Why is killing wrong?

[HaVIC5]

Simple question. Its a basic conviction of ours, but theres hardly an easy answer.

Why is killing wrong?

[CabbageStabbage]

It's not.

But it's harmful to society. The only societies around are ones that frown upon killing, because if they encouraged killing they wouldn't be around. Everyone would be killed.

[Apollyon]

It isn't, in a natural sense. It's wrong by our standards though because of the deep-rooted existence of religious morals in our society.

[Africa]

Because it is the ultimate misuse of and imposition of free will on another, that is if you are a believer in natural law, or spiritual. If you are atheist then chances are you'll come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the killing of say, an undeveloped and unaware baby, is any more wrong than the killing of an animal.

[CabbageStabbage]

Because it is the ultimate misuse of and imposition of free will on another, that is if you are a believer in natural law, or spiritual. If you are atheist then chances are you'll come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the killing of say, an undeveloped and unaware baby, is any more wrong than the killing of an animal.

Or if you're an atheist you'll come to the conclusion that killing is wrong because if you let people kill, everyone would die.

[Electronic Wolf]

Because I said so.

[BassVirtuoso]

Isn't it an instinctual urge to guarantee the survival of our species?

[HaVIC5]

It's not.

But it's harmful to society. The only societies around are ones that frown upon killing, because if they encouraged killing they wouldn't be around. Everyone would be killed.
Then it wouldn't be wrong to kill a hobo, or people on welfare?

If you are atheist then chances are you'll come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the killing of say, an undeveloped and unaware baby, is any more wrong than the killing of an animal.

What about killing a rational, concious human adult? You can be athiest and still have morals.

It isn't, in a natural sense. It's wrong by our standards though because of the deep-rooted existence of religious morals in our society.

So there isn't any actual reason, its just social tradition? By extension of that, would you say that all of ethics are just extensions of social policy and tradition?

[RockAndRoll]

hmmm, lets say it breaks the golden rule and see where that goes.

[HaVIC5]

Isn't it an instinctual urge to guarantee the survival of our species?
But what about the opposing instinctual urge to eliminate competition?

[HaVIC5]

hmmm, lets say it breaks the golden rule and see where that goes.
What makes the golden rule a moral absolute?

[Africa]

Or if you're an atheist you'll come to the conclusion that killing is wrong because if you let people kill, everyone would die.

Only wrong in the context of survival, not natural law.

[AA-12]

It isn't, in a natural sense. It's wrong by our standards though because of the deep-rooted existence of religious morals in our society.

Exactly.

[Amit]

But what about the opposing instinctual urge to eliminate competition?

eliminate competition doesn't equal eliminate population

ever notice how rivalry and territory disputes between competing males, for the overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom, are never intended to be fatal encounters?

[RockAndRoll]

What makes the golden rule a moral absolute?

Because the golden rule is a simple and effective way of reducing suffering.

[CabbageStabbage]

Then it wouldn't be wrong to kill a hobo, or people on welfare?



What about killing a rational, concious human adult? You can be athiest and still have morals.



So there isn't any actual reason, its just social tradition? By extension of that, would you say that all of ethics are just extensions of social policy and tradition?

Hobos and people on welfare could have friends/family that kill you for revenge. Or if killing was permitted, some person might drive-by you for fun.

You can be atheist and have morals, but you have to admit that any moral code you have is completely arbitrary. Generally I base my morality on what is good for society, what is good for me, or what I feel like. I am ready to admit that all of those moral bases are completely arbitrary though.

Yes, ethics is entirely social policy and tradition.

[John Paul Harrison]

Perhaps we consider killing wrong because its end result is absolute and cannot be amended?

[AmericanWeiner]

moral codes probably stem mostly from our natural ties to family members and friends and to some extent our self preservation

which seems strange but I bet it's true


edit: don't believe me? ever notice people say "oh god it could've been my [son/daughter/husband/friend] in their shoes" and rarely ever "oh god it could've been me in their shoes"

[RockAndRoll]

You can be atheist and have morals, but you have to admit that any moral code you have is completely arbitrary.

If ethics are by necessity arbitrary for an atheist they are the same for a theist.

also would you say it's okay (hypothetically speaking) to kill a hobo with no friends or family?

[pedro durruti]

We feel it's wrong for more than just religious reasons. Simply seeing another human die, by your hand, you could feel that you've done something wrong emotionally, regardless of your belief in the supernatural.

[AmericanWeiner]

could?

You almost certainly will unless you were abused as a child.

[HaVIC5]

Hobos and people on welfare could have friends/family that kill you for revenge. Or if killing was permitted, some person might drive-by you for fun.

So the reason not to kill is because somebody might kill you back? That doesn't seem very compelling at all.

You can be atheist and have morals, but you have to admit that any moral code you have is completely arbitrary. Generally I base my morality on what is good for society, what is good for me, or what I feel like. I am ready to admit that all of those moral bases are completely arbitrary though.

Moral code isn't necessarily arbitrary. You can have a naturalist view of ethics, which essentially reduces ethical issues to non-ethical natural states.

Yes, ethics is entirely social policy and tradition.

Ah, so Hitler was entirely justified in the eradication of a race of people. That's essential what moral relativism boils down to.

[AmericanWeiner]

Ah, so Hitler was entirely justified in the eradication of a race of people. That's essential what moral relativism boils down to.

I like how moralists like to pull up this straw man

[Apollyon]

Because it is the ultimate misuse of and imposition of free will on another, that is if you are a believer in natural law, or spiritual. If you are atheist then chances are you'll come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the killing of say, an undeveloped and unaware baby, is any more wrong than the killing of an animal.

You don't have to be an Atheist to acknowledge the obvious guidelines of the natural world. We as humans do not live in the natural world. Our world is so synthetic and materialistic and ridden with ridiculous moral concepts, that we accept practices like capital punishment, while we openly disapprove of things like home (territorial) defense in the extreme of fatally stopping an attacker because of the attackers "constitutional rights".

Hypocrisy does not exist in nature.

[pedro durruti]

I like how moralists like to pull up this straw man
But can't morals be twisted in the wrong direction?

[AmericanWeiner]

there is no wrong direction in relative morality

[HaVIC5]

I like how moralists like to pull up this straw man
Well, I'm not necessarily saying it was bad. I actually don't know. I'm just pointing out the necessary conclusion from moral relativism, which makes people very uneasy.

[pedro durruti]

From a moral standpoint

[AmericanWeiner]

From a moral standpoint

relative morality can lead in the wrong direction from a moral standpoint?

[pedro durruti]

No, there can be wrong moral directions from a moral moral standpoint. hehe

[italic zero]

my moralism is a universal pragmatism?

[RockAndRoll]

Come on, doesn't have anyone have anything to say about my position?

[Africa]

You don't have to be an Atheist to acknowledge the obvious guidelines of the natural world. We as humans do not live in the natural world. Our world is so synthetic and materialistic and ridden with ridiculous moral concepts, that we accept practices like capital punishment, while we openly disapprove of things like home (territorial) defense in the extreme of fatally stopping an attacker because of the attackers "constitutional rights".

Hypocrisy does not exist in nature.

Uhm no if you're atheist you generally acknowledge the absence of guidelines of the natural world.

[italic zero]

Come on, doesn't have anyone have anything to say about my position?
it's kind of the same as mine or this one:
Moral code isn't necessarily arbitrary. You can have a naturalist view of ethics, which essentially reduces ethical issues to non-ethical natural states.

Uhm no if you're atheist you generally acknowledge the absence of guidelines of the natural world.
only external ones

[AmericanWeiner]

rock and roll I don't feel like it's ok to kill anything that has emotional ties to itself or any other thing unless it's for preservation of self or loved ones

[stevensonmat2]

I think most people just have an instinctual feeling that its not the right thing to do, as it could hurt the progression of our species, just as somone would be disgusted by the idea of having sex with their sister. They think that it's wrong, and essentially it is because incestful procreation generally yeilds inferior humans, just as killing a person prevents them from spreading their DNA.

[RockAndRoll]

For the record I was actually refering to this post
Because the golden rule is a simple and effective way of reducing suffering.

But I suppose any discussion is good, I'm just bored and looking for a fun argument. Thanks anyways though :thumb:

[italic zero]

but i don't think incest is wrong

[Apollyon]

Uhm no if you're atheist you generally acknowledge the absence of guidelines of the natural world.

No you don't. You acknowledge the absence of external guidelines like the existence of a higher power controlling us all from his invisible throne in the sky. You don't disavow nature, you idiot.

[RNR]

Wrong is such a subjective word.

However, nobody will disagree that a nation must have laws against it for the good of everyone.

[RockAndRoll]

Wrong is such a subjective word.

However, nobody will disagree that a nation must have laws against it for the good of everyone.

If there is good and bad, why not right and wrong?

[HaVIC5]

Wrong is such a subjective word.

However, nobody will disagree that a nation must have laws against it for the good of everyone.
How is "wrong" subjective but not "good"? You do realize theres an enormous contradiction in your statement.

[pedro durruti]

Maybe he's just saying that while it is a subjective word, when applied within society it can be objective and is

[Amit]

eliminate competition doesn't equal eliminate population

ever notice how rivalry and territory disputes between competing males, for the overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom, are never intended to be fatal encounters?

bump for havic

[pedro durruti]

So what's the minority?

[stevensonmat2]

but i don't think incest is wrong

well some people are defective. Like murderers.

[RNR]

How is "wrong" subjective but not "good"? You do realize theres an enormous contradiction in your statement.

So you wouldn't agree that not being mudered is good?

[Apollyon]

So you wouldn't agree that not being mudered is good?

Not if you deserve retribution.

[RNR]

Not if you deserve retribution.

So would you adovcate the right under the law to kiill anyone you deem worthy of death?

[Apollyon]

So would you adovcate the legalization of vigilante justice for everyone?

Not so much vigilante justice as natural selection. If you do something that in nature would merit the cancellation of your life, then you should take what's coming to you. Morals and modern laws do nothing but blanket corrupters of our society from what's really coming to them. We pass off our unnatural decision making process on the ideology of divine retribution after death, when really we're just too far from our roots at this point to do what should be done.

[Mr. Ron]

Well it all depends on who you are killing.

[RNR]

Morals and modern laws do nothing but blanket corrupters of our society from what's really coming to them. .

Yes they do but suggestion of the legalization of murder is ridiculous. Say that Joe Meanguy is bad and needs to die. Some guys go and lynch him because they think he needs to die. They kill him but then Joe's friends kill those guys because they think that those bad guys who killed Joe should die too. If all of this was legal, before you know it society would be in ruin and quality of life would be greatly decreased. And many innocent people would die because people thought that they needed to die because people would be free to kill whomever they want and of course the question of who is deserving of death would be completely subjective. And nobody would put a stop to any of it because there would be no murder laws.

That's exactly what your ideas suggest and I don't think that it's a very good way of living. Do you?

[Apollyon]

Yes they do but suggestion of the legalization of murder is ridiculous. Say that Joe Meanguy is bad and needs to die. Some guys go and lynch him because they think he needs to die. They kill him but then Joe's friends kill those guys because they think that those bad guys who killed Joe should die too. If all of this was legal, before you know it society would be in ruin and quality of life would be greatly decreased. And many innocent people would die because people thought that they needed to die because people would be free to kill whomever they want and of course the question of who is deserving of death would be completely subjective. And nobody would put a stop to any of it because there would be no murder laws.

That's exactly what your ideas suggest and I don't think that it's a very good way of living. Do you?

That is not exactly what my ideas suggest. What you described is not natural selection, it's simply an eye for an eye and nothing more.

[HaVIC5]

So you wouldn't agree that not being mudered is good?
Well, you said that wrong was subjective. How could you say then good is objective? They're dualistic concepts.

bump for havic

I was thinking about this one, because its a valid point in a sense. The problem I see with it is that the fact of the matter is that, while you're absolutely correct, animals do not intend necessary the death of their opponent, they don't necessary wish to prevent it either, so long as the objective is achieved (ostensibly becoming Alpha male, or whatever). If the objective were to kill, then that instinct would teach us that killing is right. But it isn't, its just to eliminate the competition, so the "moral instinct" on the matter should be utterly neutral.

[HaVIC5]

That is not exactly what my ideas suggest. What you described is not natural selection, it's simply an eye for an eye and nothing more.
Please explain how retribution is different from the lex talionis.

[Apollyon]

Please explain what lex talionis is so I can give you an educated answer.

[HaVIC5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis

Basically, legal jargon for "An Eye for an Eye".

[Apollyon]

Oh ok. Well maybe I used the term 'retribution' in the wrong context. Retribution and lex talionis aren't all that different, but I'm trying to stab at the point of natural selection and the consequences of your actions in a natural setting and environment.

[RNR]

Well, you said that wrong was subjective. How could you say then good is objective? They're dualistic concepts.

Good in the moral sense is subjective. Good as a measurement of quality is objective at times. Unwanted death (especially because it's unwanted) is bad to a nation of people who don't want to die.

