Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[downbeatplumb]

[The Grand Nudger]

The batshit arguments and condescension are just minor side effects of a person discounting shared attributes of humanity on account of the other person not believing in pixies, or the right pixies. The full effect of that beyond the boards is a great deal worse.

Anywho, it's probably not accurate to state that empathy defines right and wrong. Empathy is recognition. Empathy tells us that we're looking at something meaningful to us, a situation with moral import, but it doesn't tell us why that situation has moral import to recognize. Approached from another angle, failures of empathy - the lack of empathy in an individual will not certify that the thing apprehended is not wrong. It suggests, instead, that human moral agency is fallible, which probably doesn't surprise anyone.

Empathy as the right or wrong-making property is actually the same moral assertion as god defining right and wrong. Natural subjectivism as opposed to supernatural subjectivism.

[downbeatplumb]

The batshit arguments and condescension are just minor side effects of a person discounting shared attributes of humanity on account of the other person not believing in pixies, or the right pixies.  The full effect of that beyond the boards is a great deal worse.

Anywho, it's probably not accurate to state that empathy defines right and wrong.  Empathy is recognition.   Empathy tells us that we're looking at something meaningful to us, a situation with moral import, but it doesn't tell us why that situation has moral import to recognize.  Approached from another angle, failures of empathy - the lack of empathy in an individual will not certify that the thing apprehended is not wrong.  

Empathy as the right or wrong-making property is actually the same moral assertion as god defining right and wrong.  Natural subjectivism as opposed to supernatural subjectivism.

I think that me feeling bad if I hurt someone is because I can put myself in their position. I think it is kind of telling that its bad. I know its more complex than that but I do think it plays a role.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the hope, that our empathy can function as a sort of warning system. It's not certain (and almost certainly untrue) that moral content is what empathy as an evolved trait is adapted to recognize, though.

In the way that realists have it figured, empathy compels us to action through a manufactured emotional attachment, but isn't the bad-making property or even a valid method of moral assessment. It's a nifty trick that biology has come up with to broaden the umbrella of self interest to those nearest to us. Very useful for a social species, as you noted.

It might not actually be more complex than that - things being good or bad, despite all of our protestations to the contrary, may actually be based on some subjective fact - like the presence of empathy in a viewer. That's a valid position. Depending on how you view or handle that empathy it would be a non cognitivist or subjectivist view.

Regardless, our empathy is a useful tool in the moral field..and an empathetic person who doesn't have much of a desire to do bad is probably going to manage their entire life as a moral agent without ever being aware of any of these terms or distinctions or similarities between moral propositions. They will not need to make up their minds or take any particular stand on any moral system. Between not wanting to skullfuck their neighbors' kid and being capable of imagining that from their neighbors, and their neighbors kids pov....it's a no-go no matter what the bad making properties are..assuming there are bad-making properties..or properties..at all.

[Simon Moon]

The batshit arguments and condescension are just minor side effects of a person discounting shared attributes of humanity on account of the other person not believing in pixies, or the right pixies.  The full effect of that beyond the boards is a great deal worse.

Anywho, it's probably not accurate to state that empathy defines right and wrong.  Empathy is recognition.   Empathy tells us that we're looking at something meaningful to us, a situation with moral import, but it doesn't tell us why that situation has moral import to recognize.  Approached from another angle, failures of empathy - the lack of empathy in an individual will not certify that the thing apprehended is not wrong.  

Empathy as the right or wrong-making property is actually the same moral assertion as god defining right and wrong.  Natural subjectivism as opposed to supernatural subjectivism.

I think that me feeling bad if I hurt someone is because I can put myself in their position. I think it is kind of telling that its bad. I know its more complex than that but I do think it plays a role.

Indeed.

A secular moral system, that is superior to any religious moral 'system', is not rocket science. As long as the goal of the moral system is well being. First of all, theistic moral 'systems' are not systems at all, they are moral edicts, set down by some god.

Secular morality:

We are all physical beings, living in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws.

We can all agree (with some exceptions; terminal illness for example), that: life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, pleasure is preferable to torture, freedom is preferable to slavery. etc.

What is harmful to my well being, is almost certainly harmful to other's well being.

From those simple precepts, it is not hard to come up with a moral system, that tries to achieve the best for our well being.

It's not too difficult to understand why murder, slavery, theft, rape are immoral. Just ask the f'n victims if their well being is being harmed. Zero gods required.

Another way to think about it, is John Rawls' 'Veil of Ignorance'.

Let me make a late addition:

This moral system is not subjective, it is based on the objective facts about reality and the universe. The goal, well being, could be said to be subjective. But, anyone that doesn't agree with that goal, probably ended their own life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well being would only be subjective if or when an addicts novel ideas about their own wellbeing were considered to be equally as valid as a physicians - as an example.

[Magilla]

[The Grand Nudger]

....and in pursuit of that

What Kloro is looking for is not an explanation of why skullfucking our neighbors kid is antithetical to an (or our) orderly society, but why it's antithetical -to good-.

Things which provide human beings or a human society with a survival advantage are not interchangeable with "the good" unless it's impossible for the right thing™ to disadvantage human beings or a human society. That doesn't appear to be impossible. We might contend that there's broad overlap, but that's as far as we can take that one in an objective system. Utility to an individual or a particular society is the definition of relativism. It's a fun baby to split, because cultural relativism is a true comment on applied morality - and being a true comment it seems like it must have some role to play in an objective morality - but it doesn't. It's more an example of compelling reasons to do one set of things, which may contain plenty of good, but also bad.

