The Official Erik Mesoy KOs Religio-Morality Thread!

[Micaelis Rex]

Two things: 1. I'm not saying what I think, I'm saying what we atheists tend to think. 2. That's not necessarily objective morality. Why couldn't it be subjective?

1.) I don't mean to imply that you are atheist, although you were choosing their side in this debate. If you actually agree with me all the better.
2.) Well, I was under the impression that certain things were always wrong, even to an atheist. For example, I thought atheists believed it was a moral constant that it is wrong for a mother to kill her newborn child. If this is subjective, then is there really any morality at all?

 

[WillJ]

But, how can one have any kind of morality without having impository values? If you do not beleive your values are universal, what are they?

Anyway, do you really beleive that imposing moral values is wrong? Don't you support laws banning murder and rape and all those nasty things? Isn't that imposing your moral values? The only reason it doesn't seem like that is that your values, in those cases, are nearly-universally held values. But you still support imposing them, and I imagine if they weren't universal, you would support imposing them on others.

Read my posts again and I think you'll find out I admitted all that is true, and thus the atheists that say this stuff aren't making perfect sense; it's just that they're not as silly as you originally made them out to be.

 

[cgannon64]

Yes, yes, I see we agree more than I thought, I'm glad.

 

[WillJ]

Yes, yes, I see we agree more than I thought, I'm glad.

You know what that means, it's time for a BIG HUG!

 

[cgannon64]

Yay!

Its rare an OT debate ends in a hug!!

 

[WillJ]

1.) I don't mean to imply that you are atheist, although you were choosing their side in this debate. If you actually agree with me all the better.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud atheist, specifically a soft atheist and a soft agnostic. It's just that I don't feel like getting into what I personally think, mostly because I'm not 100% sure.

2.) Well, I was under the impression that certain things were always wrong, even to an atheist. For example, I thought atheists believed it was a moral constant that it is wrong for a mother to kill her newborn child. If this is subjective, then is there really any morality at all?

If it's subjective, that just means it's their opinion, right? Whether or not opinions exist is a bit of an odd question, but whatever the case, it certainly makes sense to act on these opinions---you might buy what is in your opinion a good painting, right?

 

[Micaelis Rex]

If it's subjective, that just means it's their opinion, right? Whether or not opinions exist is a bit of an odd question, but whatever the case, it certainly makes sense to act on these opinions---you might buy what is in your opinion a good painting, right?

If morality is subjective, then it is meaningless. Stalin's "morality" dictated that it was OK to kill tens of millions, and my "morality" dictates that it is wrong to kill people. If morality is subjective, then his opinion is just as valid as mine. There must be something outside of an individual to determine right from wrong, or else there is no right and there is no wrong. With no right and no wrong, there can't be any morality.

 

[OrpheusPrime]

The way I see it there is no such thing as universal morality. Its just man's compromise of true freedom to ensure that he lives out his entire natural life with some or most of his freedom without dying a victime of another man's absolute freedom.

 

[Raijer]

But, how can one have any kind of morality without having impository values? If you do not beleive your values are universal, what are they?

I think the Satre layed out a pretty decent atheistic value system in his existential philosophy. There is no God, so therefore meaning does not come from without, but from within. Man makes himself. If I project a certain image of myself as I choose to be, I am projecting an ideal image of man, as such. Put more simply, the only way I can "impose" values on others is by example.

Anyway, do you really beleive that imposing moral values is wrong? Don't you support laws banning murder and rape and all those nasty things? Isn't that imposing your moral values?

I think it very important to not confuse law with morality. Just because something is law, does not make it moral. As an example, Hitler passed many laws controling the lives of Jews, no doubt reflecting his value system. Nevertheless, many of those laws were obviously immoral.

 

[Mise]

But, how can one have any kind of morality without having impository values? If you do not beleive your values are universal, what are they?

This is a comlicated issue; it's not as simple as either impose your values or keep them to yourself. As an atheist, I'm an not so arrogant to think that my form of morals are the supreme and ultimate form of morals. Afterall, I'm just a human being like everyone else. I have no divine holy book with which to claim authority, so I just have to go by what I think is right.