I can see where the confusion comes from. Especially with a word that has more than 20 definitions.

[Badmoon]

Killing isn't wrong.

Murder is.

[BassRevelation]

Killing is wrong, based on the moral absolute. You've heard the logic and argument im assuming.

eliminate competition doesn't equal eliminate population

ever notice how rivalry and territory disputes between competing males, for the overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom, are never intended to be fatal encounters?
very well said. Good to see you still have some quality in your posts

[Amit]

The problem I see with it is that the fact of the matter is that, while you're absolutely correct, animals do not intend necessary the death of their opponent, they don't necessary wish to prevent it either, so long as the objective is achieved (ostensibly becoming Alpha male, or whatever).

what you are saying makes perfect sense on an individual organism level

but at the species or even communal level, survival and proliferation cannot be guaranteed by a single rank of the most superior creatures

and that's why even alpha males have often sacrificed themselves for others in their group (it's not just in the lion king :D); competition doesn't just mean intention to not kill but also the prevention of death

it simply drives up the probability of successful proliferation of the species

the whole idea of self sacrifice in the animal kingdom is a really puzzling one for biologists hehe

[-1up!-]

"Wrong" is normative rather than absolute. Things are wrong or right because we make them out to be so, not out of some objective essence of morality coming from fairy tales transmitted through history.

[HaVIC5]

"Wrong" is normative rather than absolute. Things are wrong or right because we make them out to be so, not out of some objective essence of morality coming from fairy tales transmitted through history.
Is there such thing as an unjust society? Moral relativism says no.

[-1up!-]

Is there such thing as an unjust society? Moral relativism says no.

Yes. And?

[HaVIC5]

what you are saying makes perfect sense on an individual organism level

but at the species or even communal level, survival and proliferation cannot be guaranteed by a single rank of the most superior creatures

and that's why even alpha males have often sacrificed themselves for others in their group (it's not just in the lion king :D); competition doesn't just mean intention to not kill but also the prevention of death

it simply drives up the probability of successful proliferation of the species

the whole idea of self sacrifice in the animal kingdom is a really puzzling one for biologists hehe
Again, interesting point, one that I agree with on most levels. A caveat I see in it is the concept of the "other" placed in relation between the social group of the alpha male and other members of the species. The herd owes its instinctual moral obligation to one another and nobody else, the same way a human feels obligation to family, or perhaps close friends. There is no moral instinct against the elimination of a source of competition if it benefits the family unit.

[HaVIC5]

Yes. And?
So you say no society can be unjust. Why care about slavery? Why care about the Holocaust?

[griftadan]

because everyone takes moral stances about somethings, aside form the obvious negative social ramifications of slaveyr and genocide.

[CabbageStabbage]

Is there such thing as an unjust society? Moral relativism says no.

I dislike it when people think just because you don't believe anything is right or wrong that you believe in moral relativism.

I think nothing is inherently right or wrong. I am in no way a moral relativist. Just because A thinks something is right and B thinks it's wrong, doesn't make A or B correct. Neither are correct: there is no right and wrong.

[Amit]

Again, interesting point, one that I agree with on most levels. A caveat I see in it is the concept of the "other" placed in relation between the social group of the alpha male and other members of the species. The herd owes its instinctual moral obligation to one another and nobody else, the same way a human feels obligation to family, or perhaps close friends. There is no moral instinct against the elimination of a source of competition if it benefits the family unit.

but i think

at least the way i see it

your question has been answered

[shaqadelic]

Killing is wrong because people have human rights?

[Amit]

umm why do they have human rights and who is in the power to grant them to everyone

[DBoons Ghost]

eliminate competition doesn't equal eliminate population

ever notice how rivalry and territory disputes between competing males, for the overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom, are never intended to be fatal encounters?

Well said indeed.

Killing being "wrong" is subjective to society maybe in America, Europe, Canada and other civlized nations. Mercy killings? We kill babies do we not? Or should I be so bold to say we "allow" women to kill their potential offspring in a sense. Most would agree to keep the race pure we kill the weak like animals often do. Wild horses kill weak offspring outright in a merciful way to avoid having them weaken the pack.

Now, as Amit so eloquently pointed out, animals don't intend to kill or even maim their rivals in a dispute, because the effect of dominance is lost on the kill. The kill is dead, and is no longer subject to said dominance.

It's no different with disputes between human beings. With all hope lost, a weakling who lost potential dispute resorts to killing out of weakness, not borne of dominance, because there is no dominant facter when your dispute ends in death. Someone else said something to the effect of killing isn't necesarrily wrong, but murder is. It's not something I subscribe to, but it makes sense if you rationalize what generally leads to murder, and how to determine cold blooded murder versus a killing.

Human beings are animals. Mankind knew this and created religion as a means to control this for the sake of humanity as well as to ensure the growth of our race. Without religion and morals which stemmed from religion, would we have survived this long? I don't think so. I am not of sound conscious to take a life, and even if defense of my own life I'm quite sure I'd be haunted. Do you think animals of lesser intellect kill each other? Chimps do. Chimps kill other chimps all the time. Do they suffer from their own conscious haunting them? I don't know. Dolphins? They're smart right? I don't know enough about them. Human beings? Hah. If killing wasn't so much the issue, how long before it's taken for granted and used improperly? We corrupt everything we touch almost always, even if it's with the best intentions. Killing off all the mentall challenge for example, wouldn't lead us to some master race. Although, mercy killings and infanticide dominated even the most civilized societies before religion really became a key factor in our lives.

[shaqadelic]

Well, if you are talking about today's civilized society, then it is the laws, norms and etc that spell out these rights. The leaders uphold them. Thus killing people like committing murder is wrong because you are violating those stated rights.

[-1up!-]

So you say no society can be unjust. Why care about slavery? Why care about the Holocaust?

You're making a ridiculous strawman. Let me restate my take on the subject.

Morality is subjective: There is no absolute sense of right and wrong but what humans define as right and wrong.

Having taken that into account, does that mean I have no morality? Of course not. I have morals, and positions against slavery, Holocaust, I have a general opinion of what parameters can define a just society. The thing is, I have the knowledge that those positions I have are not based on objective laws or morality, but merely the norms and values instilled to me through the society in which I grew, the society which, by socialization, imposed its norms unto me. For example, I know that my disgust of murder, no matter how strong it is, has nothing to do with any objective laws of nature, and everything to do with my social context. Hence it is subjective.

It's not that hard to catch: an observer saying morality is subjective does not mean he can suddenly act counter to the morals he holds without guilt or strong feelings of disgust.

[Africa]

No you don't. You acknowledge the absence of external guidelines like the existence of a higher power controlling us all from his invisible throne in the sky. You don't disavow nature, you idiot.

You disavow natural law, NATURAL LAW NATURAL LAW NATURAL LAW

natural law
-a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.

So it is apparent that you don't know what natural law is tsk. And why are you name calling?

[DBoons Ghost]

You know it's sad that we can never truly hypothesize upon our lives without morals, because they bleed from our very soul.

Think on a life devoid of religious morality. Natural law would be gone. Instinctual thought would overwhelm rational thought. Laws based on religion wouldn't exist. I don't know if I can even fathom it.

[Amit]

Well, if you are talking about today's civilized society, then it is the laws, norms and etc that spell out these rights. The leaders uphold them. Thus killing people like committing murder is wrong because you are violating those stated rights.

but why is it wrong that these particular stated rights are being violated and not other possible ones

what if there were other stated rights which were contradictory to the aforementioned such as

mandatory murder of all left handed people

[Africa]

Mandatory murder of all left-handers isn't institutionalized?

[CabbageStabbage]

Without religion and morals which stemmed from religion, would we have survived this long?

Yes. Probably without civilizations tho

[shaqadelic]

I believe Aristotle was the one who theorized a person with logic and rationality have natural standpoint on what is right or wrong. So unless somebody being left handed is somehow harmful to the other person well being, they would feel that it is 'wrong' to murder them. Perhaps out of sympathy or other emotions.

[Africa]

Think on a life devoid of religious morality. Natural law would be gone. Instinctual thought would overwhelm rational thought. Laws based on religion wouldn't exist. I don't know if I can even fathom it.

Yeah it would be gone, because natural law is derived from our reason which concludes that by rule man cannot do whatever is destructive to his life, for the obvious reasons. If humans go so does reason :/ I can fathom it, all you've got to do is look at history and the fluctuating worth givin to life and specific lives.

I believe Aristotle was the one who theorized a person with logic and rationality have natural standpoint on what is right or wrong. So unless somebody being left handed is somehow harmful to the other person well being, they would feel that it is 'wrong' to murder them. Perhaps out of *sympathy or other emotions.

*Empathy.

[sweboy]

Is there such thing as an unjust society? Moral relativism says no.

Obviously, since "unjust" is relative.

So you say no society can be unjust. Why care about slavery? Why care about the Holocaust?

Because in relation to my particular set of morals, I think those things are unjust. But if I would have had a different set of morals, my view would have been different. For example, ask a nazi what he thinks about the Holocaust, and he will have a different view than me because he has different morals than me.

[Africa]

So yeah this thread is pretty much covered.

[pedro durruti]

You know it's sad that we can never truly hypothesize upon our lives without morals, because they bleed from our very soul.

Think on a life devoid of religious morality. Natural law would be gone. Instinctual thought would overwhelm rational thought. Laws based on religion wouldn't exist. I don't know if I can even fathom it.
You said it yourself, humans are animals. Any species that survives is compassionate towards itself, overall. Otherwise, they'd be destroying themselves from the inside.

Religion wasn't conceived simultaneously with the dawn of humanity. So how did we survive then? Morality is based on emotion in practically every animal. And as humans, our emotion has the capability to be so much more intense.

[Africa]

We survived because we realized we needed our peers to hunt.

[Linkinbassist]

Two reasons:

a) We want to survive. Death =/= surviving, so killing is wrong...

b) Libertarian theorists emphasis individual freedoms and rights. this includes the right to life. since most countries operate on libertarian systems, this would make killing wrong...

[DBoons Ghost]

You said it yourself, humans are animals. Any species that survives is compassionate towards itself, overall. Otherwise, they'd be destroying themselves from the inside.

Religion wasn't conceived simultaneously with the dawn of humanity. So how did we survive then? Morality is based on emotion in practically every animal. And as humans, our emotion has the capability to be so much more intense.

Well, as far as recorded history goes, and mayhaps a glimpse into a civilization like Babylon, wherein Hammurabi established the first system of laws not biased by religion. They all still conquered just to do so. They killed just because they could, and enslaved those they captured, which leads us all to believe that even with laws in place that thriving civlization perished. At the height of it's existence, Babylon was the biggest city in the world, and it was conquered and destroyed without regard. That alone should tell you soon after (as this was all BC) religion mayhaps took a much more significant role as we entered AD and the Crusades brought religion in some capacity everywhere.

[HaVIC5]

umm why do they have human rights and who is in the power to grant them to everyone
God. End of that discussion there. :)

You're making a ridiculous strawman. Let me restate my take on the subject.

Morality is subjective: There is no absolute sense of right and wrong but what humans define as right and wrong.

Having taken that into account, does that mean I have no morality? Of course not. I have morals, and positions against slavery, Holocaust, I have a general opinion of what parameters can define a just society. The thing is, I have the knowledge that those positions I have are not based on objective laws or morality, but merely the norms and values instilled to me through the society in which I grew, the society which, by socialization, imposed its norms unto me. For example, I know that my disgust of murder, no matter how strong it is, has nothing to do with any objective laws of nature, and everything to do with my social context. Hence it is subjective.

It's not that hard to catch: an observer saying morality is subjective does not mean he can suddenly act counter to the morals he holds without guilt or strong feelings of disgust.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here. You say you have a set of morals, which you act upon, correct? You know what your morals are, more or less, and you are willing to act upon them, that is, to act upon your moral inclination not to kill, etc. However, like you have stated, you did not achieve these morals by way of natural law or rational deduction or any other means other than gut reactions instilled by social inference. In other words, you have absolutely no control over your morals, since they are simply social expectations, not morals derived from your reasoning, your will, or your concious.

How then can you make any explicit arguments against slavery to an individual who holds slaves? Or explicit arguments against a demagogue like Hitler? I see a wide gap in reasoning, because as you said, people are acting upon things defined as morally correct by their society, and therefore, their actions are just. When you compare your social morals (which really, to your line of thought they can be defined utterly arbitrarily) to those of these other societies where murder is sanctioned, then yes, they are wrong. But they aren't wrong in and of themselves, only when compared to your society. You can't make any rational clarification beyond this besides simply saying your society is better than another's, and therefore your morals are justified.

Basically, what I'm understanding you to be saying is that morality is a gut-based, emotional reaction servicing the general understandings of society, and theres nothing independently rational about it. How could you actually then argue against genocide in another country? I'm still not clear on this.

but i think

at least the way i see it

your question has been answered

The way I see it, though, I only see the answer to the question, "why is it wrong to kill a family member or a friend?" But I'll agree to say that the evolutionary instinct argument does have some degree of promise.

