Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

 Men who see this believe, and there's no going back from it. 

Why would seeing that make me believe in fairies?

It doesn't.

[vulcanlogician]

If I’m seeking the best moral development from my education, do you think I should major in mechanical engineering, or would it better served by being a humanities major? Do technical degrees, mathematical degrees, etc.. give us less moral development, than humanities degrees, or a bachelors in psychology?

Philosophy would be my best guess. Psychology or a humanities degree could contribute to moral growth as well. Mathematics could even help. It's not going to improve everyone's moral perspective. But if one wants to improve their moral character to begin with, philosophy, sociology, mathematics, history and studies language can help. If you are puzzled by this, I'd be happy to explain myself.

Everyday morality is intimate and personal, it has do with our relationships with others, with those near to us, our families, friends, community, etc… Morality is a constant part of my life. In struggling be a good father, a husband, a son, in the restoration of broken relationship. It’s contemplating my moral failing, and the moral failing of those I care about. It’s about talking to my wife of how we shouldn’t talk bad about people, how we should forgive and not hold to resent. It’s about telling my father, that his dark cloud of petty resentments and disappointment, is the result of his inability to truly repent, and acknowledge the weight of his sins, to love as Christ loved us. When it’s laid with true compassion, it’s like the out pouring of fire, of a profound and irrefutable truth.

That’s the predominant moral view of believers.

But, see, if you removed the stuff about "loving as Christ loved us," you'd be left with a morality that more or less resembles that of many atheists.

I appreciate that religious practice can provide a context for a believer to bring about these moral changes in his or her life (That's probably the one AND ONLY advantage it has over a purely secular morality. And the "probably" in that sentence has caveats.) It is foolish to assume that compassion and forgiveness aren't practiced by atheists. It is foolish to assume that people would never practice these virtues apart from religious dogmas. 

Even assuming these virtues did come to us purely through the Christian tradition, the truly wise person would realize that (since forgiveness and compassion are intrinsically valuable) the best thing to do is separate them from the bigoted, homophobic, and backwards nonsense which accompanies them in the teachings. You see, forgiveness and compassion can exist without bigoted nonsense.

Do you think that person-to-person compassion isn't something that certain atheists aim for? Do you think there aren't a plethora of Christians out there who (when you look at them head on) could care less about morality, compassion, or forgiveness? (Perhaps they're just in it for the cultural belonging. There are many reasons to join a religion. Moral transformation isn't always it. It might not even make the top ten.) What does religion have to do with morality then?

Throughout the world there is an immense amount of human suffering, suffering that can, through a variety of human efforts, be partially alleviated. Why can we not find a meaningful life in devoting ourselves, as did Doctor Rieux in Albert Camus’s The Plague, to relieving somewhat the sum total of human suffering? Why cannot this give our lives point, and for that matter an over-all rationale? It is childish to think that by human effort we will someday totally rid the world of suffering and hate, of deprivation and sadness.  This is a permanent part of the human condition. But specific bits of human suffering can be alleviated. The plague is always potentially with us, but we can destroy the Nazis and we can fight for racial and social equality throughout the world. And as isolated people, as individuals in a mass society, we find people turning to us in dire need, in suffering and in emotional deprivation, and we can as individuals respond to those people and alleviate or at least acknowledge that suffering and deprivation. A man who says, “If God is dead, nothing matters,” is a spoilt child who has never looked at his fellow men with compassion.

https://iweb.langara.bc.ca/rjohns/files/...ethics.pdf

[Acrobat]

Philosophy would be my best guess. Psychology or a humanities degree could contribute to moral growth as well. Mathematics could even help. It's not going to improve everyone's moral perspective. But if one wants to improve their moral character to begin with, philosophy, sociology, mathematics, history and studies language can help. If you are puzzled by this, I'd be happy to explain myself.

So let's consider it as a testable hypothesis. We take a group of philosophy majors, a group of RNs, or a group of mechanics, a group of factory workers, a group of finance majors (groups without a college education, or at best a technical degree)

And if we evaluated their actual moral lives, their moral behaviors, such as if they are better parents, better husbands, better son’s and daughters, better members of their respective communities, more compassionate, kind.

