Firstly (that's just for Sparkel), what this simple example ignores is two other similar statements: 1. My happiness is as important as your happiness, AND 2. My happiness is less important than your happiness. Both of these statements are equally unsupportable premises. Therefore it is illogical to conduct your life or construct a morality based on either of those premises, either. Congratulations, Socrastein! You just proved the rationality of 'moral agnosticism', if you try to construct morality based only from the standpoint of human-to-human relations For CKava, Cosmic Fish, and tekkengod: I don't recall hearing any Christian claim a non-Christian cannot have a moral code, try to live a good life, or care about their fellow-man. The only time I have ever seen any Christian on this forum argue that a non-Christian cannot live a good, moral life is in the context that Christians can't do it either (that 'sin' thing, and it's universal [i.e., me, too!] applicability). The debate about morality is more along the lines of, "Having any moral code that assumes transcendency (i.e., there are things and/or actions that are 'good' or 'evil' or 'right' or 'wrong' no matter what human does them) is irrational unless it is also assumed that there is a transcendent God". If this statement is true, then you can still have a moral code if you're an atheist; it's just that having such a code would be inconsistent with your atheism. I think this is something worth thinking about.
But my moral code assumes neither. It is MY personal morality, therefore it only assumes what i know and experiance. its kinda like reality based. But because it assumes neither, i can't have a moral code? could u clarify?
No, it wouldn't actually. You can't support an affirmative proposition with the fact that it hasn't been disproven. However, for any proposition X, one is to assume that X is false until there is sufficient reason/evidence to suppose it true. Let X be "My happiness and desires are somehow superior to those of every other equally sentient being around me". For someone who throws the word logic around so aggressively, you sure don't seem to know the least about it. And no, irrationality is not subjective, at least not in the way I used it. Drawing conclusions from false premises is irrational, it's illogical - no matter who you are. That's the context I was using it in. Your second paragraph is thus quite irrelevent. I'm sure you are well aware that's called a straw man fallacy. Your third paragraph is another straw man, or perhaps just an extension of the first. Fallacious either way. Your fourth paragraph was equally off-topic, but also mistaken. Perhaps you're thinking of Hobbes when you speak of political philosophers who think humans are naturally selfish. Locke was probably the most optimistic political philosopher, up there with Rousseau, when it came to human nature. Most people were reasonable and cooperative in his opinion, and society was a measure of protection against the FEW who decided to harm and steal. But that's completely beside the point. Your fifth paragraph assumes that inaction is immoral. This is not an easily assumed premise, it's infact quite hotly debated still until this day. I am not hurting someone, I am not belittling someone's desires just because I don't give them all of my money. Capt Ann -My happiness is more important than yours -My happiness is just as importan as yours How can you not see that these are mutually exclusive? If the first is denied on the grounds of lack of support, then one can reasonably assume the second. Because we have no reason to assume that any person's desires are more important than anothers, we must assume that everyone's happiness and desires are equally important. Well, you almost got me, so I'll almost laugh at your attempt to be funny I recommend a quick Google on the law of noncontradiction, one of the most fundamental axioms of logic. It might save you from making such an obvious mistake next time.