[HaVIC5]

Two reasons:

a) We want to survive. Death =/= surviving, so killing is wrong...

b) Libertarian theorists emphasis individual freedoms and rights. this includes the right to life. since most countries operate on libertarian systems, this would make killing wrong...
Where do we get the right to life? From our desire not to die?

Is it then incorrect to say that whatever is counter to our desires is immoral?

[Quagmire]

Morality is subjective: There is no absolute sense of right and wrong but what humans define as right and wrong.


Prove it. From a meta-ethical point of view there is no basis from which you can prove that your conclusion is anything more than your assumption.

[-1up!-]

Prove it. From a meta-ethical point of view there is no basis from which you can prove that your conclusion is anything more than your assumption.

The burden of rests on the opposite thesis. Saying morality is subjective implies there is no universal standpoint from which to judge the validity of a given moral code. In itself it does not provide a hypothesis which can be proven. I see it kind of like weak atheism Weak atheism doesn't positively say that there is no God: it says in the event that he exists, it might be impossible to prove his existence. Moral relativism stays relevant as long as there is no universal moral standpoint found from which to judge everything.

The opposite thesis, that moral objectivism exists, implies there is such a universal standpoint. I don't wanna break your bubble of meta-ethical skepticism but the burden of proof rests entirely upon the shoulders of proponents of this assumption. You have the nice job of finding that universal standpoint and proving it can hold true for all indidivuals. Good luck. :thumb:

[-1up!-]

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here. You say you have a set of morals, which you act upon, correct? You know what your morals are, more or less, and you are willing to act upon them, that is, to act upon your moral inclination not to kill, etc. However, like you have stated, you did not achieve these morals by way of natural law or rational deduction or any other means other than gut reactions instilled by social inference. In other words, you have absolutely no control over your morals, since they are simply social expectations, not morals derived from your reasoning, your will, or your concious.

No. I am willing to accept that instinct of survival plays a part in wanting to stay alive. The basis for murder to be "wrong", however, can easily be traced to a generally accepted ethic: don't do unto others things you don't want done against you. That ethic comes rather from rational deduction. What I said about morality was in response to your fallacious argument about moral relativism; it was targeted to morality as a whole. I see morals are primarily social norms and values. The repulsion we have against murder, however, is much more profound, more than social, and I would not include it in what we define as morality. I'd see repulsion against murder as a rationalized traduction of our survival instinct, or something like that; but not as derived from a sense of morals.

How then can you make any explicit arguments against slavery to an individual who holds slaves? Or explicit arguments against a demagogue like Hitler?
I'm not sure what you mean by explicit, but this is what I would say to someone who holds slaves: "you're infringing on their freedom, disrespecting their physical and moral integrity, forcing them to act against their will, treating them as commodities, you're an overall poopty person." Actually, what is really happening would be :
My socially instilled values of individual freedom, democracy, equality of treatment for all humans, etc. entering in discourse with an individual whose values enter directly in conflict with mine. Obviously I would try my hardest to make him see the wrong in his act, but implicitly all I'd be doing is trying to get this slave owner to adhere to my values. There is nothing objective or absolute about this conflict. Only conflicting values from different social contexts.

As much as I hate Hitler like all of you (save Wotan but w/e) I find nothing objectively wrong about his actions, because as I said I don't recognize objective morality. He just happened to have morals so severely in opposition with largely shared beliefs and morals that it is only natural for us to depict him with great disgust.

I see a wide gap in reasoning, because as you said, people are acting upon things defined as morally correct by their society, and therefore, their actions are just.
People believe their actions to be just. The notion of "just" is subjective to their morality, hence there's nothing helpful or remotely interesting in saying that people are usually in agreement with the actions they commit.

When you compare your social morals (which really, to your line of thought they can be defined utterly arbitrarily) to those of these other societies where murder is sanctioned, then yes, they are wrong. But they aren't wrong in and of themselves, only when compared to your society. You can't make any rational clarification beyond this besides simply saying your society is better than another's, and therefore your morals are justified.
I don't believe any society is better than another. They are just morally different in varying degrees.

Basically, what I'm understanding you to be saying is that morality is a gut-based, emotional reaction servicing the general understandings of society, and theres nothing independently rational about it. How could you actually then argue against genocide in another country? I'm still not clear on this.

You can't. Except just stating a disagreement because it obviously does not fit with your morals. I'm fiercely opposed to genocide, but all I see with this reaction I have is my subjective morals expressing their disgust towards a reality which hurts my values.

[Quagmire]

The burden of rests on the opposite thesis.


You put forward the premise, it's your burden to argue to support your position.


I see it kind of like weak atheism Weak atheism doesn't positively say that there is no God: it says in the event that he exists, it might be impossible to prove his existence. Moral relativism stays relevant as long as there is no universal moral standpoint found from which to judge everything.


So you are saying you have a weak belief in your assumptions because you lack evidence to prove your position.


The opposite thesis, that moral objectivism exists, implies there is such a universal standpoint. I don't wanna break your bubble of meta-ethical skepticism but the burden of proof rests entirely upon the shoulders of proponents of this assumption. You have the nice job of finding that universal standpoint and proving it can hold true for all indidivuals. Good luck. :thumb:

Weak conclusion. "I really don't know how to argue for what I believe, so I will put the burden of proof on the other side and let them figure it out." I never argued for moral objectivism, I simply wanted you to put forward an argument for why you believe morality is subjective. All you have said is that you can't prove it anymore than moral objectivism, so therefore you draw a weak conclusion and just don't really have an answer.

[RockAndRoll]

Obviously I would try my hardest to make him see the wrong in his act,
What wrong? His act can't be wrong if there is no such thing as right and wrong.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, under law murder is wrong because it has negative effects on society.


BUT, I don't think killing is wrong in some circumstances.

[Amit]

The way I see it, though, I only see the answer to the question, "why is it wrong to kill a family member or a friend?"

what?

[The_One]

Ending a human life is wrong because it takes away a persons right to live. With that said, killing is wrong because it ends a human life. End of story. If you don't agree with this, please seek counseling.

However, keep in mind that killing is necessary during times of war and in other emergency related situations, such as self-defense. Sometimes it can occur accidentally, for example, in a car accident due to unintentional driver error (not DUI). The people who committed manslaughter in each of these situations did not purposely intend to kill the other, so they cannot be held accountable, however, the act of ending another human's life itself, whether it be with a good or bad intent, is still wrong.

[Amit]

Ending a human life is wrong because it takes away a persons right to live. With that said, killing is wrong because it ends a human life. End of story. If you don't agree with this, please seek counseling.

i agree that killing is wrong

but why is it wrong

[The_One]

i agree that killing is wrong

but why is it wrong

It ends a human life.

I can't go deeper than that. Sorry.

[Amit]

why is ending a human life wrong

better yet

why is not ending a human life right

[Africa]

We've kind of already answered these questions earlier in the thread :/

[Smokey D]

You're making a ridiculous strawman. Let me restate my take on the subject.

Morality is subjective: There is no absolute sense of right and wrong but what humans define as right and wrong.

Having taken that into account, does that mean I have no morality? Of course not. I have morals, and positions against slavery, Holocaust, I have a general opinion of what parameters can define a just society. The thing is, I have the knowledge that those positions I have are not based on objective laws or morality, but merely the norms and values instilled to me through the society in which I grew, the society which, by socialization, imposed its norms unto me. For example, I know that my disgust of murder, no matter how strong it is, has nothing to do with any objective laws of nature, and everything to do with my social context. Hence it is subjective.

It's not that hard to catch: an observer saying morality is subjective does not mean he can suddenly act counter to the morals he holds without guilt or strong feelings of disgust.

I reject this view entirely. If you follow this logic to its conclusion, you come up with 'if you can persuade enough people to support an attrocity, it is morally justified'.

[PerpetualBurn]

I suppose the thing to do would be for someone to define the term "wrong".

Where's Euthyphro when you need him?

[Smokey D]

I think utilitarianism with a view to the long term is probably the best way of defining it.

This could be a good place to raise the question (originally posted by Tway): if it could be emphatically proven that the net result of human existence would be suffering, would it be moral to end all human existence?

[sweboy]

How then can you make any explicit arguments against slavery to an individual who holds slaves? Or explicit arguments against a demagogue like Hitler? I see a wide gap in reasoning, because as you said, people are acting upon things defined as morally correct by their society, and therefore, their actions are just. When you compare your social morals (which really, to your line of thought they can be defined utterly arbitrarily) to those of these other societies where murder is sanctioned, then yes, they are wrong. But they aren't wrong in and of themselves, only when compared to your society. You can't make any rational clarification beyond this besides simply saying your society is better than another's, and therefore your morals are justified.


I obviously think that my morals are the best, since my definition of "good" is based on my own morals. So I will protest and try to stop things that go against my morals, and I will think that people doing such things are bad/evil/idiots/whatever. Like you say, it's all from my point of view, but I think that everyone else is wrong so I will try to change them.

And correct, since there is no universal definition of "right" and "wrong", I can't justify why my morals are the best, I just think they are, and I condemn actions that go against them, i.e the Holocaust.

[angry armadillo]

nothing is right or wrong, there is no meaning to life so you whatever you do is your free choice.

the fact that laws are in place to stop you killing is obv irrelevant

i think if there were no laws in place and so on, people would kill each other from dislike (or perhaps enjoyment idk)

[PerpetualBurn]

I think utilitarianism with a view to the long term is probably the best way of defining it.

I don't see how that defines it at all.

We need to properly define the word "good" with respect to moral action.

This could be a good place to raise the question (originally posted by Tway): if it could be emphatically proven that the net result of human existence would be suffering, would it be moral to end all human existence?

Interesting, but I can't answer it since I don't know what "moral" is.

[Chameleon]

If at this point, everybody were to agree upon a standard definition of "right" and "wrong", perhaps it would be easier to use these words in arguments.

Morality doesn't really need defined, we all know that morals are entirely subjective, as evidenced by the diversity of the different moral codes found in different societies. Some people just don't want to acknowledge that right and wrong are also subjective.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except when using an already abstract concept and then saying it's subjective, it's pretty much saying it's nothing.

For all intents and purposes, morals don't exist. People just think they do. A better term for how people think and feel would be "principles" - actions they prefer or actions they dislike.

[Mr. Ron]

i agree that killing is wrong

but why is it wrong

The usual answer is that it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

[Chameleon]

Except when using an already abstract concept and then saying it's subjective, it's pretty much saying it's nothing.

For all intents and purposes, morals don't exist. People just think they do. A better term for how people think and feel would be "principles" - actions they prefer or actions they dislike.

Yeah, but soon enough, I imagine this discussion will get beyond "is killing wrong?" to "We know killing isn't objectively wrong, is it 'right' to impose your beliefs on other people?"

By the time it gets there, the word 'morality' will be quite important, as an subjective and abstract concept.

But hey, we might stay in this little loop forever, who knows?

[PerpetualBurn]

If it isn't objective wrong to kill it can't be objectively wrong to impose our beliefs on others. But this is all speaking morally. In a societal context we all know why we shouldn't kill.

It really would be pointless to pose any question about whether I'm morally right to stop people doing morally wrong things if we've established that those things don't actually exist.

[Amit]

The usual answer is that it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

not if you kill the mentally retarded and disturbed, criminals, and the homeless

[Mr. Ron]

not if you kill the mentally retarded and disturbed, criminals, and the homeless

Then that will give society the idea that we should kill anyone that we see as "unfit" or unworthy, and since that can snowball out of control you get the picture. My point remains in this situation.

[Amit]

well you're saying killing is wrong because society deems it to be a negative effect on itself

i smell contradiction

[Mr. Ron]

well you're saying killing is wrong because society deems it to be a negative effect on itself

i smell contradiction

No no you smell the muffins I just baked.



No so much that society deems it bad, but it's common sense that people killing other people out of the blue isn't good, since it would break into chaos and then civilization then falls apart shortly after.

[Varment]

it is wrong you pricks

[Akira]

it is wrong you pricks

Back your statements up or get out of this forum.

[Hababi]

but it's common sense

Whose common sense? Sounds like an appeal to the majority again :D

Ok I'm not quite as good at playing devil's advocate as Amit, but hey...


since it would break into chaos and then civilization then falls apart shortly after.

So?

PS Common sense, group morality and the concept of what is "fair" is all evidence of a Higher Power, as CS Lewis and Frances Collins so perfectly point out in their respective texts.

[-1up!-]

I reject this view entirely. If you follow this logic to its conclusion, you come up with 'if you can persuade enough people to support an attrocity, it is morally justified'.

Yep. But using "if you can persuade enough people to support an atrocity, it is morally justified" is awkward because it's a hypothetic possibility with near impossible chance to happen. And using unrealistic hypothetic possibilities to further a point is rather poor. People aren't easily inclined to support atrocities.

Of course you can come up with nazi Germany but the marginal character of the case and the almost unanimous way it was denounced right after it happened and still today helps my point rather than hinder it.

