Atheistic morality

[BigBallinStalin]

Public choice is pretty useful.

It worked great for hitler....for a time.

You say that because you don't understand anything about fascism, history, or public choice.
(lol, public choice didn't exist then nor was used by Hitler).

Please respond with something as equally stupid as your previous comment--or if you learned something, please respond with something intelligent.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality

Except fields such as mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world around us, whereas morality is not. Morality is different from rocks or bridges in that it does not exist outside of the human mind.

Does metaphysics exist within the mind or outside the mind? What does it mean for an idea to exist "outside the mind"?

I don't know. I didn't say that any ideas exist outside the mind

Since you say that " mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world " do not exist around us (since they are also ideas), then why even bring them up in comparison to moral philosophy?

[BigBallinStalin]

How does your objective moral truth view confront the trolley problem?

Best question of the thread.

Most--actually... nearly all--moral philosophies ignore the economic fact that there are tradeoffs in his world. Inflexible moral philosophies with allegedly absolute moral principles usually fail to address this issue. Let the hand-waving commence!

[BigBallinStalin]

How does your objective moral truth view confront the trolley problem?

The trolley problem exists because an event prevents the consideration of an option of ultimate good. Instead one is "forced" to choose between two generally bad choices. This forced condition is a free will violation since the "choice" to determine the "lesser" of two evils is no real choice at all; the real choice is between "good" and "evil." The moral element of the decision is effectively "moot" because it is impossible to judge the criteria between the decisions without using standards which are at odds with the moral truth.

Hand-waving! WRONG! Sorry, try again.

"Oh, one is 'forced' to blah blah blah. Oh, let's refer to an "ultimate good" without explaining what that means--spoiler alert: appeals to godlike creatures don't work. "Free will violation"? Whatever. There's no such thing as absolute free will, and if you recognize the scope within which humans are constrained, then you'll need to drop that "free will" claim. "REAL" choice, lol good one, how about a TRUE SCOTSMAN choice? Herp. A derp.

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Try again.

[dwilhelmi]

Just wanted to pop in with a quick apology for my delay in responding. With labor day being this weekend, I have been very busy, and haven't had time to write up any responses yet. Having a good conversation, though, and I hope to keep it going! I will hopefully have some time to weigh back in on Tuesday - you know, when this thread will be on page 74 or so...

[mrswdk]

I agree by the way that objective moral truths exist, in much the same way that objective mathematical truths exist (i.e. as concepts that describe the nature of reality

Except fields such as mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world around us, whereas morality moral philosophy is not. Moralsity is are different from rocks or bridges in that it does they do not exist outside of the human mind.

Does metaphysics exist within the mind or outside the mind? What does it mean for an idea to exist "outside the mind"?

I don't know. I didn't say that any ideas exist outside the mind

Since you say that " mathematics, physics and chemistry are studies of the physical world " do not exist around us (since they are also ideas), then why even bring them up in comparison to moral philosophy?

I didn't crispybits is the guy who drew a parallel between mathematics and moral philosophy.

I have made a couple of small edits to my original post from this exchange. Maybe my position is now a little clearer.

[mrswdk]

The so-called trolley problem is dumb. It doesn't give nearly enough information for someone to be able to come to an informed decision.

[PLAYER57832]

If I believed one way to live on is through some minor fame perpetuated through an insignificant species, then I would be willing to do things to acquire that fame that I'm not willing to do knowing that I will live on forever anyways. If I believed that I would only live on through my genes, then I would be willing to do anything to enhance their chance of survival.

Sounds like you are the one without morals here.... Except those imposed externally.

See, I follow Christ not just because it was a set of rule I learned, to achieve heaven and avoid damnation. I follow Christ because his way is the correct way.

I have, in fact, met many people who lived Christ' precepts more truly than those who sit in church. The greatest sadness of faith is knowing that those people will not be saved, unless they somehow come to Christ at some point.

I suggest you look more seriously at your actions and thoughts before deciding to condemn others, or perhaps just listen to them.

[shickingbrits]

You follow Christ?

Interesting how a few pages back you denounced his central command.

Reread Matthew 7 a few hundred thousand times and come back and edit your comment.

[tzor]

Oh, let's refer to an "ultimate good" without explaining what that means--spoiler alert: appeals to godlike creatures don't work.

OK, sure, I've taken courses (well actually I used to read a lot of Dragon Mag) of variant AD&D Philosophy. Good / Evil is basically the arrangement of moral priorities. Good places the needs/desires of others above the needs of self. Evil places the need/desires of self above the needs of others. Since the relationship is between the first person / third person, relationships between the third person and the third person does not enter into the relation. In the "ultimate good" the entire third person is considered over that of the first person.

The above has no reference to God in any manner whatsoever. It is, however, a definition, which in turn is an axiom, which is assumed to be the case because I just defined it that way.

[stahrgazer]

The above has no reference to God in any manner whatsoever. It is, however, a definition, which in turn is an axiom, which is assumed to be the case because I just defined it that way.

