Atheistic morality

[mrswdk]

I never said he 'shouldn't' mutilate me. Just that I don't want him to and thus will try to stop him.

Well, like I said, your actions convey your normative stance on the issue, so you're still making a statement about morality--even if you don't explicitly say something. You subjectivists really need to be honest with yourselves. inb4 AoG rage.

This is an enormous difference between wanting a certain state of affairs to exist and believing that state of affairs should exist, and you seem to have confused the two.

In defending myself from attack I am not making a normative statement of any kind. All that stuff you said about me believing that I should have private property rights over my own body was you projecting your normative values onto my actions. I believe nothing of the sort. I simply don't wish to have a stranger stick a knife into my stomach.

Ut-tut-tut! I wasn't confusing the two; I was only trying to get away with it! I'm gonna argue that actions convey moral claims, but let's put that on hold for now.

I've got my eye on you, sunshine.

[shickingbrits]

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is engaging in a voluntary exchange?

We have done nothing to increase competition. That company who develops the automated system and decreases their costs by 70% will drop the price by 10% until their competitors either create their own system, which will reinforce the the original price, or drop out of competition which will then cause the price to increase.

De Beers hoards their diamonds and if a competitor comes along, they have the most interest in swooping it up.

Sure, decreasing a doctors wages by 95% will decrease the number of doctors if their social status is dependent on their income, becoming a doctor is costly and if there are other nations paying higher wages that can take in a lot of doctors.

Again, Tesla was not looking for profit for providing energy, and Morgan had already financed it. Morgan was operating on a worldview. I don't do shit unless the reward is greater than my input. He didn't see elevating the world as a reward. He saw elevating himself as a reward. He didn't see raising the level of equality as a fit end, he saw raising inequality as a fit ends.

As for making a car that last 20 years, the great depression was caused by making products too good in a system that didn't reward durability.

You are living in a fairytale.

Wow. So, how much do you know about economics and the economy?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize something, then you should be pretty good at knowing what you're criticizing, right?

If you feel that you're lacking the knowledge to do so, would you then educate yourself to fill in the gaps? Or would you insist that somehow you are still correct?

I need to know your answers because I'm not sure how best to talk to you about all this.

If you cant dodge a wrench...

In conversation, is it a good idea to treat a 5-year-old like a 45-year-old professor of philosophy? Or does it make more sense to adjust your style so that you can maximize your chances of being understood?

You make claims that you can't back-up, I make claims that you won't challenge. When my claims show the invalidity of your claims, you divert, call into question my authority, say my ideas are pre-conceived, but you don't discuss the claim or counter the claim.

None of your theories are new. When Rome is rich, Romans are rich, your work in enriching others is actually enriching you. They just never held water, were abhorrent, caused social unrest and were not compatible with civilized society. So instead, a new moral principle was adopted; being poor is an exchange of earthly goods for eternal ones. They said, ok we lied, enriching Rome doesn't enrich you, but the people that it does enrich are foregoing something much better.

It is as hard for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Was this the right translation? The word for camel is also the word for a coarse yarn, the eye of the needle was the name of the narrowest entrance into Jerusalem. The chosen translation condemns wealth the most. It comforts the poor, warns the rich. It also places a heavier burden on the rich, which can be seen in other parts of the gospels.

The gospels create a level playing field for man and removes divine right. All men are equal and are required to treat others accordingly. The right by might, or survival of the fittest, is in fact a way towards death. If a king, merchant or slave kills, it has not solved their problems but etched them in the stars to haunt them for eternity.

Why? Because life is ordered by God.

The rich and powerful didn't like being condemned by their own institutions even if it kept the masses most in check and allowed for their riches and power. So they revived right by might and called it science, they revised enriching Rome enriches you and called it capitalism, they took away order and called it evolution.

The rich and powerful wanted to be sanctioned and so they supported ideas that sanctioned them. Had Hitler succeeded, his ideas would have been sanctioned. But sanctioning something doesn't resolve the inherent problems with the idea.

So what we have are many hangers-on who hope that some tasty crumb will fall their way if they praise the ideas and who are unable to confront the glaring reality that their position actually portends.