What wrong? His act can't be wrong if there is no such thing as right and wrong.

It was pretty obvious I was referring to subjective "wrong". Would I say that right and wrong don't objectively exist and then contradict myself right away?


You put forward the premise, it's your burden to argue to support your position.
Lacking some logic sense, are you? Moral relativism assumes there is no universal standpoint from which to judge morality. Since there hasn't been any groundbreaking news recently saying that such a universal standpoint exists, moral relativism is pretty much the default assumption to make.


So you are saying you have a weak belief in your assumptions because you lack evidence to prove your position.
Yes exactly. So? As far as I can tell you can't prove the non-existence of something, but you don't seem logical enough to grasp that.

Weak conclusion. "I really don't know how to argue for what I believe, so I will put the burden of proof on the other side and let them figure it out." I never argued for moral objectivism, I simply wanted you to put forward an argument for why you believe morality is subjective. All you have said is that you can't prove it anymore than moral objectivism, so therefore you draw a weak conclusion and just don't really have an answer.
I believe morality is subjective because nothing hints otherwise. It's pretty damned simple. Yes it's a weak belief, because it's out of absence of any other alternative explanation. I never claimed to have an answer to anything either, I'm stating my beliefs and never claimed to have access to objective truth, so kindly pull your head out of your behind, gain some logic sense and get off your high horse. :)

[Mr. Ron]

it is wrong you pricks

Killing isn't always wrong. It can be justified.

[lunchforthesky]

PS Common sense, group morality and the concept of what is "fair" is all evidence of a Higher Power, as CS Lewis and Frances Collins so perfectly point out in their respective texts.

Firstly common sense does not really exist as an actual sense, it is merely a phrase applied to carrying out acts of basic logic. As it is purely a human term it has nothing at all to do with god. What is fair does also not prove a higher power. Animals have a group morality in a way, for example monkeys excommunicated those from their midst who commit what they deem a bad act. Cavemen and very early men would have had common sense, dont attack a wooly mammoth unarmed and alone, but had no cncept of a higher power at least in an even remotely modern sense. Fairness and justice exists in any society that has ever existed even if they didn't stand up to any objective sense of fairness or justice.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

PS Common sense, group morality and the concept of what is "fair" is all evidence of a Higher Power, as CS Lewis and Frances Collins so perfectly point out in their respective texts.
no that is not "evidence" of a Higher Power.

and seriously why namedrop CS Lewis? It's not like he was a serious philosopher.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

why is ending a human life wrong

better yet

why is not ending a human life right
so we can live in our cities and buy slurpees and donuts and only slightly care about not getting killed
thats what i can see

[JohnXDoe]

killing is bad, k


/thread

EDIT: unless you have a good reason. which i can determine :)

[beso negro]

Killing is wrong because you feel like **** afterwards.

[spitfirejunky]

Humans killing other humans is usually unnecessary.

[RockAndRoll]

I obviously think that my morals are the best, since my definition of "good" is based on my own morals.
That's pretty dumb. If you're going to admit that morals are entirely subjective you should stop pretending that yours are good and other people's are bad. It just doesn't make any sense.

Morality doesn't really need defined, we all know that morals are entirely subjective, as evidenced by the diversity of the different moral codes found in different societies. Some people just don't want to acknowledge that right and wrong are also subjective.
Just because people have different views on something doesn't make it subjective, sometimes people are just wrong.

PS Common sense, group morality and the concept of what is "fair" is all evidence of a Higher Power, as CS Lewis and Frances Collins so perfectly point out in their respective texts.
No, no, it's not.


Yep. But using "if you can persuade enough people to support an atrocity, it is morally justified" is awkward because it's a hypothetic possibility with near impossible chance to happen. And using unrealistic hypothetic possibilities to further a point is rather poor. People aren't easily inclined to support atrocities.
You're clearly treating right and wrong as objective. Afterall what is an atrocity if not some horrendously evil act? How can something be an attrocity if something can't be objectively wrong?

It was pretty obvious I was referring to subjective "wrong". Would I say that right and wrong don't objectively exist and then contradict myself right away?
Tons of people contradict themselves, it never surprises me.

But even speaking of subjective wrong it's an absolutely ridiculous notion. If right and wrong are subjective and don't actually exist in any absolute sense then you're trying to convince someone that something is wrong is absolutely silly. If you think that morals are subjective then you should give them up. Because it's nonsensical to go around saying 'well nothing is right or wrong really, but I think this is wrong.'

I think people should either embrace the idea of absolute morals or write them off as a figment of our imagination, none of this wishy-washy subjective stuff.

[Smokey D]

Yep. But using "if you can persuade enough people to support an atrocity, it is morally justified" is awkward because it's a hypothetic possibility with near impossible chance to happen. And using unrealistic hypothetic possibilities to further a point is rather poor. People aren't easily inclined to support atrocities.

It's easy enough, if you have sufficient resources at your disposal. Slavery was well supported by millions of Europeans, as was the anihilation of the native American population, the centuries of oppression of Jews and Romani, the Crusades, the fighting between Catholics and Protestants. These are not 'unreaslistic hypotheticals'; they are history.

Of course you can come up with nazi Germany but the marginal character of the case and the almost unanimous way it was denounced right after it happened and still today helps my point rather than hinder it.

There's not much marginal about the oppression of Europe's Jewish population, not to mention the Holocaust.

[HaVIC5]

I obviously think that my morals are the best, since my definition of "good" is based on my own morals. So I will protest and try to stop things that go against my morals, and I will think that people doing such things are bad/evil/idiots/whatever. Like you say, it's all from my point of view, but I think that everyone else is wrong so I will try to change them.

And correct, since there is no universal definition of "right" and "wrong", I can't justify why my morals are the best, I just think they are, and I condemn actions that go against them, i.e the Holocaust.
How would this be different than saying since you like the color blue, others should favor it as well?

[HaVIC5]

Lacking some logic sense, are you? Moral relativism assumes there is no universal standpoint from which to judge morality. Since there hasn't been any groundbreaking news recently saying that such a universal standpoint exists, moral relativism is pretty much the default assumption to make.

You basically just said, "There isn't a field of ethics beyond moral relativism, so moral relativism must be true". This is absurd. You haven't actually put forth any arguments for moral relativism beyond defining it, begging the question, whereas there have been four hundred years of arguments and justifications for natural law and moral arbitration. While there are still plenty of flaws in alternatives, its taking the cheap and easy (and what can be seen as dangerously flawed) way out. Its like saying "Evolution doesn't exist, therefore the only alternative theory, Intelligent Design, must be true", ignoring any and all progress in the field of biological evolution.

[Apollyon]

Killing is wrong because you feel like **** afterwards.

Not always, no.

[Quagmire]

Lacking some logic sense, are you? Moral relativism assumes there is no universal standpoint from which to judge morality. Since there hasn't been any groundbreaking news recently saying that such a universal standpoint exists, moral relativism is pretty much the default assumption to make.


Certainly some people believe that there does exist a universal standpoint, and are willing to provide evidence for why they believe their claims are true. Your position is so weak, you can't even put forward a reason why someone should believe morality is subjective, because it's all subjective man, and it's the default assumption to make.


Yes exactly. So? As far as I can tell you can't prove the non-existence of something, but you don't seem logical enough to grasp that.


Than why not believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? There is no proof for the non-existence of something.



Yes it's a weak belief, because it's out of absence of any other alternative explanation.

There are plenty of alternative explanations. You just put your faith in what appears to be the easiest way out.

[:amaze:]

Certainly some people believe that there does exist a universal standpoint, and are willing to provide evidence for why they believe their claims are true. Your position is so weak, you can't even put forward a reason why someone should believe morality is subjective, because it's all subjective man, and it's the default assumption to make.



Than why not believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? There is no proof for the non-existence of something.




There are plenty of alternative explanations. You just put your faith in what appears to be the easiest way out.

1. then put forth an argument as to why someone should believe in absolute moralism.


2. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are characters that the creators have admitted to being made up. Meaning, the people who told you they were real, are the ones to say they are made up. The only way to equate this to the moral issue is if the creator of absolute morals (God) told you they were not real.


3. Why do you assume he's taking the easy way out? Maybe it's just the way he feels is most likely true?




:amaze:

[Varment]

Killing isn't always wrong. It can be justified.

oh yes I see where your coming from I'd say its only right to kill in self defense, Murder however is wrong I cbf to back this statementbu I know deep down you all know it is unless your mentally ill or something

[sweboy]

That's pretty dumb. If you're going to admit that morals are entirely subjective you should stop pretending that yours are good and other people's are bad. It just doesn't make any sense.


Read harder. I think, that is - from my point of view - that my morals are the best, since my definition of "good" is based on my morals. From an objective view though, my morals are not better than anyone elses, since there is no universal definition of good/bad that you can compare to.

How would this be different than saying since you like the color blue, others should favor it as well?

It depends on if you like blue for moral reasons, or other reasons (i.e aesthetic). If you think that blue is the color of an ancient evil monster involved in activities that go against your morals and you therefore think that blue is extremely unmoral, then yes, you will morally condemn people for wearing blue clothes, and you will try to stop it. But if you like/dislike it for aesthetic or personal or whatever reasons, it's not the same thing. For example, the reason that Mothers Against Noise protest against noise music is not musical taste, but because they think that listening to it will lead to activites/views that go against their morals.

But anyhow, I can't see how moral absolutism can even be considered from a non-religous view. I mean... wtf in every way, I don't get it.

[-1up!-]

You basically just said, "There isn't a field of ethics beyond moral relativism, so moral relativism must be true". This is absurd. You haven't actually put forth any arguments for moral relativism beyond defining it, begging the question, whereas there have been four hundred years of arguments and justifications for natural law and moral arbitration. While there are still plenty of flaws in alternatives, its taking the cheap and easy (and what can be seen as dangerously flawed) way out. Its like saying "Evolution doesn't exist, therefore the only alternative theory, Intelligent Design, must be true", ignoring any and all progress in the field of biological evolution.

Ethics (from the Ancient Greek "ethikos", meaning "arising from habit"), a major branch of philosophy, is the study of value or quality. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right, wrong, good, evil, and responsibility. It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics), normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values), and applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).

There are two main strands of thought attempting to explain what ethical values and claims are actually about.

One strand are commonly termed 'non-realist', because they suggest moral values are creations, dependent on people's feelings and goals regarding themselves and others (emotivism or prescriptivism) or on their belief systems (cultural or individual relativism). Despite the name 'non-realist', such theories may see reality as important in shaping the human choice of ethical values (indirectly by, for example, the evolutionary or developmental shaping of human psychology, or directly through, for example, people assessing and debating the likely consequences of their actions).

Another group of 'realist' theories, by contrast, hold that moral value is somehow an intrinsic property of the world and that ethical principles are discovered or intuited. In this view, the ethical values held by people can at best reflect an independent Truth, by which their validity must be judged. These theories may be derived from theology or naturalism.

Please end your bullshit about me ignoring ethics. You can clearly see I'm in the non-realist school described above. Ethics is the study of morals and values, it is not dedicated solely to define what are good and bad values (those are normative ethics)

And what a shitty analogy with evolution and ID. Unlike two theories about the genesis of the world, objective and subjective are both mutually exclusive concepts. If something is not objective, it is undeniably subjective. The beauty of those concepts is, it's one or the other. There is no in-between. Since I'm aware of no generally accepted universal standpoint from which to judge morality, I have no choice but to assume it is subjective. ****, is it that hard to catch?

EDIT: lol poopty. I love the swear filter.

[HaVIC5]

It depends on if you like blue for moral reasons, or other reasons (i.e aesthetic). If you think that blue is the color of an ancient evil monster involved in activities that go against your morals and you therefore think that blue is extremely unmoral, then yes, you will morally condemn people for wearing blue clothes, and you will try to stop it. But if you like/dislike it for aesthetic or personal or whatever reasons, it's not the same thing. For example, the reason that Mothers Against Noise protest against noise music is not musical taste, but because they think that listening to it will lead to activites/views that go against their morals.

So if I say, blue is my favorite color because I believe it to be wrong not to favor blue, then its OK to impose my belief on others?

Since I'm aware of no generally accepted universal standpoint from which to judge morality, I have no choice but to assume it is subjective. ****, is it that hard to catch?

I understand that you've given your reason why you personally believe there are only subjective morals. Really, I understand that fully. You reject moral absolutism because you aren't convinced that there is any basis for natural law, etc. But that isn't an argument for moral relativism, the same way rejecting objective truth isn't an argument for nihilism.

[sweboy]

So if I say, blue is my favorite color because I believe it to be wrong not to favor blue, then its OK to impose my belief on others?

Again, you must define "OK" (or "good") before you can say that something is OK. With my personal set of morals; my personal definition of OK, which says that blue is not immoral, I will not think that it is OK to for example punish people for wearing blue clothes. But you, who think that blue is very wrong because of moral reasons, will think that it's OK.