You missed the point: I know these two statements are mutually exclusive. My point was that all three statements are mutually exclusive (my two above, and your one from your original post), and all three are equally unsupportable. These three mutually exclusive positions cover all the possibilities for how my happiness and your happines might relate. I could have listed my two in the reverse order - then, if the first (our happiness is equally important) was unsupportable, would I have 'proved' my last statement (my happiness is more important than yours)? No, none of the three statements is supportable, and none may be ruled out on purely heuristic grounds. Oh, and thanks for the almost compliment! As best as I can... Of course, you can adopt any moral code you wish. However, there would be no logical grounds to assume that your moral code would be valid for me or anyone else on the planet, or to assume that it even should be applied to anyone else. If each of us has only some experiential 'personal morality', then other problems come up. For instance, there could be no 'justice', because there would be no objective standard to determine when 'justice' was served. The debate is in that word 'transcendence', which in this context is just a ten-dollar word that means 'it applies to everybody'. The theist sees that such 'transcendence' requires that morality (right/wrong) be based on some Universal Law. Universal Law could only exist if there is a Universal Law-Giver. Universal Law would apply to Buddhists in Bankok, Hindus in the Himalayas, and Presbyterians in Pennsylvania (i.e., transcendent, so applies in any culture, race, environment). 'Justice' is then defined as conformity to the objective standard set in Universal Law, and 'injustice' as nonconformity to that standard. If there is no universal standard (no Universal Law, no 'transcendent' morality), then there is no basis for assuming that anything someone else does is ever 'wrong' (since my moral code would not necessarily apply to someone else). This would include such things as killing, stealing, raping, etc. With no universal standard, there could be no true 'justice', since there would be nothing objective to determine when/if justice was served. We could substitute a legal code for morality, and just all vote on what most of us agreed should be considered 'wrong', but legal force is a very poor substitute for real morality (just ask anyone who's ever argued against trying to legislate morality!). Making a bunch of laws would get us right back to the place of 'being moral' out of fear of punishment. In short, if you believe there is anything that is wrong for you to do and also wrong for me to do, then you must assume some transcendent standard that applies to both of us. If you are interested in an entertaining and very readable top-level discussion on this, find a copy of 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis (the 'Narnia' guy) and read just the first two chapters or so.
Ann I guess there isn't much for me to do other than repeat myself. YOU obviously missed the point. Or maybe you just skipped the first part of my post and only read the part that was addressed at you. As I told Zfactor, affirmative propositions are never accepted unless they are sufficiently validated. Unless we have a reason to believe that superior desires exist, we must default to viewing them all as equal. That is the rational position. So, unless you can prove to me that your desires, or anyone's desires, are objectively superior to mine or anyone else's, then rationally we must assume that my premise is sound. Entertaining? Yes. Top-level? Absolutely not. His logic appeals to the masses, but that's about it. It falls apart under critical scrutiny, as does your argument. Let's see if you can explain, nay, prove, why God's personal morality is superior to anyone else's. Because he's powerful? Well then, Bush's morality is superior to millions of people. Because he's eternal? Well then, the oldest person on the planet has a superior morality over everyone save for God I guess. Everyone just assumes that what God says is absolute, because he's big and powerful. That's not an objectively compelling reason. Maybe it's because he is capable of punishment and justice? So is are many humans, save for maybe the physically disabled. And what if there were two universal law givers? How about 19 of them? Who would be right? Is God just lucky that he's alone, without competition? Once we start to imagine multiple dieties, this "transcendence", this "universal law" is exposed for the tripe it is. For an actually "top-level" book on the inherent paradox of universal law and universal law givers, check out the first book of Plato's Trial and Death.
Reading your argument again, I now wonder why I even bothered to reply in the fashion I did. From this, you feel confident to conclude that I almost feel embarrassed that I didn’t notice this before. See, you are trying to justify morality without God in the simplest way possible. Suppose for a moment that you could somehow come to the conclusions, which I don’t believe you can but, I’ll humor you. This does nothing to prove what you set out to do, that morality is justified naturally (e.g. with no need for a God). Sure, you “proved” that rape, murder, theft, and causing injury are all irrational. So what? In order for you to reach the next step, the one in which morality arises, you have to assume that most humans naturally act rationally (they act rationally when there is no fear of punishment, either by law or religion). Until you prove this fact, your argument does nothing to prove that morality naturally arises. Heck, you didn’t even state that most humans naturally act rationally, at least then you could argue that the burden of proof lies on people who disagree. Why do you think that the arguments for and against natural morality are “all beautifully sophisticated enough to justify more wordage than I intend to use?” Because they have to be! The origin of morality requires more than convoluted logic to prove it. Furthermore, stating that the first premise is an “unsupportable premise” and assuming that it is enough to say that the premise is false assumes that the burden of proof lies on anybody who disagrees with you. I say the burden of proof in this statement lies on you. I was working up a statement-by-statement response to your reply to me, but until you can justify the things I brought up here I’ll keep it saved on my desktop.
Why should it? That wasn't my intent. Straw man, anyone? If I remember correctly, my intent was to show that one can propose moral guidelines without appealing to God, or any metaphysical beings at all. I proposed some moral guidelines without appealing to God, or any metaphysical beings at all. Even if it's not a very good moral theory, like the categorical imperitive for example, it's STILL atheistic morality and that's all that matters. I'm not going to take the time to detail why it's the affirmative proposition that needs justification again, you can just go back and reread my post.