BBS is a good example of this. When someone raises an issue that doesn't fit his master's narrative, he doesn't question his master's narrative, he claims that his masters are the authority and therefore in not going through the authority, he doesn't have to address the point.

It's a clear case of Stockholm Syndrome.

[BoganGod]

I can't believe none of you simpletons involved in this circle jerk of a thread have referenced Christopher Hitchens as yet. GOD IS NOT GREAT(sub titled How Religion Poisons everything) by Christopher Hitchens clearly states the case for Atheistic morality. Nietzsche in "Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ" also touches quite strongly on the innate nature of true morality. Ie if you have to have a "holy" book to tell you not to kill......

[shickingbrits]

I welcome you into the circle jerk, simpleton.

[BoganGod]

I welcome you into the circle jerk, simpleton.

You need to put more lotion on your hands buddy. Feels like a sandpaper glove. Thank you for addressing my real points. Have you read either of the books I mentioned in my previous post, or is the bible the only book you need?
If so, which version of the bible? Are the other versions bumpkin?

[stahrgazer]

I'm not seeing the 'proof' that human conscience derived from God. A bunch of old scrolls from a particular group of people who believed in a particular deity doesn't confirm that conscience came from God.

If you consider what is usually taken for proof, it's often, "documentation."

Legally speaking, since it took so long for someone to try to write a disclaimer of those documents, a court would probably rule that they do constitute admissible evidence.



The funnier part is, you totally missed where I said you have a point that all that exists as evidence is some writings claiming it's so. But, we're back to evidence procedures again. Basically, since the side that claims it has nearly 2000 year old documents claiming it's so, and the side you support is what, a couple hundred years old maybe? And otherwise has no documents stemming from that time claiming it's NOT so... then they, not you, win.

[degaston]

...If I say that I am a sexy Chinese girl then it is possible for me to show you some evidence which demonstrates that what I say is true.

If you'd kindly provide your evidence, then maybe this circle jerk can come to a happy ending.

[shickingbrits]

Oh, of course not. I'm sure your books are utterly correct, but I'm not seeking a way to condone oppression.

The Bible itself is bumpkin, put together by the powers that be to legitimize their rule. They didn't want equality for women, so they threw out the Gospel of Thomas.

On the other hand, the central concept of the Golden rule, coupled by eternal accountability due to unshakeable order are tried and true concepts. Trying to create a hierarchy out of equality is a doomed project and can only be done by ignoring the central concepts.

That Hitchens equated God to not being great suggests a strawman to me. If God created Hitchens and God is not great, how can Hitchens be great enough to be worthy of reading; he is an inferior creation through his own admission. Of course I would suspect that he doesn't actually refer to himself as inferior, but describes others as inferior and is in fact trying to say how great he is in realizing the inferiority of others. Kind of like what your post did. I'm sure this is utterly correct, because it can be made to be so. On the other hand, saying it is correct, or proving it to be so is an act of oppression which I don't wish to engage in.

But you are judged by the judgements you've cast, as am I.

[BoganGod]

Oh, of course not. I'm sure your books are utterly correct, but I'm not seeking a way to condone oppression.

The Bible itself is bumpkin, put together by the powers that be to legitimize their rule. They didn't want equality for women, so they threw out the Gospel of Thomas.

On the other hand, the central concept of the Golden rule, coupled by eternal accountability due to unshakeable order are tried and true concepts. Trying to create a hierarchy out of equality is a doomed project and can only be done by ignoring the central concepts.

That Hitchens equated God to not being great suggests a strawman to me. If God created Hitchens and God is not great, how can Hitchens be great enough to be worthy of reading; he is an inferior creation through his own admission. Of course I would suspect that he doesn't actually refer to himself as inferior, but describes others as inferior and is in fact trying to say how great he is in realizing the inferiority of others. Kind of like what your post did. I'm sure this is utterly correct, because it can be made to be so. On the other hand, saying it is correct, or proving it to be so is an act of oppression which I don't wish to engage in.

But you are judged by the judgements you've cast, as am I.

Wow kiddo, issues much? Hitchens was an atheist. Hence did not believe in God. Read the book if you don't mind expanding your world view somewhat.

[shickingbrits]

Seek and you will find.