[The Digital Pimp]

Okay, then we'll go with a general consensus. That's pretty much how it's been amirite amirite??

[RockAndRoll]

Read harder. I think, that is - from my point of view - that my morals are the best, since my definition of "good" is based on my morals. From an objective view though, my morals are not better than anyone elses, since there is no universal definition of good/bad that you can compare to.

I read what you wrote perfectly fine.

You're still not making any sense though look:

This:
I think, that is - from my point of view - that my morals are the best
is what you think, but so is this:
my morals are not better than anyone elses
Now, I know, I know 'that's not my point of view.' Well yes actually it is. As much as you may pretend to be able to be objective you can only spew out what you think, and so prefacing something with 'the objective truth is' doesn't change the fact that you think it. Those are your thoughts nobody elses and no 'from an objective view point' wording will change that.

You think that your morals are the best and you also acknowledge that they are not actually better than anyone elses, this simply doesn't make sense.

[RockAndRoll]

Since I'm aware of no generally accepted universal standpoint from which to judge morality, I have no choice but to assume it is subjective.

I also highly doubt you're aware of anything to suggest that Morality, good and bad are anything other than things we made up. So following your own logic you should be forced to assume that these things don't actually even exist. Yet you hold on to your values, right and wrong good and bad as you have shown in your previous posts. That is absurd.

If you have deemed something not to exist (as by your logic you should have deemed right and wrong) then it is stupid to believe that something is that non-existant thing.



Hmm, I wonder if anyone here would like to take a shot at definining right and wrong. I think it might be an interesting experiment.

[sweboy]

I read what you wrote perfectly fine.

You're still not making any sense though look:

This:

is what you think, but so is this:

Now, I know, I know 'that's not my point of view.' Well yes actually it is. As much as you may pretend to be able to be objective you can only spew out what you think, and so prefacing something with 'the objective truth is' doesn't change the fact that you think it. Those are your thoughts nobody elses and no 'from an objective view point' wording will change that.

You think that your morals are the best and you also acknowledge that they are not actually better than anyone elses, this simply doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, I don't understand what you mean? Let's say for example that I like the Rolling Stones but I think the Beatles suck. That is, from my point of view, the Rolling Stones are good but the Beatles are bad. But I'm still able to realize that there is no universal definition of what music is "good" or "bad" because it's all up to personal taste, so I realize that my view is not more correct than any other view.

I also highly doubt you're aware of anything to suggest that Morality, good and bad are anything other than things we made up. So following your own logic you should be forced to assume that these things don't actually even exist. Yet you hold on to your values, right and wrong good and bad as you have shown in your previous posts. That is absurd.

We hold on to our values because we've been so meticulously brainwashed to have those values. And besides, it's natural for humans to have morals, it's in our biological attributes because of our evolutionary history. And yes, some sets of morals are more common among humans since we all have the same biological attributes (just like how it's more common to enjoy the Rolling Stones than grindcore), but it's not like a universal truth about the universe is defined by the particular path that the evolution of a single species on a single little planet happened to take.

[-1up!-]

I also highly doubt you're aware of anything to suggest that Morality, good and bad are anything other than things we made up. So following your own logic you should be forced to assume that these things don't actually even exist. Yet you hold on to your values, right and wrong good and bad as you have shown in your previous posts. That is absurd.

If you have deemed something not to exist (as by your logic you should have deemed right and wrong) then it is stupid to believe that something is that non-existant thing.

Wow what faulty conclusions.

Morality, good and bad are things which transcend the individual. They are undeniably social and can't be explained by studying the individual in itself. Taking my argument as saying "we made them up" is just totally misunderstanding the basics of how society integrates individuals following a given matrix of norms and values: socialization.

Morals are abstract and subjective. You make the intellectual shortcut (and a ridiculous one, actually) of interpreting it as if I'm saying they don't exist. It's not because morals are subjective that they suddenly lose all their power and you can magically detach them from your behavior and comprehension.

The State is an abstract and subjective concept. Does that mean the State doesn't exist? :rolleyes:

[Iskandar]

The categorical imperative seems to provide a strong indication that killing is wrong, at least if our goal is to preserve the human race.

I don't really believe this, since obviously exceptions should be made at times, but I thought I had a good talking point.

[NeverFading14]

Simple question. Its a basic conviction of ours, but theres hardly an easy answer.

Why is killing wrong?

Because you touch yourself at night

[HaVIC5]

Again, you must define "OK" (or "good") before you can say that something is OK. With my personal set of morals; my personal definition of OK, which says that blue is not immoral, I will not think that it is OK to for example punish people for wearing blue clothes. But you, who think that blue is very wrong because of moral reasons, will think that it's OK.

OK meaning morally acceptable. If it is morally acceptable to subject others to your moral judgements, like ending genocide, then it would be morally acceptable to impose the ethical belief that blue should be everyone's favorite color. If you accept this, that's fine by me, but I just want to make sure you accept it, because that's the logical outcome of the argument.

To be fair, I'm actually one who tends to lean towards moral relativism. I just find it hard to swallow, and play devils advocate in hopes that people like 1up who have well-formed opinions can come up with convincing arguments for accepting it.

[-1up!-]

My opinion may be well-formed in appearance, but actually it is a weak conclusion that leads me to adopt moral relativism. In a purely logical form, with premisces leading to a conclusion, this is what I'd be saying:

1. Morality is either objective or subjective. (Given they are mutually exclusive concepts, something not being objective makes it undeniably subjective)
2. Nothing clearly points to an objective standground for morality.

3. (Conclusion) Morality is subjective.

I believe morals are not subjective because there is something which positively points that they are so, but rather because of the lack of any objective standground for it. Hence without any proof for such standground, I can only logically deduce that morality is subjective.

RockAndRoll deformed what I'm saying as if I stated morals we simply "made up". That is oversimplifying it, and just bluntly not knowing what I'm exactly saying. My explanation for morals is that they collectively "came to be" given certain needs or through dominant institutions in given social contexts. I actually see morals the very same way sociology defines norms.

[Rabbi]

Are you killing them because you don't like the person, or are you mentally ill, or ist it in self-defense. Murder has many different dynamics and therefore there are many different punishments. It's not wrong, if you are doing it in self-defense, because thats instinct. And if your mentally ill, then the question is do you know right from wrong. But if it is other than that, I'd have to say that murder is not acceptable, and I think it goes without explaination that you simply can't go around stabbing your enimies.

[AmericanWeiner]

Why does it matter if a killer knows right from wrong?

[RockAndRoll]

It makes perfect sense, I don't understand what you mean? Let's say for example that I like the Rolling Stones but I think the Beatles suck. That is, from my point of view, the Rolling Stones are good but the Beatles are bad. But I'm still able to realize that there is no universal definition of what music is "good" or "bad" because it's all up to personal taste, so I realize that my view is not more correct than any other view.
You don't also think that your musical tastes are better than other people's though do you?

Let me ask you another question, do you think your morality, right and wrong, are really just things that you like or dislike in particular ways? If not then what are they?


We hold on to our values because we've been so meticulously brainwashed to have those values. And besides, it's natural for humans to have morals, it's in our biological attributes because of our evolutionary history. And yes, some sets of morals are more common among humans since we all have the same biological attributes (just like how it's more common to enjoy the Rolling Stones than grindcore), but it's not like a universal truth about the universe is defined by the particular path that the evolution of a single species on a single little planet happened to take.
You raised some good points, but none that I think really oppose anything that I've been saying.

Wow what faulty conclusions.

Morality, good and bad are things which transcend the individual. They are undeniably social and can't be explained by studying the individual in itself. Taking my argument as saying "we made them up" is just totally misunderstanding the basics of how society integrates individuals following a given matrix of norms and values: socialization.

Morals are abstract and subjective. You make the intellectual shortcut (and a ridiculous one, actually) of interpreting it as if I'm saying they don't exist. It's not because morals are subjective that they suddenly lose all their power and you can magically detach them from your behavior and comprehension.


The State is an abstract and subjective concept. Does that mean the State doesn't exist?
Are you suggesting we didn't make right and wrong up? Because that really doesn't make any sense given your other views. Either we made them up, or they exist seperate from us. But If they exist seperate from us then they'd be objective, not subjective.

[poo-poo-pee-pee]

Would you like me to kill you?
Nope, didn't think so.
That's why!

[RNR]

Would you like me to kill you?
Nope, didn't think so.
That's why!

As stupid that sounds it's pretty true. Murder has to the seen as "wrong" if we don't want to be murdered.

[-1up!-]

Are you suggesting we didn't make right and wrong up? Because that really doesn't make any sense given your other views. Either we made them up, or they exist seperate from us. But If they exist seperate from us then they'd be objective, not subjective.

This is getting tiring.

They exist separate from individuals, but they emanate from societies.

[UpperDecker]

Killing is wrong because you know its wrong. The only time killing is right is when another person/animal/thing is trying to kill you/family member/friend.

[Amit]

wait how do you know it's wrong

[RockAndRoll]

This is getting tiring.

They exist separate from individuals, but they emanate from societies.

But we made them up....

[Iskandar]

wait how do you know it's wrong
Most human societies have decided it is negative to kill their own members based on experience, and since the vast majority believes this it coerces those few who might want to kill to abstain. Sometimes they do it anyway.

[Amit]

but that doesn't make it wrong

As stupid that sounds it's pretty true. Murder has to the seen as "wrong" if we don't want to be murdered.

what about sex with dumb bitches

i don't want to have sex with dumb bitches but i don't think it's wrong either

[Iskandar]

but that doesn't make it wrong
In the absence of a omnipotent being to define an objective and permanent code of morality for all mankind, nothing is wrong. It depends on the dominant culture.

[Smokey D]

So just so we're clear, this logic means there has never been a real attrocity because the dominant culture always supports them.

[PerpetualBurn]

Appeal to emotion.

Now there's a fallacy we don't see often enough.

[HaVIC5]

Appeal to emotion.

Now there's a fallacy we don't see often enough.
Appeal to obvious conclusions. Which is something we actually don't see often enough.

The nature of moral relativism in the "Might is Right" sense that the Dropper advocates is that morals aren't based upon logical reasoning but rather commitments to social values and norms - the social values and norms of the dominant culture. Really, what else can you appeal to but emotion when there is no logical argument for moral stances given?

Granted, I realize that moral relativism isn't devoid of logic and reasoning. You can reduce moral stances about killing to things like "killing is wrong because it harms the individual" or "killing is wrong because it causes harm to society", and then, assuming for the sake of argument that harming the individual/society is wrong, you can present arguments for and against the case that killing causes these harms, when in fact one might hold the moral position that harming the individual isn't wrong at all. This sort of thing that I could possibily agree with (my previous arguments in this thread were largely arguments for the sake of argument).

What I can't agree with, however, is the notion that this normative analysis is moot when the dominant culture says it is. Even if there are no objective moral truths, there might be objective logical truth, and thats something which needs to be upheld.

[-1up!-]

So just so we're clear, this logic means there has never been a real attrocity because the dominant culture always supports them.

From my point of view, indeed I would say there has never been a real atrocity. I can't grasp how you can believe there is something such as a "real" atrocity when the notion of atrocity itself is subjective on the observer's stance.

Real atrocity, as you probably mean it, implies objective right and wrong, and you know what I think of those :smoke:

You could start by defining what you mean by "atrocity".

[Iskandar]

So just so we're clear, this logic means there has never been a real attrocity because the dominant culture always supports them.
Except the dominant culture doesn'talways support them. It's often a minority, say of political leaders.

[RockAndRoll]

What the dominant culture thinks seems rather irrelevant to me. I fail to see its importance. What does it matter, ultimately, if more or less people deem something as 'wrong'?

[Iskandar]

What the dominant culture thinks seems rather irrelevant to me. I fail to see its importance. What does it matter, ultimately, if more or less people deem something as 'wrong'?
Most people agree with the dominant culture. That's why it's dominant.

[Rabbi]

Why does it matter if a killer knows right from wrong?

because that determines whether the verdict is insanity.

[RockAndRoll]

Most people agree with the dominant culture. That's why it's dominant.
Yes, and what does it matter what most people think?

What I'm saying is:
Why are you even arguing with Smokey over what you are? Why does it matter whether a majority or a minority of people support something?

[The Digital Pimp]

Yes, and what does it matter what most people think?

Because what most people think defines what's right and wrong.

Next!

[Amit]

but that's how you have war and genocide and mob justice

back to square one with you

[PerpetualBurn]

Do not pass Go! Do not collect £200.

[AmericanWeiner]

but that's how you have war and genocide and mob justice

back to square one with you

Those things still seem morally correct at the time if they ever do.

In retrospect, the majority opinion changes and the way we view those events changes

[Smokey D]

From my point of view, indeed I would say there has never been a real atrocity. I can't grasp how you can believe there is something such as a "real" atrocity when the notion of atrocity itself is subjective on the observer's stance.

Essentially, I mean that we are not in a position to condemn the actions of a civilisation, only marvel and comment on its quircks and eccentricities.