In your view the philosophy majors would come out on top? This group contains better moral role models than the other groups?

I would disagree, that at best there’s no real difference between their actual moral lives.

But, see, if you removed the stuff about "loving as Christ loved us," you'd be left with a morality that more or less resembles that of many atheists. I appreciate that religious practice can provide a context for a believer to bring about these moral changes in his or her life (That's probably the one AND ONLY advantage it has over a purely secular morality. And the "probably" in that sentence has caveats.) It is foolish to assume that compassion and forgiveness aren't practiced by atheists. It is foolish to assume that people would never practice these virtues apart from religious dogmas. 

Even assuming these virtues did come to us purely through the Christian tradition, the truly wise person would realize that (since forgiveness and compassion are intrinsically valuable) the best thing to do is separate them from the bigoted, homophobic, and backwards nonsense which accompanies them in the teachings. You see, forgiveness and compassion can exist without bigoted nonsense.

As indicated previously I believe in a transcendent moral reality. That rightness and wrongness of things exist independently of our own minds, that moral facts exists, like the chair in front of me does. That there’s a Good, that we’re all at some level oriented to, that obligates us to do what’s right, that is it’s own moral authority, etc..

So when I say something is wrong, whether to christians, or other religious folks, or make any moral statements, it’s appeal an appeal to this reality. A external reality that isn’t purely physical, but posses in some sense mental properties as well, such a meaning and purpose.

It’s not an appeal to what society wants of them, or my subjective wishes. At worst in can be an appeal to a false belief.

I would also say that beliefs such as this, have been taken as a given for thousands of years, saturated into our moral language and beliefs, and have proven quite difficult to escape or abandon. In fact as Alsdair McIntyre argued in After Virtue, our moral philosophies that attempt to proceed with out these elements in tact, are incoherent.  

Outside of such a reality, it makes little sense to speak of objective morality, or intrinsic values, you’re primarily left with subjective moral views, moral nihilism, and extrinsic values.

Do you think that person-to-person compassion isn't something that certain atheists aim for? Do you think there aren't a plethora of Christians out there who (when you look at them head on) could care less about morality, compassion, or forgiveness?

No I think plenty of atheists try to be compassionate.

But the difference between uncompassionate or an immoral atheist, and immoral christian, is that immoral atheist can deny that they have any obligations to be moral, or to be good person, where as the uncompassionate or immoral christian can’t deny it. He may try to justify that he’s not living immorally, or uncompassionately, but he has to acknowledge his obligations to live as such. And from that it becomes a task of revealing to them, that they are lying to themselves, that they’re not living compassionately, or morally.


The difference between many atheist and believers is, that atheists fail to be able to hold moral nihilism as false, even if they don’t see themselves as moral nihilist, where as for believers the moral nihilist, is like a person who believes the earth is flat.

[Acrobat]

 Men who see this believe, and there's no going back from it. 

Why would seeing that make me believe in fairies?

It doesn't.

Seeing that makes you believe in that, and not in that and fairies.

[Agnostico]

the best thing to do is separate them from the bigoted, homophobic, and backwards nonsense

The backwards nonsense like what, homosexuality? Is that all?  U call people homophobes if they don't agree with your opinion. That is the definition of bigoted.

Homosexuality and gender dysphoria can do what they like. MYOB. But they dont. Their doing their gay parades with their banners, publicly displaying it.
Their mental disorders like necrophiliality and pedosexuality.
Im a strong believer in not exposing children to sexual content, information and material of any kind. Especially not encouraging them to become fags and trannies.

Our "wester" values come from a myriad of sources

"A miryad" I agree. Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodoxies and many more Christians.
Im not saying Christianity invented morality. Im saying the values and laws of the European kingdoms are founded on Christianity.

In Britain, Henry the 8th refutes any claim that Christianity wasn't the moral foundation.
Then the formation of all these Eurpean kingdoms all under the Catholic church. And the formation of these colonies in the new world, all under the Catholic church.

And it goes all the way back to the start of written history. Theres always a religion of some kind. Judhaism, Confucianism, etc.
Why is that? The "need for a sky daddy" argument is super simplistic. it really lacks thought.