WillJ is right in saying that "live and let live" is also a moral imposition -- it's equivalent to saying, "it's immoral to force your morality on other people". But it also happens to be the purest form of morality that we can create a society around. Clearly, society cannot function without certain basic rules, such as thou shalt not kill. The basic liberties that society needs is merely "your freedom ends where mine begins", or something like that. You yanks have known this for a rather long time, and appear to hold it in rather high regard, which is why it is so shocking to outsiders when religious dictats infiltrate the land of the free in such a perverse way.

The point is, this question of whether your morality should be imposed on everyone else has been debated for centuries, and yet, somewhat ironically, there is no consensus on the issue. You don't hear me arguing for the hardcore liberals all to often (being a lefty and all), but since religious people tend to scream the loudest, I have no problem in screaming, "don't tread on me," right back at them.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Religion uses a punishment/reward system to promote certain values, the majority of which are similar to those promoted by the law and held as being important by the majority of the world's population.

Hence, religion has had an important impact on morality and many would say that it continues to.

Although at present the cultural impact of religion has been largely absorbed into our society, thus meaning that the moral teachings typically held as being unique to religion are available through secular sources.

 

[Blasphemous]

I think the reason murder should be punished is not that it is immoral - even though it is the most immoral type of act as far as I'm concerned - but rather that it's destructive to society. The law should be based on human rights, citizen rights, and minority right - not on morals.
I basically think that as long as another person's morality does not encroach on my rights (or that of anyone else but themselves) they should just go ahead and live by whatever moral code they want. But if they're morally obligated to denying the rights of others - the right to liberty, the right to choice, and above all the right to life - that, I simply cannot accept.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I would argue that a belief in objective morality is very similar to belief in a religion; i.e., while you can have somebody believe in objective morality without that person believing in a god, the kind of belief necessary for both is very similar and, in that sense, morality is very much like religion.

SN summed up my stance re: objective morality very well.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

All people are born with a basic set of morals regarding, lying, stealing and killing. These basic morals have nothing to do with culture or religion. Any human being, at any time in history, from any cultural background, would agree on those three.

 

[Cheetah]

All people are born with a basic set of morals regarding, lying, stealing and killing. These basic morals have nothing to do with culture or religion. Any human being, at any time in history, from any cultural background, would agree on those three.

People aren't born with any morals at all. Children learn what is good morals from their parents, and (these questions assume that you know what is about to happen):
1. If you lived in Germany in 1920, and Hitler and 20 brown-shirts asked you if there lived any Jews in the house behind you, and you knew two families lived there, would you consider it moraly wrong to say that no Jews lived there? That would be lying, but it would be right as it would save the lives of other people.
2. If you were able to steal all the keys from the German Panzers on the night to September 1st, 1939, would you consider it moraly wrong to do so?
3. If you came over Hitler walking alone in the Alps some time in the fall of 1940, would you consider it wrong to kill him?

These questions are quite hypotetical, and I have no idea why I used Hitler and WW2 as examples. My point is just that the Aztecs thought it morally right to sacrifice people, Robin Hood of the legends thinks it is morally right to steal, and my grandmother saying she had nothing against Nazis was also quite right, considering the possible consequenses of the alternative.

I'd like to pose a question to the Athiests who have a definite set of morals: Are these morals just for you, or for everyone? If they are just for you, why not for everyone else? If they are for everyone, why don't you chasten those who do not follow them?

Well, as soon as I make up my mind of what I think is good morality I'll come chasten all of you who don't agree with me.

Until then I'll just try to guide myself with the moral conclusions I have derived at so far.

And I don't think objective or absolute morals exists, but humans are so equal that most of our morals do coinside. So I would say that absolute morals are relative to what the majority thinks is moral, cause they have the most power to force their morality on others.

(Yes, I'm heading for the 'Does Might make Right'-thread now. )

All right, it was closed. Never mind.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

People aren't born with any morals at all. Children learn what is good morals from their parents, and (these questions assume that you know what is about to happen):
1. If you lived in Germany in 1920, and Hitler and 20 brown-shirts asked you if there lived any Jews in the house behind you, and you knew two families lived there, would you consider it moraly wrong to say that no Jews lived there? That would be lying, but it would be right as it would save the lives of other people.
2. If you were able to steal all the keys from the German Panzers on the night to September 1st, 1939, would you consider it moraly wrong to do so?
3. If you came over Hitler walking alone in the Alps some time in the fall of 1940, would you consider it wrong to kill him?

