[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

I'd just like to point something out to Frodo: Kant's whole ethical system, the categorical imperative, was based on the idea that morality can be rational purely by considering what would happen if we universalised our actions. One cannot wish to steal and at the same time rationally wish that everyone else do the same. It's not a sound argument, but it doesn't really need God.

[fr0d0]

What changes are the motivations to act morally given the justification from PJ.

So your motivations to act are entirely contingent upon your belief that there is a PJ who will punish wrong actions and praise good actions? I doubt that is true, at least not entirely, i suspect that you would find reasons to act in the same way regardless.

Not entirely contingent. In addition to naturalistic motivations. Additionally, I am not tied to those conditions: I have to choose to.

You're free to take that stance, but I have other reasons for acting that do not require a PJ. My reasons for acting are because i want to be a moral person, and I want that because promoting moral behavior makes this world a better place to live. This alone is sufficient motivation to act morally, and it does not depend in any way on the fear of punishment by a PJ.

You might want to act morally, but your justification for doing so sans PJ has to be illogical in places. How do you treat injustice? Do you need to see justice served or are you content to take a God perspective and realise the frailty of mankind and give every person the chance to redeem themselves without resorting to penal measures but applying love instead? I don't think you can apply God logic all the way without actually invoking God at some point. The logical conclusion has to be acknowledged at some point.

Just an observation... you always seem to look at positive examples when examining your own moral actions, and negative examples when examining a Christian's moral actions.

Our rapist has a lot less motivation just fearing the law rather than fearing the law and PJ.

That isn't true and plays on the same reasons i pointed out earlier. Motivations to act change the balance of actions in either direction, if fear of PJ was really a substantial motivating factor then it should sufficiently influence the actions of those who fear PJ to the point where instances of rape should be demonstrably lower in people who do fear PJ. Like we have already established this is not the case, in fact the opposite is true (though i'm sure that fact is coincidental), so claiming that the motivational factor of PJ makes your moral theory better is 1) Wishful thinking and 2) Plain false.

There is no possible way to assess independently the actual motivations taking place in any person at any time. You cannot establish and neither can I bias either way, so it's fallacious of you to claim that you can. All we have here is the reasoning, which I claim to be clear in favour of increased effect factoring in fear and love of PJ.

A rational atheist rapist would laugh in the face of PJ. A rational believer rapist would consider PJ. You say that should have no substantial effect, I beg to differ.

Then find the stats that contradict both Kant and I.

An impossible ask for the reasons outlined above.

Also, in terms of morality a 'rational rapist' cannot exist, as morality is rational - it establishes what you ought to do and gives reason for action. If you didn't care about being moral then it wouldn't matter if you believed in a PJ or not, the effects would be the same.

I'm sure there are many reasons a person would think rape was justified to themselves. Isn't the #1 cause: power - reason? The consensus on rape is that it's never justified, so I think it's a bad example for this purpose. A legal judge considering rape would never condone it, but judge it instead to be "not rape".

This is what the stats support in all cases, being immoral in either moral framework is irrational, and if one is going to act immorally then we should not expect them to have either the desirism reasons for action OR the Divine attitude reasons for action.

Show me how the stats can support anything.

Belief changes people, but not irreversibly. You have a vested interest in denying that, so I don't expect you to accept it. Logic dictates that it's true however.

I have no vested interest in disbelief of any kind, i simply see no reason to believe and have absolutely nothing to lose in changing my mind if i am at some point convinced. No part of my life is contingent upon maintaining atheism, not even my involvement here which is the atheistic endeavor i have invested most in, and the whole point in that is to increase my understanding of the arguments for and against to i can make a rational decision.

Well we can try our best to be open to new ideas, and your openness is respected and returned.

Also, The burden of proof is on you making the claim and not only have you failed at every attempt to demonstrate an a priori logical necessity, but the a posteriori reasoning disagrees with you completely. Like i said, the stats show no such phenomenon, this is what Kant suspected in the 1700's and it has been nothing but supported by data.

I think that's because evidential proof isn't possible, only logical proofs. I don't think we need more than a logical model to demonstrate the truth of this.