You're a few thousand years too late to define it this way. I already told you, the definitions got set in a series of letters, scrolls, etc., and it's been that definition for a while now. No court is going to accept evidence manufactured today over evidence that has been accepted (even if it was also manufactured, that cannot be proven) for this long

[shickingbrits]

Tzor pretty much sums it up right there.

If people live by a understanding that the greatest achievement is creating a place that we would want socially, individually and universally, then we can create such a place.

To achieve this requires putting others before yourself and submitting yourself to this.

Those who reject God have filled this spot with another understanding. One that states fulfilling their personal desires fulfills those of the whole, that there are unequal parts to the whole that people can fulfill their desires through and that it is random and meaningless.

In such a world, we can see the problems we have. We are put in competition at a very early age and our society strives to annihilate itself.

Putting others ahead of yourself forces you to better the meaning to beyond that which you understand for yourself. If I'm treating myself as best as possible, then treating others better requires me to strive beyond that which I think is good for me. Our current society holds the opposite view.

We have the means to develop long lasting societies that can passively fulfill its needs, that can aim it's education towards the betterment of the human species, that can last as long as time. But we will not use those means because of the desire of those with the carrot and stick is used collectively against those whose desire to change the status quo is individual. Not only do they possess the resources to implement the carrot and stick, they train the masses from a very young age in their ideology.

The world is going to change very soon. Satan is a self cleansing mechanism. The reboot is about to happen. Seek beauty in the world.

[AndyDufresne]

The world is going to change very soon. Satan is a self cleansing mechanism. The reboot is about to happen. Seek beauty in the world.

--Andy

[chang50]

If I believed one way to live on is through some minor fame perpetuated through an insignificant species, then I would be willing to do things to acquire that fame that I'm not willing to do knowing that I will live on forever anyways. If I believed that I would only live on through my genes, then I would be willing to do anything to enhance their chance of survival.

Sounds like you are the one without morals here.... Except those imposed externally.

See, I follow Christ not just because it was a set of rule I learned, to achieve heaven and avoid damnation. I follow Christ because his way is the correct way.

I have, in fact, met many people who lived Christ' precepts more truly than those who sit in church. The greatest sadness of faith is knowing that those people will not be saved, unless they somehow come to Christ at some point.

I suggest you look more seriously at your actions and thoughts before deciding to condemn others, or perhaps just listen to them.

Shick tell me please why you automatically assume others share your desire to live on eternally?For me it's my worst nightmare.Honestly.

[shickingbrits]

Desire or no, what shall be shall be.

[chang50]

Desire or no, what shall be shall be.

Do you ever answer a question?I mean ever?We all know what you believe.I'm interested in why you reach the absurd assumptions about people that you express here.
Have another go..

[shickingbrits]

Because you are still here.

[chang50]

Because you are still here.

So I desire to live eternally because I'm still here?Seriously?
I'm lost for words and that don't happen often..

[shickingbrits]

Seriously.

You do thousands of things everyday that extend your eternity. You cannot actually say you desire death, as you don't know what death entails. All you know is your existence and you have many means of seeking its end, which obviously you haven't done.

I like talking to you Chang, don't try to prove that you don't desire eternity to me, the only way to do so would leave me one less person to talk to.

[chang50]

Seriously.

You do thousands of things everyday that extend your eternity. You cannot actually say you desire death, as you don't know what death entails. All you know is your existence and you have many means of seeking its end, which obviously you haven't done.

I like talking to you Chang, don't try to prove that you don't desire eternity to me, the only way to do so would leave me one less person to talk to.

What can I say to someone who claims to know what I desire better than I do?

[shickingbrits]

You can say thanks. Or go f*ck yourself. Or whatever. Words are rather empty anyways, so saying thanks and not acting on it, or saying go f*ck yourself and then chatting amicably is what I'd expect from you based on what I've seen so far.

[chang50]

You can say thanks. Or go f*ck yourself. Or whatever. Words are rather empty anyways, so saying thanks and not acting on it, or saying go f*ck yourself and then chatting amicably is what I'd expect from you based on what I've seen so far.

Thing is I would never claim to know your mind,(or anyone else's) better than you do.It's frankly disturbing that you can make such a claim without a trace of irony or see the arrogance involved.'Scratches head in sheer puzzlement'.

[shickingbrits]

You've claimed to know my mind many times. I don't deny doing it, why do you?

[chang50]

You've claimed to know my mind many times. I don't deny doing it, why do you?

On the contrary,your mind is a total mystery to me..

[shickingbrits]

My position: God is everything, and what holds everything together.

Your position for me: God is a bearded fairy in the sky.

See how that works? You have never addressed my real position, but only the one you have claimed is mine. You have never claimed a position, and yet you claim a series of positions that clarifies your position. Feel free to clarify at any time. Until then, I will go based on what you've said, and the fact that you are still doing those thousands of things needed to maintain your eternity.