You could start by defining what you mean by "atrocity".

Er, it's a pretty standard term. It doesn't have that much ambiguity.

Except the dominant culture doesn'talways support them. It's often a minority, say of political leaders.

Political control is a pretty big part of dominance. Anyways, prior to the 20th century, most things we would call attrocities were supported by the majority -- Jewish pogroms, slavery, intra Christian violence etc.

[RockAndRoll]

Because what most people think defines what's right and wrong.

Next!

0/1

but lets have some fun anyways. What does it matter if the definition of the words change? Or are you suggesting that some inherent aspect of nature actually changes?

[Cher Shimjer]

I don't think he's typing about words.

[-1up!-]

Essentially, I mean that we are not in a position to condemn the actions of a civilisation, only marvel and comment on its quircks and eccentricities.

Given that you condemn those actions according to precise values and criteria, you're wrong.


Er, it's a pretty standard term. It doesn't have that much ambiguity.

It's very ambiguous. An atrocity has no precise, generally acknoweldged criteria or characteristics. There's something deliciously ironic about you criticizing moral relativism but freely using a vague and subjective term such as "atrocity".[/QUOTE]

[HaVIC5]

It's very ambiguous. An atrocity has no precise, generally acknoweldged criteria or characteristics.

Really, atrocity isn't that ambiguous. It in its literal sense (and that defined in international law) means a systematic and typically brutal killing typically organized by a state body against a particular group of people.

[bigtimerockboy]

Because it is the ultimate misuse of and imposition of free will on another, that is if you are a believer in natural law, or spiritual. If you are atheist then chances are you'll come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the killing of say, an undeveloped and unaware baby, is any more wrong than the killing of an animal.

well i'm an atheist and i don't agree with that at all.
that's sayding that moral/ethical standards are strictly the province of religionists; that atheists are morally bankrupt automatons, which is clearly not
the case or atheists would top the lists of murderers in prisons and soldiers in
combat (they kill people for a living you know, that's what all the training's about).

i don't need to subscribe to a theism to have a moral code strapped on to me.
it's partly because i DO have one that i don't accept the notion of god and
organised religion.

if anything life is MORE precious to me because from what i've seen and experienced of life and death around me once you die you cease to be.
no afterlife, no reincarnation. this is all you get. and precious a gift it is too!!

that leads to a belief that life is MORE precious not LESS so, so the taking of
it, more so someone else's, is abhorrent.

[PerpetualBurn]

No one's saying that atheists don't think they have morals.

But logically speaking, they can't.

[Electronic Wolf]

I have morals.

[bigtimerockboy]

No one's saying that atheists don't think they have morals.

But logically speaking, they can't.

doesn't that statement strike you as just a tiny bit patronising (as well as
completely wrong)?

religion doesn't have a mortgage on those quailities.
because someone else doesn't write down pronouncements in some form
of dogma and administer it via nominated representatives we can't determine
these things for ourselves???

there's no logic at all in what you say, only a bias toward your religion (referring
to athiests as they illustrates that you're not one of us), and of course a
bias against atheism that your belief system requires.

[PerpetualBurn]

Jesus Sodding Christ why don't you actually do some reading before you start making a complete and utter pillock of yourself?

No God means no categorical definition of good or bad.
No good or bad means no morality.
No morality means you can't have morals.

Your accusing me of being religious means you haven't read anything in this thread or forum.

I'm possibly the most firm atheist in the history of the world.

I just like actually following the logical pathway that that leads my life down rather than just assuming that issues like ethics will remain the same and that I have to take no logical approach to it.

You assume that killing is immoral despite having never thought about your belief critically. And that makes me not respect anything you have to say in this forum.

[the_green_bastard]

All morals are relative, yes, but as humans and thus social creatures, we are wired to be emotional and compassionate beings and look out for the safety of each other so that our "tribe" may succeed in the battlefield of nature. Functionality aside, but not altogether independent of the previous point, most people think that to kill someone is simply wrong. That's certainly what I think.

No one's saying that atheists don't think they have morals.

But logically speaking, they can't.

Yes they can. You cannot assert that all morals are derived from God. Arguably, religiously-based morals are absolutely insincere and wrong-headed, because they are brought about by fear of a divine being rather than a genuine desire to look after the interests of others. It's part of our genes. We are emotional creatures - it's how we bond with one another and work together. Quite similar to wolves and macaques.

[PerpetualBurn]

All morals are relative, yes, but as humans and thus social creatures, we are wired to be emotional and compassionate beings and look out for the safety of each other so that our "tribe" may succeed in the battlefield of nature. Functionality aside, but not altogether independent of the previous point, most people think that to kill someone is simply wrong. That's certainly what I think.


I don't care if most people think it's wrong. I'm actually stunned that someone would think that relevant.


Yes they can. You cannot assert that all morals are derived from God. Arguably, religiously-based morals are absolutely insincere and wrong-headed, because they are brought about by fear of a divine being rather than a genuine desire to look after the interests of others. It's part of our genes. We are emotional creatures - it's how we bond with one another and work together. Quite similar to wolves and macaques.

Without God, morality has no definition. It isn't real. It's a theoretical concept and nothing more.

Just because we have social preferences, doesn't mean that morals are real.

[Chrysostom]

It's wrong...because of the...existence of religious morals...

Agreed, but is it entirely religion-based? I would argue not.

[OnDesolationRow]

I have morals.

I declare this guy the winner.

[PerpetualBurn]

There are rational reasons for why a society would ban killing and, further more, why a species would have feelings which make them not want to kill.

There may even be, and I think there is, an in-built sense that guides us to what aids the propagation of the species. But to argue that this is some objective "good" is quite a poor approach to logic.

[Sucka MC]

empathy

[OnDesolationRow]

empathy

Deep, man. Deep.

[bigtimerockboy]

Jesus Sodding Christ why don't you actually do some reading before you start making a complete and utter pillock of yourself?

No God means no categorical definition of good or bad.
No good or bad means no morality.
No morality means you can't have morals.

Your accusing me of being religious means you haven't read anything in this thread or forum.

I'm possibly the most firm atheist in the history of the world.

I just like actually following the logical pathway that that leads my life down rather than just assuming that issues like ethics will remain the same and that I have to take no logical approach to it.

You assume that killing is immoral despite having never thought about your belief critically. And that makes me not respect anything you have to say in this forum.

what a steaming pile of utter BULLSHIT!!!!

i responded to the post you put up. you reckon i'm going to read every
single post just to keep you happy????

if you don't want comeback don't make the statement you did.

you refer to atheists as THEY. that implies YOU'RE NOT ONE!!! perfectly
logical assumption. though your kind of logic doesn't seem to be the same
as everyone elses.

you asserted that atheists have no CAPABILITY to have morals, not that they
exercise a CHOICE one way or the other.
you assume that i've ' never thought about my belief critically.' a little
presumtuous don't you think? you don't know jack **** about what i've
thought about or otherwise but you pompously pronounce all about my
history.

whether you respect what i post: couldn't give a flying ****. i don't respect
yours either. you post like an arrogant ignoramus. condescending to lay your 'pearls' of wisdom on us . spare me FFS.


No God means no categorical definition of good or bad.
No good or bad means no morality.
No morality means you can't have morals.
what 'bullshitman' comic did you get that line of crap from ??????

i'll yell it out for you: NO GOD MEANS ........ NO GOD; PERIOD!
the rest of your fairytale is pure concoction.
believing in god is believing in a deity.
the religion surrounding the deity is a proscribed set of behaviour codes
written by...........PEOPLE
now when they were writing these codes did they suddenly go from a state
of having NO morals to HAVING morals???????? of course not.

your argument is bollocks with the logic only a stoned klingon could get.

Jesus Sodding Christ why don't you actually do some reading before you start making a complete and utter pillock of yourself?
the foundation of any LOGICAL argument is an opening statement such as
this.:thumb:

[OnDesolationRow]

I've vomited better responses than that.

A lack of a God, or any supra-universal being, means there can be no objective basis for our morality - objective morality is enacted on the basis it is determined by a force which controls our reality and therefore can impose judgements on it objectively. Without that, there is no objective structure to replace it. Morality becomes subjective. Therefore any morality is undermined by it being no better than any other, contradictory judgement. So you can't logically defend an objective morality without a deity.

[Sucka MC]

jesu calm down rockboy

[PerpetualBurn]

your argument is bollocks with the logic only a stoned klingon could get.

Lol.

You don't understand ethics and logic so you went nerd on me.

[bigtimerockboy]

Lol.

You don't understand ethics and logic so you went nerd on me.

i understand it very well. far better than you i can see.
i did all that typing and your counter argument is a nerd joke.

i rest my case.

a brief rejoinder (and a pathetic one) = pwned!

face it mate, you're as much of an atheist as billy graham.

oh btw mastermind: does it not occur to you that morals ARE thoughts?
that means your post i responded to (which was in response to one of mine) was stating the same thing twice and saying one wasn't the other.

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaha

[Sucka MC]

rockboy calm down man

[the_green_bastard]

Father Jack kicks so much ***. :chug:

I don't care if most people think it's wrong. I'm actually stunned that someone would think that relevant.




Without God, morality has no definition. It isn't real. It's a theoretical concept and nothing more.

Just because we have social preferences, doesn't mean that morals are real.

Why, then, do atheists still believe in morality? It's very simple-minded to assert that all morality is derived from a simple fear of punishment. I'm absolutely offended. Atheists, like most people out there, believe in their concept of "good." They are compassionate. They would not lie, cheat, steal, or kill. It's a genetic concept; a survival mechanism. That was my point. That's why we busy ourselves with morals which, in the grand scheme of things, are simply abstract concepts. But I still believe in it. It's what I am. And I don't think you would run up and break the shins of the old woman crossing the road for her purse either.

[OnDesolationRow]

face it mate, you're as much of an atheist as billy graham.

Yeah, I'm sure he's only pretending to not believe in a deity.

green_bastard, that's the point. You do these things because they are culturally, socially and emotionally beneficial. Not because they are morally "right" or "good". To assert that would be to claim that that which aids the social involvement and emotional stability of a person is somehow intrinsically better than the converse, which you'd find very difficult to logically demonstrate.

[bigtimerockboy]

I've vomited better responses than that.

A lack of a God, or any supra-universal being, means there can be no objective basis for our morality - objective morality is enacted on the basis it is determined by a force which controls our reality and therefore can impose judgements on it objectively. Without that, there is no objective structure to replace it. Morality becomes subjective. Therefore any morality is undermined by it being no better than any other, contradictory judgement. So you can't logically defend an objective morality without a deity.


mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
yeah right.
believing in a fictional character is an 'objective' basis.
if there ain't a god there can be NO objective basis for our morality.

mind explaining where you get your PROOF from for that one?

"objective morality is enacted on the basis it is determined by a force which controls our reality and therefore can impose judgements on it objectively."
errrrrrrr doooooood .... imposing JUDGMENTS is SUBJECTIVE by nature.

"Without that, there is no objective structure to replace it" - no problem
replacing it 'cause it's bullshit and never existed in the first place... prove
me wrong!

"Morality becomes subjective. Therefore any morality is undermined by it being no better than any other, contradictory judgement. So you can't logically defend an objective morality without a deity."

i don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one.
cry: that someone has to nebulous a grip on reality that they think saying
'morality becomes subjective' magically makes it so in a cloud of fairy bubbles.... prove it!!!
laugh: because it is so funny the way the para follows its spidery little path
of non-logic to the conclusion that there must be a god.

god you're funny (pun intended)

[PerpetualBurn]

It's a genetic concept; a survival mechanism. That was my point. That's why we busy ourselves with morals which, in the grand scheme of things, are simply abstract concepts. But I still believe in it. It's what I am. And I don't think you would run up and break the shins of the old woman crossing the road either.I like the theory that genetics provide universal definitions for morality.

Of course I think that it's completely stupid and I don't really understand how anyone could actually think that it's right, but I like it.

Essentially, what you're saying is that because I don't enjoy kneecapping old women (which I do enjoy, I enjoy it a lot) that it must be universally morally good. And that's bollocks.

[PerpetualBurn]

i understand it very well. far better than you i can see.
i did all that typing and your counter argument is a nerd joke.

i rest my case.

a brief rejoinder (and a pathetic one) = pwned!

face it mate, you're as much of an atheist as billy graham.

oh btw mastermind: does it not occur to you that morals ARE thoughts?
that means your post i responded to (which was in response to one of mine) was stating the same thing twice and saying one wasn't the other.

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaha

What?

You didn't actually refute what I said so I pointed out what a moron you must be.

Define good as a universal concept and I'll concede.

[the_green_bastard]

Yeah, I'm sure he's only pretending to not believe in a deity.

green_bastard, that's the point. You do these things because they are culturally, socially and emotionally beneficial. Not because they are morally "right" or "good". To assert that would be to claim that that which aids the social involvement and emotional stability of a person is somehow intrinsically better than the converse, which you'd find very difficult to logically demonstrate.