Morality is a social interaction characteristic. Therefore any social creature can act morally and immorally towards those whome they are social with. Morality has nothing at all to do with God or Religion. Since Religion and God are passed around in a social manner, the fear-morality which we may get from the system is socially adapted. For example, in my younger Christian days I knew murder and rape was wrong. This went beyond just my Religion. I am no longer a Christian and I still believe they are wrong. However, today I do no believe certain things are wrong, ie. Homosexuality. While being a Christian I would agree that it is wrong, even though I didn't really think so deep down inside. Not because I was really afraid of God himself (I believed he Loved me, and I was Saved anyways), but I simply did not want to come across as a 'bad Christian' in my Religios Social interaction. I was afraid of the social consequences of not agreeing with what is considered moral (in that specific social circle). Since religios people will define their morality standards based on what God supposedly says, anyone who defines their morality on different standards are obviously immoral by default. Therefore it follows that Christians will suggest that Atheists are immoral. A Christian will see the fact that an Atheist co-incidently also believes rape is wrong, might not be to do with their definition of immorality, but the Christian assumes its because "some of God is still in them" or some bollocks. It's not immoral for a Cheetah to kill a Springbok. It's normal, because that's how nature intends for it to be. If a human kills another human, it is immoral to our social standards. In some cultures it is quite normal to kill another person in certain conditions, and isn't considered immoral by those social standards. Morality is to do with social interaction. Even Christians change their tunes when the social standards change. God isn't even the all important factor. The Bible states that if someone is homosexual, then he should be put to death. 'If a man lies with a man, as one lies with a woman, both of them have commited a detestable act. They must be put to death.' - Leviticus 18:22 Why does Christians not stone homosexuals to death ? Surely that is what God wants. It says it right there. No, the reason they do not do this, is because of social standards of modern times. God isn't even in the equation anymore. Maybe a few hundred years ago, when it wasn't so against our social standards, people would have done as God instructs above. People (and Christians alike) will rather please society, than the almighty creator of the universe. Why ? Because it's built into their genetic code, its nature. Atheists are no less moral than any Theist.
To BendzR . . . read the bible man, Jesus changed some things, that's why we don't stone anyone anymore. You know that story where Jesus walks up to people stoning the adultress and goes on about how none of them are sinless so they don't deserve to cast the stone? To the athiest moral defenders of justice? - Umm . . . so are we deriving our moral code from what society wants? What if society accepts rape and whatnot, is it good morals then? ( That's an extreme, but hey . . for purpose sake ) What defines good morals? And please stop stereotyping Christians . . . . I don't think in any of the ways you have given that us Christians think like? And . . . . to everybody in this thread . . . it's a really good thread, I'm enjoying it very much! Educated replies from both sides without saying " you're dumb " . . . well, not too often anyways.
does it matter where its derived from? it is , for the 3rd time, a social bi-product, and in no way shape or form implies or derives from religion. Stereotypical? no, other than the whole assumtion thing.
Sparkle, I was a Christian for 9 or 10 years. The reason I stopped being one is because I studied the Bible - obviously more than you have. "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me" - Jesus (Luke 19:27) Sorry, but Jesus didn't change much. That's just what they told you at Sunday school.
Morals are influenced by religion and society, what you may see as a murder another person may see it as justice or scarifice or karma.
I have a very religious family. Both my parents -especially my mom- are devout catholics. I, for a long time saw God - following him- the only way of truly living the "good" life and having good moral standards. Lately i have come to the realization that this is far form the truth. When i really took time to think about it i realized that just reading the bible and going to mass isint helping me lead a better life. And most of the people who you see in churn praying all the time are the biggest hypocrits. I also realized that i read the bible and went to mass only because this is how i was raised but never for its own sake. For me this was a far greater sin than not being religious.The problem is that all these religions- mostly christianity, judaism, islam and hinduism- promise something that humans can never really understand - perfection. Because of this there has been so much bloodshed in the name of god. I adopted the buddhist beliefs in karma - try to balance your scales in a sense. Its very down to earth and i feel that it is working very well for me. I realize that some people might challenge me on this but this is all i have to say. I know a few athiests.. though they are not religious people, they are very spiritual.