The thought that religion was a huge lie required for humans to transition from instinctive cave man to civilized man, really pisses some people off.
That its all a big fat lie. Just like the money analogy given by Hurari. Its all based on a false reality. Possibly.


Purple represents Christianity

I said "Fact... Atheism has no objective morals which people can refer to"
What i meant is Atheism has no documented morals to refer to. No doctrine or scriptures  to adhere to. No collective agreement.
For example u label anyone a homophobe who doesn't agree with u. There are atheists who don't agree with u.
At least the Hindu, Christians, Muslims, all of them can look at their scripture and say this is an improper way for humanity to procreate.

But the difference between uncompassionate or an immoral atheist, and immoral christian, is that immoral atheist can deny that they have any obligations to be moral, or to be good person, where as the uncompassionate or immoral christian can’t deny it. He may try to justify that he’s not living immorally, or uncompassionately, but he has to acknowledge his obligations to live as such. And from that it becomes a task of revealing to them, that they are lying to themselves, that they’re not living compassionately, or morally

Ive been following ur thoughts Acrobat and despite the hostile nature of everyone toward you I follow ur logic on most things and find it refreshing.
Where can I find ur definition of ur "transcendent moral reality" theory anyway so I can better understand it?

[Mister Agenda]

Fact: Most of our laws derive from the English common law, which began before Christianity reached England.

The Kingdom of England was formed in the 10th century. Christianity had already arrived in the 7th century. Then the reformation by Henry the 8th makes it a fact that England is founded and built on Christianity.
So the fact remains. Western civilization is based on Christianity

The Common Law was based on the Anglo-Saxon law going back to the 5th century. and that was heavily influenced by the Roman Law preceding it going back to the 1st Century CE. And even before that there was what is usually referred to as the 'Common Celtic Law', that accounted for kinship, contracts, and crimes such as murder, robbery, and theft; usually punished with fines or outlawry.

All civilizations in history had a legal system, Agnostico, the Sumerians, Chinese, Egyptians, without exception. The notion that our laws started with Christianity is arrogant and absurd.

---

The fact also remains. Atheists don't have a set of morals. Their just personal opinions at this point in time. All religions have morals centered around family. It's objective is to sustain a society

Theism doesn't have a set of morals, but most theists have a set of morals. Atheism doesn't have a set of morals, but most atheists have a set of morals.

Theists espouse whatever morality the religion they were raised in or adopted promotes. You can't escape your own agency in choosing what code to follow, even if it only amounts to 'whatever this book says'.

Most of the atheists you're interacting with are secular humanists, and humanism is an ethical stance.

The rest of your 'facts' are mere trolling and butt-hurt.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for the clarification...it did seem left field-ish, lol.   

Uncompassionate christians are -constantly- finding ways to deny their moral obligations, btw. There doesn't seem to be any more difference there than there would be between an RN and a philosophy major as role models in some general sense.

Everybody dogs those poors guys (myself included, lol)....but they are the exception in modern life..as a group that overwhelmingly identifies -as- moral realists, and when asked to expound upon that, can properly communicate a realist position, rather than subjectivist or relativist-called-realist.

I don't personally have any trouble holding that nihilism is false.

[vulcanlogician]

So let's consider it as a testable hypothesis. We take a group of philosophy majors, a group of RNs, or a group of mechanics, a group of factory workers, a group of finance majors (groups without a college education, or at best a technical degree)
...
In your view the philosophy majors would come out on top? This group contains better moral role models than the other groups?

I would disagree, that at best there’s no real difference between their actual moral lives.

Without the data, neither you nor I could make such a judgment. And it isn't really a testable hypothesis. I suppose it could be tested, in principle, but in reality: we will never know. But this is of no consequence to me. I never said that being earning a degree is always accompanied by moral growth. See the bold in the quote below:

Philosophy would be my best guess. Psychology or a humanities degree could contribute to moral growth as well. Mathematics could even help. It's not going to improve everyone's moral perspective. But if one wants to improve their moral character to begin with, philosophy, sociology, mathematics, history and studies language can help. If you are puzzled by this, I'd be happy to explain myself.

If someone approaches psychology, sociology, or philosophy with the intent to use such knowledge to inform their moral decisions, they will (typically!) get a lot more from it than one can from study of the Bible.