I'm sure if I tried to find a way to justify oppression, then I wouldn't require Hitchens to find one, although I could use him as you have. I am not seeking a way to justify oppression and therefore I don't feel the need to read the book.

Is Stephen Hawking less equal because of his handicap? No. Is he more equal because of his understanding? No. He is equal. Should we find ways to condemn him for his handicap? No. How then should we treat him? As we wish to be treated.

It's quite simple.

[BigBallinStalin]

You make claims that you can't back-up, I make claims that you won't challenge. When my claims show the invalidity of your claims, you divert, call into question my authority, say my ideas are pre-conceived, but you don't discuss the claim or counter the claim.

Why? Because life is ordered by God.

Legend:
False.
True.
Uncertain.

After a couple of attempts to get the subject to reveal his level of knowledge (to himself), it appears the subject has further entrenched himself into his contradictory, vague, and uninformed worldview. Without any clear standard of generating valid knowledge and with very little willingness to critically think about his own opinions, the subject stands very little chance of being taken seriously. Observation will continue.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not seeing the 'proof' that human conscience derived from God. A bunch of old scrolls from a particular group of people who believed in a particular deity doesn't confirm that conscience came from God.

If you consider what is usually taken for proof, it's often, "documentation."

Legally speaking, since it took so long for someone to try to write a disclaimer of those documents, a court would probably rule that they do constitute admissible evidence.



The funnier part is, you totally missed where I said you have a point that all that exists as evidence is some writings claiming it's so. But, we're back to evidence procedures again. Basically, since the side that claims it has nearly 2000 year old documents claiming it's so, and the side you support is what, a couple hundred years old maybe? And otherwise has no documents stemming from that time claiming it's NOT so... then they, not you, win.

Well, there's much more to my post that your summary, so (a) I could spend an additional 30 minutes repeating myself, or (b) if you want to reread my post--beyond the 'evidence procedure' part, I'd be glad to work with you on it.

[shickingbrits]

Answer BBS:

Fluoride + free markets = social well-being

[BigBallinStalin]

When I talk about objectivity, I mean that there is no factual or logical basis for describing something as 'moral' or 'immoral'. If I say that I am a sexy Chinese girl then it is possible for me to show you some evidence which demonstrates that what I say is true. If I say 'the Holocaust was a morally good thing' then there is nothing I can reference to prove myself correct (and likewise, you would not be able to prove that I am wrong). Neither of us can demonstrate any kind of truth or objective reality at the heart of any claims we might make about morality.

So yeah, genocide and slavery can't be described as 'moral' or 'immoral' either. There is a practical reason for not allowing people to go around exterminating entire ethnic groups as they please (most people would like to live in a safe and comfortable environment, and so collectively prohibiting total carnage and anarchy makes sense) but not a moral one.

That's why people start with axioms--e.g. in general, human life is valuable. If you disagree with that axiom, then you have to state reasons. Just saying, "objective reality can't be demonstrated!" is true--if the standard is absolute objectivity, but that's not useful nor is it a reasonable standard; otherwise, anything is justifiable--regardless of the reasons for and against it. Nearly everyone agrees that in general human life is valuable, and that's a good enough starting point, so here we've attained a relatively objective foundation for philosophy. From there, the standard of logic (and hopefully science) is used.

Apply your position beyond morality--say, e.g. the real world, and demonstrate that we cannot describe 'this world' as real or unreal. You'll summon a (absolute) objective standard with its brains-in-jars-in-a-Matrix scenario, and people say, "okay, but that's not falsifiable, and given a probability between 0 and 1, it's possible you're correct. Nevertheless, we've got more pressing matters to attend to in our relatively objective world." Assume the world still exists when you stand up to leave your chair. You do this all the time without sincerely applying your absolute objective standard. If you seriously doubted the existence of the floor before standing, you may qualify for psychological help.

[BigBallinStalin]

Answer BBS:

Fluoride + free markets = social well-being

[shickingbrits]

If I can ask you a question which you are not comfortable with answering, I feel that qualifies me as being educated enough about your worldview. That you are uncomfortable with answering the question suggests you lack an understanding of your own worldview, or, you know that sharing the understanding of your worldview would be harmful, or you are incapable of questioning your worldview.

You are making a claim which you aren't backing up, so either back it up or back up.