If I lie to the Gestapo about the Jews in the house, Im preventing a much greater evil from occuring than a mere lie. The same with the other two, especially #3 (#2 would accomplish nothing, theyd just invade the next day anyway when they got new keys). The murder of one man, to prevent the murder of tens of millions, is neither good nor evil, merely necessary.

When I say that all humans are born with a moral instinct involving lying, stealing and killing, theres no need to dream up bizarre hypothetical situations where it may be necessary to violate those three instinctive 'commandments'. Keep it simple:

Stealing: If a toddler is playing with a toy, and another child takes it from him and runs away, the toddler doesnt start crying because his parents told him that stealing is wrong. If the parents even tried to explain the concept to the child, he wouldnt know what theyre talking about, but instinctively, he knows what is his, and what isnt, and that its wrong to take his things. From there its a small step to understanding that its also wrong to take things that belong to other people.

Lying: Almost as soon as they master speech, children discover lying. Along with the discovery of deception, comes the shame of being caught in a lie. Again, a child barely out of infancy understands this instinctively, not because his parents were able to communicate complex philosophical concepts to him using baby talk.

Killing: The knowledge of death and murder comes a little later, but its no less instinctive. It may be the most powerful instinct of all. A deer never read a philosophy book, but when it sees a hungry wolf, it runs like hell.

An instinctive understanding of deception, theft, and killing all increase an animals chances of surviving long enough to pass on its DNA.

 

[Blasphemous]

BE, none of those things seem to be the way you describe them...
*A baby who loses her toy cries because she had a toy and now has none. Simple as that.
*Children only start understanding the idea of lying after kindergarden... Until around age 5 they may occasionally lie but they don't realize that what people say is not necessarily true... And they definately don't feel it's wrong to lie when they're very young.
*The instinct of staying alive is strong enough on its own, it has nothing to do with any insinctive morality, nor does it have anything to do with the act of taking lives.

 

[Cheetah]

Stealing: If a toddler is playing with a toy, and another child takes it from him and runs away, the toddler doesnt start crying because his parents told him that stealing is wrong. If the parents even tried to explain the concept to the child, he wouldnt know what theyre talking about, but instinctively, he knows what is his, and what isnt, and that its wrong to take his things. From there its a small step to understanding that its also wrong to take things that belong to other people.

Lying: Almost as soon as they master speech, children discover lying. Along with the discovery of deception, comes the shame of being caught in a lie. Again, a child barely out of infancy understands this instinctively, not because his parents were able to communicate complex philosophical concepts to him using baby talk.

Killing: The knowledge of death and murder comes a little later, but its no less instinctive. It may be the most powerful instinct of all. A deer never read a philosophy book, but when it sees a hungry wolf, it runs like hell.

An instinctive understanding of deception, theft, and killing all increase an animals chances of surviving long enough to pass on its DNA.

I'm afraid you see it from the wrong side.

1. The kid knows the concept of having something, and then to not have it. That is something that is instinctly felt as a bad thing. But the kid that took the toy has no problems with his consciousness. He doesn't know that not having something, and then having it because someone else loose it is wrong.

2. I doubt a child would have any problems lying, if he knew how to do it. It's a way of getting something you want, which is in accordance to the kids chances for survival, wouldn't you say?

3. Again, a kid don't want to die or get hurt. We have all heard that a burnt child avoids the fire. But a child has no problems killing or hurting others. Have you ever seen small children when they find a frog, a lizzard, a worm, a snail or an insect? In their ignorance hey happily torture and kill.

An instinctive understanding of deception, theft, and killing all helps an animal to get what it wants, while an instinctive understanding of recognising a lie, protecting what is its, and avoiding dangers all increase an animals chances of surviving long enough to pass on its DNA.

 

[cgannon64]

This is a comlicated issue; it's not as simple as either impose your values or keep them to yourself. As an atheist, I'm an not so arrogant to think that my form of morals are the supreme and ultimate form of morals. Afterall, I'm just a human being like everyone else. I have no divine holy book with which to claim authority, so I just have to go by what I think is right.

I can understand that you don't think your set of morals are the ultimate form of morals, but aren't they the best form of morals you've come across?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Cheetah and Blasphemous: To put it as simply as possible, I believe that our morality evolved out of our basic survival instincts.