That rightness and wrongness of things exist independently of our own minds, that moral facts exists, like the chair in front of me does. That there’s a Good, that we’re all at some level oriented to...

I am a moral realist. I agree with you here. It's just that you think the Good is some kind of cosmic person. I think the Good is an abstract idea that can be understood through reasoning. In my view, the Good is something very real. And it exists independently of our opinions and subjective notions. It is like logic. Something isn't logical or illogical based on someone's opinion. There are objective criteria by which we categorize a statement logical or illogical. In that way, you could say that logic exists "independently of a mind." But (in the same way) there is no logic without minds. Likewise, there is no moral judgment without some kind of mind. (In a universe without minds, morality becomes quite meaningless, doesn't it?

...that obligates us to do what’s right, that is it’s own moral authority, etc..

This is where you and I disagree concerning morality. But I don't know if most Christians have an urge to TRULY fulfill their moral obligations. Some do, to be sure. But most are just following the herd. In truth, Christian morality is nothing more than conformity (in most cases). And you are right about one thing: they have dictated to the masses what morality is for centuries. That's why (I think) so many atheists assume cultural relativism. That's all morality is to Christians: herd instinct. Simple conformity and obedience. And, as you point out, they've had a lasting influence on Western society. That's just my own personal theory though...

---

So when I say something is wrong, whether to christians, or other religious folks, or make any moral statements, it’s appeal an appeal to this reality. A external reality that isn’t purely physical, but posses in some sense mental properties as well, such a meaning and purpose.

It’s not an appeal to what society wants of them, or my subjective wishes. At worst in can be an appeal to a false belief.

I would also say that beliefs such as this, have been taken as a given for thousands of years, saturated into our moral language and beliefs, and have proven quite difficult to escape or abandon. In fact as Alsdair McIntyre argued in After Virtue, our moral philosophies that attempt to proceed with out these elements in tact, are incoherent.  

Outside of such a reality, it makes little sense to speak of objective morality, or intrinsic values, you’re primarily left with subjective moral views, moral nihilism, and extrinsic values.
...
No I think plenty of atheists try to be compassionate.

But the difference between uncompassionate or an immoral atheist, and immoral christian, is that immoral atheist can deny that they have any obligations to be moral, or to be good person, where as the uncompassionate or immoral christian can’t deny it. He may try to justify that he’s not living immorally, or uncompassionately, but he has to acknowledge his obligations to live as such. And from that it becomes a task of revealing to them, that they are lying to themselves, that they’re not living compassionately, or morally.


The difference between many atheist and believers is, that atheists fail to be able to hold moral nihilism as false, even if they don’t see themselves as moral nihilist, where as for believers the moral nihilist, is like a person who believes the earth is flat.

---

There's plenty here for us to discuss. I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts. I would like to make sure we are on the same page first. Morality (or conception of the Good) can be rooted in reason. No God is necessary. This was demonstrated by Plato. Here is a modified version of his Euthyphro argument that shows that even morality commanded by God must actually be rooted in reason:

1. Either God has reasons that support His commands, or God lacks reasons for His commands.
2. If God lacks reasons for his commands, then God’s commands are arbitrary-- and that renders God imperfect, undermining His moral authority.
3. If God has reasons that support His commands, then those reasons, rather than the divine commands, are what make actions right or wrong–thereby refuting Divine Command Theory.
4. Therefore, either God is imperfect or Divine Command Theory is false.
5. God is not imperfect.
6. Therefore Divine Command Theory is false.

[Brian37]

 Men who see this believe, and there's no going back from it. 

Why would seeing that make me believe in fairies?

It doesn't.

Water taxis are real. Forgive me, I am simply having fun with similar word spellings.

[Acrobat]

I don't personally have any trouble holding that nihilism is false.

Okay, then allow me to be a defender of moral nihilism.

As a moral nihilist ( the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong) I hold that the holocaust is not inherently right nor wrong. Neither good nor evil.

That at best what you and other's consider good is your subjective opinion, and not a fact.

The moral realist claims that holocaust is objectively wrong.

The nihilist responds that's it not.

What facts is the nihilist denying, to be false in your view?