinions are subordinate to that ultimate endowment. No more "why that" questions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tell you what I told the last guy with the same schtick. Bricks and Boxes. If you'd like to propose a scenario in which your desire to kill redheads is either moral or amoral - be my guest. If you'd like to ignore any of the reasons others give for this moral norm against murder - and continue the "why why why" - okay.


At the end of the day....we'll put you in a box...and then hit you over the head with a brick.

(morbid curiosity, are you planning something?)

[JuliaL]

But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society? I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

Typically what happens in this case is that society puts you away temporarily or permanently. It is wrong and punishable from the standpoint of society even if you consider it OK.

[*steve*]

For every complex question there is always a simple wrong answer.
There is almost nothing simpler than 'God said to' so theists go for that.

Some may. I think it is incredibly complex.

If there is an absolute, God given, proscription against killing people, why is it that the maker of that law allows, no, insists that mama bears protecting their young kill hikers? Is it moral? immoral? amoral?

Morality is a set of constrained behaviors specific to a replicating pattern which improves its chances of persistence and replication. In the case of 'thou shalt not kill' the replicating pattern is that of social human interaction. Given two societies; in one of which everybody always choses to kill whomever they saw, family or not, friend or foe. In the other there was a rule, written on papyrus, engraved in the hearts (or neural nets) of its members which said, 'lighten up, don't off Fred (or redheads.)' even when you really wanted to. Which of these societies would better survive? The privilege to travel into the future is the only valuable commodity we have. Reality has shaped our minds and bodies and societies to do that via descent with modification sieved by natural selection.
The societies we see and the empathy we experience are the result of this process. These are the behaviors which have survived and propagated. It isn't magic. It isn't absolute. The thou shalt not kill rule pretty much only prescribes against human vs. human killing which is exactly how you would expect it to read given that it essentially only applies to societies protecting their components against each other. Of course, when you look at that don't kill rule from the standpoint of a couple of societies living next to each other, it gets modified to 'don't kill members of your group.' The other guys? Go for it!
The bear is outside those human systems and not held back. She is probably thinking: love cub, kill threat. Or maybe she just likes the way hikers taste.

Yes, "descent with modification sieved by natural selection" encoded some behaviors and tendencies. So what? Does that make them fundamentally right or wrong? If so, how?

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither, it makes them successful. The issue you're talking about isn't even best addressed by "right or wrong" but by "legal or illegal".

[*steve*]

But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society? I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

Typically what happens in this case is that society puts you away temporarily or permanently. It is wrong and punishable from the standpoint of society even if you consider it OK.

Yes, but you didn't answer my question: Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?