That is the point. It's genetically-based and thus emotionally beneficial to us. That's my bias in believing in morals. Exactly.

...What, then, are you trying to say, exactly?

[bigtimerockboy]

What?

You didn't actually refute what I said so I pointed out what a moron you must be.

Define good as a universal concept and I'll concede.

what are you crapping on about????
i'm refuting your previous arguments.

what's this shite about defining good as a universal concept????
what, am i yoda now???

if you attack atheists with bullshit and talk about them like they're mindless
robots because they don't believe in your guy on a stick then i'll have a
bloody go.

i shot you down in flames.
yer running around the playground with yer petticoat on fire and now yer
trying to cover up.

don't presume to tell us atheists what we're capable of with morals and what have you.

ever heard of medicines sans frontiers ? mainly atheists. doctors who go and help save people all over the world. they ain't got any morals they just
'think' they do??????

bollocks, bollocks, and further steaming bollocks!!!!

[the_green_bastard]

I like the theory that genetics provide universal definitions for morality.

Of course I think that it's completely stupid and I don't really understand how anyone could actually think that it's right, but I like it.

Essentially, what you're saying is that because I don't enjoy kneecapping old women (which I do enjoy, I enjoy it a lot) that it must be universally morally good. And that's bollocks.

"Completely stupid and I don't really understand how anyone could actually think that it's right, but I like it." Hm. You are really making your posts sound like religious propaganda as opposed to a set of reasoned, logical arguments. Are you denying genetics? Are you denying that wolves are wired to be pack animals? That monkeys love their mothers? That's just absolutely false. It simply isn't true. Animals feel emotions! It's part of their genetic code! You cannot, absolutely cannot, deny that, unless it's part of some misguided, unscientific religious zeal which fervently denies the evidence around it in favour of adhering to its predisposed conclusion.

What I'm saying is that neither of us would kneecap the old lady. It would seem wrong to us. Why then, is that true? You seem to be saying that no morality can ever exist without a God. Such an assertion completely ignores the morals in atheists, and they ARE moral beings. Define "morality" as you will, but people have their moral codes, and you seem to be trying to deny that as opposed to explaining why.

[bigtimerockboy]

rockboy calm down man

kiss me you fool

[Sucka MC]

*kizz*

[PerpetualBurn]

"Completely stupid and I don't really understand how anyone could actually think that it's right, but I like it." Hm. You are really making your posts sound like religious propaganda as opposed to a set of reasoned, logical arguments. Are you denying genetics? Are you denying that wolves are wired to be pack animals? That monkeys love their mothers? That's just absolutely false. It simply isn't true. Animals feel emotions! It's part of their genetic code! You cannot, absolutely cannot, deny that, unless it's part of some misguided, unscientific religious zeal which fervently denies the evidence around it in favour of adhering to its predisposed conclusion.

I'm denying that our natural urges aren't an indication of a universal good.
They're just something we picked up via evolution.
Man is a naturally social animal and as such has natural social interaction and this has a naturally accepted format. But that doesn't mean it's any more "good" than drinking water or taking a dump.

What I'm saying is that neither of us would kneecap the old lady. It would seem wrong to us. Why then, is that true? You seem to be saying that no morality can ever exist without a God. Such an assertion completely ignores the morals in atheists, and they ARE moral beings. Define "morality" as you will, but people have their moral codes, and you seem to be trying to deny that as opposed to explaining why.

Neither of us eat dog turds either.
Rather than our not eating dog turd implying a universal moral code, maybe it implies that it's just not that much fun to eat dog turd?

You're implying that because we don't hurt each other, that there must be an objective "good".

I'm saying, that because there is nothing to provide an objective definition of "good" that all man has is preference. Now man may prefer not to kneecap old ladies, but that's still just a preference.

To summarise: YOUR EMOTIONS FOR OTHER HUMANS DO NOT IMPLY A LOGICAL DEFINITION OF MORALITY.

Moron.

[OnDesolationRow]

That is the point. It's genetically-based and thus emotionally beneficial to us. That's my bias in believing in morals. Exactly.

...What, then, are you trying to say, exactly?

There's a difference between something being emotionally beneficial and it intrinsically being right. If there weren't it would cause contradiction - nothing is uniformly emotionally beneficial or harmful, which is what would be necessary for you to erect a right/wrong dichotomy on this basis.

[PerpetualBurn]

what are you crapping on about????
i'm refuting your previous arguments.

what's this poope about defining good as a universal concept????
what, am i yoda now???

if you attack atheists with bullpoop and talk about them like they're mindless
robots because they don't believe in your guy on a stick then i'll have a
bloody go.

i shot you down in flames.
yer running around the playground with yer petticoat on fire and now yer
trying to cover up.

don't presume to tell us atheists what we're capable of with morals and what have you.

ever heard of medicines sans frontiers ? mainly atheists. doctors who go and help save people all over the world. they ain't got any morals they just
'think' they do??????

bollocks, bollocks, and further steaming bollocks!!!!

To restate my position:

I am an atheist.
I am critically examining the nature of morality.
I can find no basis with which to define what is morally right or what is morally wrong because nothing exists to define those two terms.
Therefore, I do not think that any action is morally right or wrong.

[bigtimerockboy]

To restate my position:

I am an atheist.who refers to 'fellow atheists' as 'they' and tells us how
we can't have morals unless we believe in god.

I am critically examining the nature of morality.
critically yes; logically no

I can find no basis with which to define what is morally right or what is morally wrong because nothing exists to define those two terms.
you've just been banging on about how god does for half a lifetime

Therefore, I do not think that any action is morally right or wrong.
although you've been lobbying me to go out and find universal good as a concept (lucky me). i bet if someone got out a hunting knife and stabbed you in the face you'd say to yourself 'well, that qualifies as wrong' . it's all relative. there are no absolutes necessarily...

[italic zero]

PerpetualBurn: 'There are universal objective morals in the absence of divine decree, but I don't think they should be called morals.'

[PerpetualBurn]

That's not what I said at all.

Are you all idiots?

There are things that 99% of the human population might think are right, but there is actually nothing which provides objective basis to make them actually right.

although you've been lobbying me to go out and find universal good as a concept (lucky me). i bet if someone got out a hunting knife and stabbed you in the face you'd say to yourself 'well, that qualifies as wrong' . it's all relative. there are no absolutes necessarily

You're trying to say "I don't like something, nobody else likes it, therefore it must be absolutely morally wrong even though no deity exists to define what morally wrong actually means".

And that's retarded.

who refers to 'fellow atheists' as 'they' and tells us how
we can't have morals unless we believe in god.

Apparently other atheists believe completely different things to me. So it wouldn't make sense for me to refer to them as I refer to myself. Atheism does not have universal beliefs.

[italic zero]

There are rational reasons for why a society would ban killing and, further more, why a species would have feelings which make them not want to kill.

There may even be, and I think there is, an in-built sense that guides us to what aids the propagation of the species. But to argue that this is some objective "good" is quite a poor approach to logic.
right here you did

[the_green_bastard]

There's a difference between something being emotionally beneficial and it intrinsically being right. If there weren't it would cause contradiction - nothing is uniformly emotionally beneficial or harmful, which is what would be necessary for you to erect a right/wrong dichotomy on this basis.

You've lost me. Could you please quote me where I said that those genetic urges were therefore a universal good?

To restate my position:

I am an atheist.
I am critically examining the nature of morality.
I can find no basis with which to define what is morally right or what is morally wrong because nothing exists to define those two terms.
Therefore, I do not think that any action is morally right or wrong.

Then you are inhuman. I don't care how much you claim to be free of morality. You are either a psychopath, or trying to appear smarter than everyone around you. If you experience emotion, you have morals. Morality is subjective, and doesn't have a physical existence beyond being an abstract concept we humans hold onto, but it's there. It's always there. There are some things we simply will not do for our own advancement. It's what makes us human. Unless, of course, you're a psychopath.

In any event, you're not welcome in my home. You've made it quite clear that you would only be using me.

[Iskandar]

we can't have morals unless we believe in god.
Without a supreme arbiter (which would have to be an omnipotent being by its very nature) there cannot exist clearly defined, universally applicable and objective morals. That doesn't mean we cannot define a subjective morality. Much of human progress has been doing so.

[PerpetualBurn]

right here you did

I don't see how, but I expect something interesting if not completely wrong.

You've lost me. Could you please quote me where I said that those genetic urges were therefore a universal good?

If they don't then you concede that your point about genetics is entirely irrelevant.

Also, you said this:

It's genetically-based and thus emotionally beneficial to us. That's my bias in believing in morals.

Which would be the quote that implied genetics determined morality. But ODR already tore you down for that...imbecile.

[italic zero]

I don't see how, but I expect something interesting if not completely wrong.
Provided you believe logic transcends humanity, which I hope you do, you admitted that there are objective imperatives to act morally. You merely don't believe that it is right to call it morality, which is really a minor complaint.

[PerpetualBurn]

Erm...I didn't admit there were imperatives to act morally.

I said that people behave in a way which may be in line with what theists would call moral, but actually it's just a biological/emotional preference.

[RockAndRoll]

If objective morals can't exist without a God they can't exist with God either.

[italic zero]

Erm...I didn't admit there were imperatives to act morally.

I said that people behave in a way which may be in line with what theists would call moral, but actually it's just a biological/emotional preference.
Yes, and the biological/emotional preference derives from logical imperatives, which are quite obviously objective. The only step you have to take from there is to call these objective imperatives 'morals.'
If objective morals can't exist without a God they can't exist with God either.
I'm inclined to agree but I'd have a bitch of a time explaining the concept to someone who didn't. Can you?

[Iskandar]

If objective morals can't exist without a God they can't exist with God either.
Elaborate.

I don't see how any force besides an omnipotent being could have the right to define objective morals.

[RockAndRoll]

I'm inclined to agree but I'd have a bitch of a time explaining the concept to someone who didn't. Can you?
Elaborate.

I don't see how any force besides an omnipotent being could have the right to define objective morals.
Well, I'll do my best to explain it briefly here, but may have to come back and continue later as I have things to do.

Essentially it's a pretty straightforward concept I think. Either objective morals can exist or they can't. Saying that someone defines them sort of misconstrues what morals would actually be were they objective. Objective morals are nessecarily something in their own right, which would exist without someone there to define them just as matter and energy and the laws of physics exist without someone saying they exist.

Hmm, there's a lot more I should probably explain, but I really do have to walk my dog, so I'll try and do it later.

If you've read Euthyphro it goes over a lot of this, but regardless I will explain it later.

[Iskandar]

Essentially it's a pretty straightforward concept I think. Either objective morals can exist or they can't. Saying that someone defines them sort of misconstrues what morals would actually be were they objective. Objective morals are nessecarily something in their own right, which would exist without someone there to define them just as matter and energy and the laws of physics exist without someone saying they exist.
I understand the meat of it, which is contained here. But if objective morals do exist, they don't seem to be apparent. How can we possibly discover them if they do?

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes, and the biological/emotional preference derives from logical imperatives, which are quite obviously objective. The only step you have to take from there is to call these objective imperatives 'morals.'


Logical, yes.
Objectively good, no.
It doesn't make sense to say they follow a logical pattern therefore they're universally good.

I don't know where you'd get that idea from.

You'll be making calculus a saint next.

If objective morals can't exist without a God they can't exist with God either.

The nature of morals with a God is a whole other issue. I would probably agree with you, but Euthyphro's dilemma is best saved for its own thread.

The only point that's relevant to my atheism is that there is no ordaining figure to define morality.

[RockAndRoll]

I understand the meat of it, which is contained here. But if objective morals do exist, they don't seem to be apparent. How can we possibly discover them if they do?

Well I don't think you could stumble over them as you would a continet, it'd be more of a philosophical argument. Mainly it would probably deal with simply defining right and wrong and justifying that definition as meaningful, from which a logical argument that such things do actually objectively exist would stem. It seems to me afterall that part of the problem with discussing morality is that so far we've all failed to come to a definition of what right and wrong are. The problem is much the same in Euthyphro. We all have a general sense of what right and wrong mean, but it tends to be either ambiguous, nonsensical, meaningless, arbitrary or some combination of those things.

I hope that explains things fairly well.

The only point that's relevant to my atheism is that there is no ordaining figure to define morality.
I don't think it's really important that there be an 'ordaining figure'. The whole idea behind objective morals is that they exist contrary to what anyone may think.

I do truly think what is required of any discussion is at least a working definition of 'morals' 'right' and wrong' because unless we can agree on what we're actually talking about discussion is pretty useless.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well the conclusion of Euthyphro's dilemma is that morals under an all-powerful God would have to arbitrary, not subjective.

They could be absolute, but they would be God's whim.

[RockAndRoll]

Well the conclusion of Euthyphro's dilemma is that morals under an all-powerful God would have to arbitrary, not subjective.

They could be absolute, but they would be God's whim.

unless they exist seperate of the gods.