[mrswdk]

That's why people start with axioms--e.g. in general, human life is valuable. If you disagree with that axiom, then you have to state reasons. Just saying, "objective reality can't be demonstrated!" is true--if the standard is absolute objectivity, but that's not useful nor is it a reasonable standard; otherwise, anything is justifiable--regardless of the reasons for and against it. Nearly everyone agrees that in general human life is valuable, and that's a good enough starting point, so here we've attained a relatively objective foundation for philosophy. From there, the standard of logic (and hopefully science) is used.

Apply your position beyond morality--say, e.g. the real world, and demonstrate that we cannot describe 'this world' as real or unreal. You'll summon a (absolute) objective standard with its brains-in-jars-in-a-Matrix scenario, and people say, "okay, but that's not falsifiable, and given a probability between 0 and 1, it's possible you're correct. Nevertheless, we've got more pressing matters to attend to in our relatively objective world." Assume the world still exists when you stand up to leave your chair. You do this all the time without sincerely applying your absolute objective standard. If you seriously doubted the existence of the floor before standing, you may qualify for psychological help.

Using common interests is a reasonable way of establishing codes of conduct and laws, but I don't think 'morality' is the right word to use for the rules we come up with. I value things that will help me live a pleasant life, and I therefore value things like a stable and prosperous society. Most other people also want this, and so we determine the best way of achieving this and work towards that. That doesn't, however, mean that disrupting the stable and prosperous society is 'immoral'. It's just unwanted.

The second paragraph I agree with, although 'this chair exists' can be practically demonstrated in a way that 'x is immoral' cannot be. If I watch 30 people take it in turns to sit on a park bench, I can be 99.99% sure that the bench will be there if I try to sit on it and there is therefore no point questioning its existence. If 30 people tell me that unmarried women who have sex deserve to be stoned to death, this doesn't prove anything, just like 30 people saying they like chocolate does not prove that chocolate is objectively tasty. What they are doing is sharing their individual perspective with me, but that does not give me any good reason to adopt their attitudes as my own. Chairs, gravity and tigers are external realities; morals are not.

[BigBallinStalin]

If I can ask you a question which you are not comfortable with answering, I feel that qualifies me as being educated enough about your worldview. That you are uncomfortable with answering the question suggests you lack an understanding of your own worldview, or, you know that sharing the understanding of your worldview would be harmful, or you are incapable of questioning your worldview.

You are making a claim which you aren't backing up, so either back it up or back up.

Which claim?

[BigBallinStalin]

That's why people start with axioms--e.g. in general, human life is valuable. If you disagree with that axiom, then you have to state reasons. Just saying, "objective reality can't be demonstrated!" is true--if the standard is absolute objectivity, but that's not useful nor is it a reasonable standard; otherwise, anything is justifiable--regardless of the reasons for and against it. Nearly everyone agrees that in general human life is valuable, and that's a good enough starting point, so here we've attained a relatively objective foundation for philosophy. From there, the standard of logic (and hopefully science) is used.

Apply your position beyond morality--say, e.g. the real world, and demonstrate that we cannot describe 'this world' as real or unreal. You'll summon a (absolute) objective standard with its brains-in-jars-in-a-Matrix scenario, and people say, "okay, but that's not falsifiable, and given a probability between 0 and 1, it's possible you're correct. Nevertheless, we've got more pressing matters to attend to in our relatively objective world." Assume the world still exists when you stand up to leave your chair. You do this all the time without sincerely applying your absolute objective standard. If you seriously doubted the existence of the floor before standing, you may qualify for psychological help.

Using common interests is a reasonable way of establishing codes of conduct and laws, but I don't think 'morality' is the right word to use for the rules we come up with. I value things that will help me live a pleasant life, and I therefore value things like a stable and prosperous society. Most other people also want this, and so we determine the best way of achieving this and work towards that. That doesn't, however, mean that disrupting the stable and prosperous society is 'immoral'. It's just unwanted.