Similarly, the comment that bad acts,..so defined, are eww/ugh reactions is explicitly non-cognitivist. Like the above, it is absolutely true that people do this, but this isn't an example of objectivism (or any rational position on any issue whatsoever). It asserts that we purport to report facts with moral statements, and don't. Things aren't good or bad based on a particular set of true and mind independent propositions (those things that scientists can study, in your formulation), they're not propositions at all, just "ugh!".

Even more deleterious to any objective system that a rational inference can be applied to, is the notion that humans define..rather than describe, what good and bad are. If there are facts, we don't actually get to decide what those facts are - and a government (to use your example) which simply decides that theft is wrong may be looking out for it's own interests, or the interests of a large number of it's people, but whether or not there is moral import to a legal structure and whether or not it accords to moral facts remains an open question. Very often, at least in our case..there isn't and it doesn't. Robin Hood beckons. It's morally wrong to be a racist twatwaffle...but it's not illegal, and should not be illegal, else we want to prosecute thoughtcrime. It's morally wrong to deprive another person of necessary resources or sustenance, but it's legal and should remain legal....otherwise, we're going to have to hold a trial for every poor starving schmuck who outbids another poor starving schmuck for a can of corn.

Utilitarian consequentialism is popular, especially at the level of policy and process (which is why it so often turns to societal organization and legality for examples)..but utilitarian consequentialism may be a derived good, a prism which we look through while applying our silent but efficacious moral principles....not the good-making system. The products of utilitarian consequentialism could only be as good as (and often much less than) the asserted facts upon which it's premised. Facts which, if they existed, would be the right and wrong making properties. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a persons own subjective report of harm. Facts which, if they existed, would be more than a list of useful articles to state authority.

..etc etc etc.

I think that the most relevant criticism of utilitarian consequentialism is that it's ability to handle natural facts is only matched by it's inability to grasp non-natural facts. This is what god botherer's ham fistedly attempt to argue over, but never seem to be able to express without reference to some superstition they hold. Consider the earlier rejection of a utilitarian argument. It doesn't matter to Kloro if or whether the natural facts suggest or demand that we kill one kid to privilege the other - it is wrong for some non natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate. Similarly, in his disagreement over open marriages, it doesn't matter that the natural facts cannot support a conclusion of "wrong" - it is wrong for some non-natural fact that the natural facts do not (or cannot) ameliorate.

Let's assume for generosity that it may be, that it just is. How would you (or anyone else with thoughts on the matter) express that purported fact in whatever moral system you prefer?

[Simon Moon]

In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

This kind of sentiment from a theist always scares the crap out of me.

First of all, utilitarianism does exactly the oposite of what you saying here, is the 'utilitarian viewpoint'. Utilitarian moral theory places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.

So, you immoral fuck, if one skullfucks an infant, it produces a bad outcome for the infant, and therefore, within utilitarianism, is immoral.

Second, are you saying, that if you stopped believing in gods, would start skullfucking infants? If so, please, continue believing in your immoral religion. As bad as it is, it is better than having you torturing children.

I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

Sure it warrants an explanation. Interesting thing is, there are natural explanations that explain morality, No gods requiresd.

For example. Bonobo chimps, our closest genetic cousins, have moral behaviors.

Examples:
They will share food, even if it is in short supply.
Members will protect weaker members of their group, even if it puts them at risk.
They will adopt orphaned babies.
They will punish violent members.
They mourn the death of kin. The entire troop will mourn the death of a beloved elder.

And so much more.

Which god gave Bonobos their moral compass?

[Belacqua]

Sure it warrants an explanation. Interesting thing is, there are natural explanations that explain morality, No gods requiresd.

For example. Bonobo chimps, our closest genetic cousins, have moral behaviors.

Examples:
They will share food, even if it is in short supply.
Members will protect weaker members of their group, even if it puts them at risk.
They will adopt orphaned babies.
They will punish violent members.
They mourn the death of kin. The entire troop will mourn the death of a beloved elder.

And so much more.

Which god gave Bonobos their moral compass?

I don't think the bonobo argument does much to address morality in humans. Simply because humans aren't bonobos. We are far far worse.

If it's true what they say about bonobos, it is in their nature to be good to each other. But this is obviously not true of people. From Internet bullying, to domestic battery, to school shootings, to evil US foreign policy, people are cruel to each other. People often enjoy being cruel to others. And even worse, we can employ our unique reasoning powers to justify extreme cruelty. Whatever technological superiority we have over bonobos, we use to harm each other. 

What little empathy human beings have for one another is so easily overcome that we clearly need something else to be moral. 

I think that morality is something we need when our human nature fails us, since it clearly fails us so often. We don't operate through empathy, so we need some kind of abstract reasoning, along the lines of "I don't feel any empathy for those people, so how would I treat them differently if I did feel any?" "What guidelines is it good for me to follow, even if I don't really care what happens to those people?" "Even if I have judged that those people are unlike myself, how should I treat them so that I can continue to be a good person?" 

This is NOT to say that when human nature fails us the only alternative is religion mandated by God. I am ONLY saying that bonobo nature, and a fortiori human nature, are not determinate of morality. Morality is largely to combat our human nature.