Believers come from all walks of life. Rapists, murderers, whores... all can be believers. I've attended a few very big camps where everyone is a believer. It's a whole different atmosphere to the places at other times. Where people aim to believe that selfishness is bad, produces a different atmosphere to one where people have the idea that selfishness is king. I have no statistics to prove that, because I haven't heard of any tests being done. I kinda makes more than sense so I tend to give assent to the obvious, taking into account all influences.

1) That is personal credulity if ever I saw a more striking example.

2) That sounds exactly like every music/psychedelic festival I have ever been to. It's the nature of such communal celebrations, not some phenomenon contingent upon god worship.

I've been to a few music festivals too, and I can assure you that it's a different atmosphere by a royal mile. Conversely: communal positivity is similar if not of equal degree.

3) I don't believe that selfishness is king of anything. It's another baseless accusation on your part. I'm mostly selfless, I'm not materialist (in the american dream sense), humble, i'm a student who's broke as fuck yet I donate to charity, and i'm helping people whenever i see that i am able to. Accuse me of being of the mind that 'selfishness is king' all you like. All these tactics demonstrate is your rationality has failed you and now you have to resort to painting me as selfish and vested in atheism.

I know some extremely nice people who aren't Christians that are great people. Sometimes they get very twisted and untrusting... because their logical framework also allows them to be negative.

In the same vein: Christian friends I have forget their Christianity and devolve into selfish thinking.

You're trying to suggest absolutes again where absolutes cannot exist.

I think that if you desire females, the potential is there to abuse the situation. The desire is there but it isn't corrupted by the need for frustration or power. We're all capable of that.

I do desire females, but I desire that there exist no rape, and my desire for these morals surpasses any of my own needs for warm wet dark places. My desires to be moral are first and foremost, my desires to be intellectually honest and fulfilled come second, my personal desires are third.

Our instinctual desires might come out tops sometimes. I don't think you're right in being so confident in your self control. I'm sure with extreme external force your intellect would take a back seat.

[theVOID]

Not entirely contingent. In addition to naturalistic motivations. Additionally, I am not tied to those conditions: I have to choose to.

Ok.

You might want to act morally, but your justification for doing so sans PJ has to be illogical in places.

That's completely false, I want to make the world a better place, and I believe that such a state of affairs is one where more and stronger desires are fulfilled than they currently are, and because a moral action is one that tends to promote more and stronger desires than it thwarts I therefore ought to act morally.

If I ought to act in a certain way then I have reason for action (As Kant said, you cannot ought to do something you have no reason to do). If I have reason to do something then I am justified in doing it. That is all the reason I need. There is no illogic at all.

How do you treat injustice?

As something that is undesirable, how else?

Do you need to see justice served or are you content to take a God perspective and realise the frailty of mankind and give every person the chance to redeem themselves without resorting to penal measures but applying love instead?

False Dichotomy. I do not NEED justice to be served, I desire to see justice served because justice being served is a deterrent to immoral acts, a way of conditioning desires in others - The use of our moral tools of praise and condemnation helps us lessen the appeal of wrong actions and raise the appeal of right actions, thus making the world a more moral place, which is the entire point. This again falls to the question of "does the fear of worldly justice AND PJ combined have a statistically significant effect on than the effect of worldly justice alone?" And the answer to that, as we have gone over again and again, is a resounding NO.

So while carrying out justice is essential as a deterrent for wrong actions, there is no advantage gained by fear of PJ.

The idea that PJ is more effective at condemning (and thus preventing) wrong actions is an empirical claim, and thus can be affirmed by evidence. The evidence shows no such correlation exists (it's actually negative), the actions that are deemed wrong independently of moral theory (such as rape) are not affected by belief in PJ.

Also, you speak as if letting people 'redeem themselves' is something that happens in your system. Are you saying people in hell get to redeem themselves? That is in stark contrast to the traditional idea of hell, and it makes the motivation of fearing PJ even more irrelevant. There would be no difference in redemption after serving the punishment in either system in that regard.

I don't think you can apply God logic all the way without actually invoking God at somtheVOID' pid='98033' dateline='1286485616e point. The logical conclusion has to be acknowledged at some point.