The second paragraph I agree with, although 'this chair exists' can be practically demonstrated in a way that 'x is immoral' cannot be. If I watch 30 people take it in turns to sit on a park bench, I can be 99.99% sure that the bench will be there if I try to sit on it and there is therefore no point questioning its existence. If 30 people tell me that unmarried women who have sex deserve to be stoned to death, this doesn't prove anything, just like 30 people saying they like chocolate does not prove that chocolate is objectively tasty. What they are doing is sharing their individual perspective with me, but that does not give me any good reason to adopt their attitudes as my own. Chairs, gravity and tigers are external realities; morals are not.

Sure, the standard is lower, and sure, emotions tinge moral claims, but is the standard for moral claims so low that genocide is morally acceptable (by most people and for good reasons)? You'd say something like there's no morality (or it's impossible to make a moral argument which satisfies your particular standard of truth), but I think that's a dodge, or perhaps a general reluctance to play the moral philosophy game.

RE: your first paragraph, I'm not really interested in an argument about semantics. Sure, morality, preferences, and legislation are intertwined, but it's not like people can't apply logic and science to morality in order to get useful conclusions.

[mrswdk]

Claiming that genocide is immoral would be a bit of a cop out, especially given what I've been saying throughout this thread.

I don't think it is semantics. There's an important difference between saying that murder is immoral and saying that murder ought to be outlawed because it threatens our mutually shared desire for a stable society. Claiming that it is 'immoral' means creating a rule that is not open to debate. Murder is the act of a bad, immoral person, so one must either acknowledge that murder is immoral or risk being declared evil/insane. Rational debate has been precluded. If you go the other way, and recognize this code of conduct as a product of our wants, then 'don't murder' is as a rule that we have chosen to satisfy our collective desires, rather than a divine obligation. It can be challenged or altered without risk of vilification (because the debate about whether or not to keep the rule will center on its practicality, rather than its morality, and thus will be more pragmatic and less emotional). People are freer to debate and our understanding of the issues is more likely to develop and evolve over time.

Personally, I think deferring to 'morality' is just as much of an easy way out as deferring to a holy book. You create an arbitrary rule and then refuse to concede on the grounds that the arbitrary rule is supreme.

[Dukasaur]

...If I say that I am a sexy Chinese girl then it is possible for me to show you some evidence which demonstrates that what I say is true.

If you'd kindly provide your evidence, then maybe this circle jerk can come to a happy ending.

Oh, wow! My daily giggle!

[mrswdk]

If you guys want tits then I'm gonna need some card details.

[shickingbrits]

I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.

That and he doesn't understand the roll of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs.

After reading that long post, it's like considering to climb the Great Wall of China...

The bold claim. Please back up how this can be seen with fluoride.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.

That and he doesn't understand the roll of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs.

After reading that long post, it's like considering to climb the Great Wall of China...

The bold claim. Please back up how this can be seen with fluoride.

I never made a claim about flouride. I made a claim about the role of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs. Obviously, more than profit is needed--e.g. property rights and prices, and duh there's exceptions (e.g. a market for hitmen might not be socially beneficial, but then again there's a private property rights issue with that).

Would you like to start with the simple case--in order to understand the basics, and then we can move on to more complicated examples?

[PLAYER57832]

On the other hand, the central concept of the Golden rule, coupled by eternal accountability due to unshakeable order are tried and true concepts. Trying to create a hierarchy out of equality is a doomed project and can only be done by ignoring the central concepts.

It doesn't take Christianity to know that the "Golden Rule" is a generally good idea.

In fact, the "Golden Rule" alone is not enough, either. Not everyone wants to be treated the same... actually with few exceptions, most people want to be treated as their own individual, which inherently means differently from everyone else.

As a Christian, certainly I would argue "love" (brotherly, parental, etc.) is a driver, but that is very imperfect, because we are imperfect. The thing is, atheists can come by these same ideas, follow them. Why? because most of actual "on the ground" Christianity really is about how to live a better life. Now, I fully agree there is more... I AM Christian, but that is another debate. I am not saying Christianity is wrong or a waste, but to assume that only Christianity, or any faith in God is required to have morality is just wrong.

Besides that, its not even the real question. "Morality" is ANY rule or guide. Someone who thinks that the way to live is to do whatever is necessary to earn money is acting upon a line of morality.. just not a Judeo-Christian morality. I don't know enough about Hinduism or Buddhism to really give good examples in that belief system, but the Buddhist morality is not at all the same as the "morality" being argued here.