Hold up! Luke 19:27 is part of a parable. The beginning of that parable: Luke 19: 9-13 9 Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." 11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
OH COME ON! YOU'VE GOT TO BE FREAKING KIDDING ME!!!! Something as simple as "kill my enemies" is NOW a riddle? wow, how predictable, and just plain sad. :bang: :cry: :cry: :cry:
And what was the purpose of the parable ? If you want to get the point across as best, you don't have to quote the Bible, but just give the general message that is still the foundation of the whole thing. 'I give you the choice to do as I say, but if you do not, I will send you to eternal torture. Make your choice ' - God. Christians - including my former self - are not very fond of Leviticus. For good reasons. Its too much to defend. Jesus does not contradict the OT, that would mean he is not God. God is perfect, and his word is consistant. If you want I can give you more examples where he supports the OT. Afterall, that was the Bible he was reading. Jesus lived in a time where slavery flourished. He never ever speaks against it. He doesn't mind it one bit. Why not ? Because it was quite the norm. As long as God doesn't mind it, why should anyone else ? Including Jesus. Jesus may come across as a hero in some eyes, but if he were alive today, he would be quite immoral. Let's leave it for now, since its changing the topic. Sparkle, if society did accept rape (which would be absurd - but for purpose sake) then yes, it would be moral. It's a silly example though. Mantids (preying mantis) practise sexual canniblism (in captivity, not so much in nature), but to them it is perfectly fine. That is why the species continues to survive. If humans did that, it would mean that men would rather avoid having sex, and thus the species would not survive. Social standards are simply a result of what gives us the best chance to continue being the most fit for survival. That is why we value it so highly. Meerkats will sacrifice themselves to distract a predator so that the rest of the colony (social animals) may survive.
No, stating that all desires are equal is an affirmative proposition, and you have done nothing to support it. It is irrational to select arbitrarily one unsupportable proposition out of a sea of others. This doesn't even address what is truly 'moral' when desires conflict (such as if person A gets his jollies by binding, torturing, and killing person B). If both desires are equally valid, then it would not be 'wrong' for either person to act in accordance with their own desires. Top level = looking at a very top level; providing an overview without going into great depth; popularistic; non-rigorous. Tekken, if you want a top-level discussion of this topic, Socrastein and I both agree that this book would be a good read. You mean without appealing to the obvious, "He is perfectly good, perfectly just, and perfectly loving, therefore any law/morality He provides would also be perfect, in keeping with His character"? Try any of these: 1. Because only an all-powerful Law Giver could enforce the demands of His morality and therefore we couldn't even hope for justice (i.e., conformity to that moral law) without an all-powerful Law Enforcer. 2. Because only a Supreme Authority could provide meaningful arbitration between individuals with differing private moralities. 3. Because only an omniscient being could provide a meaningful judgment of what is 'right' or 'wrong', taking into account every fact (including every consequence for each act). 4. Because only a changeless Law Giver could ensure an unchanging morality, otherwise morality is no longer transcendent. That's just four, but it'll do for starters. There is at most one universal law-giver. That's a simple matter of government, not God or religion. For instance, I live in Maryland and tekkengod lives in Texas. While he is in the state of Texas, he does not have to pass the Maryland State Emissions test in order to drive his car. I do. That is because the laws of Maryland apply to me, but not to people in Texas: those laws do not 'transcend' state boundaries. Now, both tekkengod and I are under the governance of the United States of America. We both have to pay our income tax and file by April 15, or pay fines or go to jail. Homer and Poogle do NOT have to pay US Income Tax, or even file: the US tax laws do NOT transcend the border to the UK. In order for a law (any law) to transcend all national borders, it must be formulated and enforced by some government to which we are all subject. The level of government must be high enough to include all of us. In order for a law to transcend all boundaries (including nationality, race, culture, gender, age, time, language, belief, etc) it must come from a government that also transcends all of these barriers. Morality is just a type of law: it is a judgment as to what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.
Dog nabbit! I want to say a whole bunch of stuff but I don't want to kill Socrasteins thread. You're wrong BendzR, and I wrote out a nice thing, but it changes the topic of the thread >: O. Oh well, sparkle,sparkle.