Your reasoning is fucked mate, PJ provides no advantage in my moral system because moral oughts are determined prior to justice, as are the reasons for acting morally (that being you want to be moral). Instead, justice is a form of condemnation, and condemnation (along with praise) are tools for moral conditioning, all with the intention of making the world a better place.

Just an observation... you always seem to look at positive examples when examining your own moral actions, and negative examples when examining a Christian's moral actions.

Example? If I did It wasn't intentional, though I don't see how it's relevant. My intention was to demonstrate that fear of PJ wasn't a statistically significant deterrent for committing immoral acts, nor is it necessary for establishing moral oughts (and thus reason for action). That is what I did.

If you are referring to the examples of rape used then that was because it is a common example in ethics and I applied them to either scenario.

There is no possible way to assess independently the actual motivations taking place in any person at any time.

Of course not, but we can rightly say that if the motivations to perform good actions and restrain from wrong actions is sufficiently higher in PJ then we should see this play out in the statistics, which it does not.

You cannot establish and neither can I bias either way, so it's fallacious of you to claim that you can. All we have here is the reasoning, which I claim to be clear in favour of increased effect factoring in fear and love of PJ.

That is not true, such a claim is empirical in nature, and the evidence plainly disagrees with your conclusions.

An impossible ask for the reasons outlined above.

Your reasons are wrong. Your motivations (such as the desire to not face PJ for immoral actions, or the desire for reward from PJ) contribute to your likelihood of acting in a certain way. If the PJ motivation was significant then there should be a statistically significant effect of belief in PJ towards moral behaviour. This is not the case.

You can't use an argument that is empirical in nature and then continue to use it when the evidence does not support your claim.

I'm sure there are many reasons a person would think rape was justified to themselves. Isn't the #1 cause: power - reason? The consensus on rape is that it's never justified, so I think it's a bad example for this purpose. A legal judge considering rape would never condone it, but judge it instead to be "not rape".

This makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to make the world a better place, you ought to act morally. Rape is immoral and thus a person who rapes does not care all that much about making the world a better place, their desires, such as that for the power gained through rape, are clearly not those of a moral person.

What did you mean by "instead judge it to be not rape"? I don't see what you are getting at.

Show me how the stats can support anything.

I've clarified that in response to the same question above.

Well we can try our best to be open to new ideas, and your openness is respected and returned.

Good to hear.

I think that's because evidential proof isn't possible, only logical proofs. I don't think we need more than a logical model to demonstrate the truth of this.

I've covered this above by pointing out that claims about behaviour are empirical (because behaviour is psychological and psychology is an empirical science). Thus if behaviour is positively affected by PJ there will be evidence for it.

I've been to a few music festivals too, and I can assure you that it's a different atmosphere by a royal mile. Conversely: communal positivity is similar if not of equal degree.

Not just music festivals, psychedelic festivals. It's extremely positive and friendly and communal, the whole point is about being pure and human, getting away from politics and stress and competition that we face in the world, sharing food and drinks with strangers, talking to new people all that stuff. I imagine they are quite similar, and while there are a lot of 'spiritual' people at these events, there are also many many naturalists and it makes no difference in that regard.

I know some extremely nice people who aren't Christians that are great people. Sometimes they get very twisted and untrusting... because their logical framework also allows them to be negative.

In the same vein: Christian friends I have forget their Christianity and devolve into selfish thinking.

You're trying to suggest absolutes again where absolutes cannot exist.

No, I agree with you completely. In my experience there is no real difference between the groups, they all have their ups and downs and they seem to be pretty much equal, at least in my culture. In fact because many of the pacific and Maori populations here are majority Christian there would be a big difference between criminal behaviour between theists and non-theists in general, the majority of crime being committed by theists, but that, I am sure, is because of cultural factors beyond religious views, namely poverty and historical racism.

Our instinctual desires might come out tops sometimes. I don't think you're right in being so confident in your self control. I'm sure with extreme external force your intellect would take a back seat.

And i'm sure that would apply equally to theists.

On side not, i'm fairly sure this is the best conversation i've had with you ever so props for not being the usual goat.