But I don't really see what that has to do with my point. The connection to Euthyphro in my last post was the difficulty we have in actually defining right and wrong.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well you can have a God that defines morality. Such a God could define morality as anything it wanted.

[RockAndRoll]

Well you can have a God that defines morality. Such a God could define morality as anything it wanted.

Well sure, it could. But I still don't see your point. Maybe some rest will help.

[the_green_bastard]

Well you can have a God that defines morality. Such a God could define morality as anything it wanted.

Well one could argue that people could still follow their own moral codes. No hypothetical deity could define all morality, because people could, and as far as religious people are concerned do, go against those moral principles. They would go to hell for it, but it's for their morality, which is just that, morality. Subjectivity. A concept such as morality can never be defined because there is too much variation and too many exceptions to be made to define it in general terms like a mathematician could define a vector. I know I cannot attack the belief in a deity from a logical perspective, but defining a universal morality and the existence of a deity are both inherently illogical concepts to begin with. They are largely matters of faith and whim - for one to attempt to examine either of them scientifically is to drive oneself insane. Both, scientifically, can only exist as abstract concepts, and thus neither can be subject to an ultimate definition because they would simply contradict themselves and become paradoxes. To define something in the general term is to define it in a concise and scientific way.

Which would be the quote that implied genetics determined morality. But ODR already tore you down for that...imbecile.

My, you really are an arrogant ****, aren't you? Genetics determine morality, yes, because morality is a human concept and not scientifically of substance. It doesn't "exist," per se, it's simply a cluster of emotions and biologically-induced social instincts. Morality cannot be a scientific constant of the universe, but just as a concept, an idea, or an emotion exists, morality does, as a thing of the mind and conciousness. It doesn't necessarily exist, of course, in creatures such as a shew, an ant, or a sturgeon, or in human psychopaths, but it does exist. That's my point. It is illogical to assert that morality "cannot exist" without a God. The existence of such a deity would only change the source, not the concept of morality itself, which only brings us back to the origin of man "debate." Either morality comes from rigid divine law and intervention, or it results from biochemical reactions and natural selection. Likewise, life itself also comes from a rigid divine law and intervention, or it results from biochemical reactions and natural selection.

[AmericanWeiner]

How do you know social instincts are biological and not simply the regurgiated socionics we learn at a stage where nature and nurture is indistinguishable?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well one could argue that people could still follow their own moral codes.

None of these codes are actually right though.

No hypothetical deity could define all morality, because people could, and as far as religious people are concerned do, go against those moral principles.

The God would define it. Anyone against it would be morally wrong. That's fairly simple.

They would go to hell for it, but it's for their morality, which is just that, morality.

Well they're being immoral, since they would be going against the defined "good". Again, how do you not realise the stupidity of what you say?

Subjectivity. A concept such as morality can never be defined because there is too much variation and too many exceptions to be made to define it in general terms like a mathematician could define a vector. I know I cannot attack the belief in a deity from a logical perspective, but defining a universal morality and the existence of a deity are both inherently illogical concepts to begin with. They are largely matters of faith and whim - for one to attempt to examine either of them scientifically is to drive oneself insane. Both, scientifically, can only exist as abstract concepts, and thus neither can be subject to an ultimate definition because they would simply contradict themselves and become paradoxes. To define something in the general term is to define it in a concise and scientific way.

No, it's fairly simple. If we were being judged by a God, and that God was all-powerful, and that God defined dancing as morally right, then those who danced would be morally right, and those who did not dance would be morally wrong. It's pretty bloody simple.

Without a God, there is nothing to define the moral stance of dancing. So dancing isn't morally right. And dancing isn't morally wrong. It's just dancing. And some people like to dance. And some people don't like to dance.

I don't see the problem.

My, you really are an arrogant ****, aren't you?

Thank you.
Genetics determine morality, yes, because morality is a human concept and not scientifically of substance.

No, it determines preference of action. We don't like to beat up old ladies, but that doesn't define beating old ladies as morally wrong in the same way as if God said it was morally wrong.

It doesn't "exist," per se, it's simply a cluster of emotions and biologically-induced social instincts. Morality cannot be a scientific constant of the universe, but just as a concept, an idea, or an emotion exists, morality does, as a thing of the mind and conciousness. It doesn't necessarily exist, of course, in creatures such as a shew, an ant, or a sturgeon, or in human psychopaths, but it does exist. That's my point. It is illogical to assert that morality "cannot exist" without a God. The existence of such a deity would only change the source, not the concept of morality itself, which only brings us back to the origin of man "debate." Either morality comes from rigid divine law and intervention, or it results from biochemical reactions and natural selection. Likewise, life itself also comes from a rigid divine law and intervention, or it results from biochemical reactions and natural selection.

Well the concept of morality is like the concept of Noddy. Noddy isn't real either.

Hobbits exist as concepts too.

Do you like hobbits?

Does Bilbo teach you how to live?

[-1up!-]

It doesn't "exist," per se, it's simply a cluster of emotions and biologically-induced social instincts.

biologically-induced social instincts? :lol:

[AmericanWeiner]

What exactly is morality? Even if defined by a higher power?

Assuming there is a god who declares that Action A is good and Action B is evil, what does that actually mean?

[RockAndRoll]

No, it's fairly simple. If we were being judged by a God, and that God was all-powerful, and that God defined dancing as morally right, then those who danced would be morally right, and those who did not dance would be morally wrong. It's pretty bloody simple.

Without a God, there is nothing to define the moral stance of dancing. So dancing isn't morally right. And dancing isn't morally wrong. It's just dancing. And some people like to dance. And some people don't like to dance.


Even with a god 'right and wrong' are entirely meaningless concepts unless they reflect something actual about the world. Sure, god could declare dancing wrong. We could declare dancing wrong. But without a definition of what 'wrong' actually means it's entirely meaningless, whether god says it or we do. God could say dancing is 'pergfagh' but that doesn't actually mean anything unless pergfagh is a word wich represents a substantial concept, rather than just a cluster of letters.

What exactly is morality? Even if defined by a higher power?

Assuming there is a god who declares that Action A is good and Action B is evil, what does that actually mean?
EXACTLY!

[the_green_bastard]

None of these codes are actually right though.



The God would define it. Anyone against it would be morally wrong. That's fairly simple.



Well they're being immoral, since they would be going against the defined "good". Again, how do you not realise the stupidity of what you say?



No, it's fairly simple. If we were being judged by a God, and that God was all-powerful, and that God defined dancing as morally right, then those who danced would be morally right, and those who did not dance would be morally wrong. It's pretty bloody simple.

Without a God, there is nothing to define the moral stance of dancing. So dancing isn't morally right. And dancing isn't morally wrong. It's just dancing. And some people like to dance. And some people don't like to dance.

I don't see the problem.



Thank you.


No, it determines preference of action. We don't like to beat up old ladies, but that doesn't define beating old ladies as morally wrong in the same way as if God said it was morally wrong.



Well the concept of morality is like the concept of Noddy. Noddy isn't real either.

Hobbits exist as concepts too.

Do you like hobbits?

Does Bilbo teach you how to live?

I like how you've refuted each and every one of my stances by agreeing with them. People don't even have to disagree with me to flame me anymore. You prig.

God, in that fantasy universe in which it exists, would be an entity. He would have a definition for morality, and punish the **** out of those who didn't follow it. That being said, those who didn't follow it had their reason: their version of morality. I follow a moral code. Whether or not there is a God, that is the path I'm following. I may go to hell if there is a God, because I followed a moral code which was in disagreement with our tyrannical despot deity friend, God, but nonetheless I produced my version of morality and followed it. If there is free will, there can be no solid definition of morality.

[PerpetualBurn]

It wasn't a version of morality though.

It was wrong.

It's like saying 2+2=5 is "my version" of maths.

It's wrong.

It's stupid.

I'd have failed A-level maths for it.

I really don't see your point.

Let's say that God decides that to kill a cat is morally right in a given circumstance. So "killing a cat" is a moral.

And let's say that you, being an idiot, come up with "not killing a cat is morally right" in this same circumstance. "Not killing a cat" is still not a moral. It's just wrong.

[AmericanWeiner]

But what IS morality?

It can't be defined by picking up a damn abacus and moving two and two beads over and counting the total.

You can't define a speed limit as 45 miles per hour without giving an indication of what a speed limit is.

[Danger Bird]

I would say killing is bad because it's bad for the species as a whole.

[PerpetualBurn]

But what IS morality?

It can't be defined by picking up a damn abacus and moving two and two beads over and counting the total.

You can't define a speed limit as 45 miles per hour without giving an indication of what a speed limit is.

Well why not ignore the entire debate so far? That way you can ask all sorts of inane questions.

As so many people have argued (me especially), morality has no definition without a God to provide it.

With a God, morality is an imperative which defines an action as objectively better simply by nature i.e thou shalt not murder would be objectively better than murder regardless of circumstance where as without a God, we are free to see either option as okay.

[spitfirejunky]

I recall a point made by Smokey D (I think) a while ago about how morality can exist as a universal truth.

I.e. if we can consider certain truths, say 2+2=4, to be correct whether God exists or not, then there is nothing that suggests other truths like "killing is wrong" can't exist without God.

Kind of a flimsy concept considering a point like "killing is wrong" is not empirically provable. But from a strictly philosophical perspective, there's no distinction to be made with either truth.

[bigtimerockboy]

That's not what I said at all.

Are you all idiots? wah wah wah

There are things that 99% of the human population might think are right, but there is actually nothing which provides objective basis to make them actually right. so what? your point is.........



You're trying to say "I don't like something, nobody else likes it, therefore it must be absolutely morally wrong even though no deity exists to define what morally wrong actually means". what a pathetic effort. the example
i used was in response to your lofty statement about how you don't
believe there's right and wrong. i was showing you the subjectivity of
it all in the case of the personal and how that probably transfers to the societal and you can't handle it. so you feed words of drivel into my mouth and call that a counter-argument ... ooh puuuhleeeeaase!

And that's retarded.
because we don't worship at your feet we're retarded.
never mind. i'm sure you have a rubber duck at home who thinks the
sun shines out of your bottie.


Apparently other atheists believe completely different things to me. So it wouldn't make sense for me to refer to them as I refer to myself. Atheism does not have universal beliefs.hey! guess what einstein! i'm one too!!!!! yeah, how about that. wanna patronise me some more with the bleedingly obvious?? there is one small point that you kinda overlook here. that is that the have a NAME you used. ATHEISTS (look, it's a plural and everyfink) it's a GROUP NAME of a certain people who have a core belief and are included in that group no matter what their divergencies are. just the same as the CATHOLICS.
they don't agree about everything either.

couple your use of GOD as the 'only' way we can have a system of
morals with your lack of enthusiasm about calling yourself an atheist
(unless challenged by me it seems) and i smell a religious conversionist pretending not to be one.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

and may god (or the lack thereof) have mercy (if it exists) on our souls (even though no-one has actually proven such a thing exists)

[bigtimerockboy]

Well why not ignore the entire debate so far? That way you can ask all sorts of inane questions.
what a charming person you are. you this rude in real life?

As so many people have argued (me especially), morality has no definition without a God to provide it.
how about some evidence for this preposterous notion. you can't just
come out with it and expect all and sundry to believe it. i remember
asking you ages ago and all i got was inane banter. evidence. it's a
really condescending thing to say and i'd like some substantial evidence that's based on logic thanks, not more of your wishful thinking and grandiosity.

With a God, morality is an imperative which defines an action as objectively better simply by nature i.e thou shalt not murder would be objectively better than murder regardless of circumstance where as without a God, we are free to see either option as okay.
so what about the norse gods of war?
what about the early pagan gods and the toltec gods and the violent
cultures that went with them???
you said 'A GOD' presumably that could apply to multitheism.
seems to me the only god you're talking about is the one of christianity. out to save a few souls are we????
even in judaism and christianity you could find some bloodthirsty
practices like stoning and what have you.
didn't god do a fair bit of smiting here and there?
wasn't it good enough to go off to many wars under christianity and
slaughter the crap out of unbelievers??
what about gay people in the bible? aren't they under pain of death?
what about soddom and gamorrah??
i think even you must get the point by now. take your god coloured
glasses off and see the real world.

i've noticed a lot of posts from you in this thread. i have no intention of reading every single post so if you've made a relevant one then repost it if
it deals with the points i've made.

:wave:

[Amit]

you've really missed the point wow

[bigtimerockboy]

you've really missed the point wow

tell me how i have then

[Amit]

he's an atheist

not a christian

and when he says god he doesn't just mean the christian god; he means a belief system in general

wow man i'm surprised you're that far off base

[bigtimerockboy]

he's an atheist

not a christian

and when he says god he doesn't just mean the christian god; he means a belief system in general

wow man i'm surprised you're that far off base

saying you're an atheist and really being one can be two different things.

then why doesn't he say a belief system in general???
i've been arguing the toss with him for ages. he's never said that once. so i
reject what you are saying and i don't trust that he's really an atheist at all.
hence my post.

you are entitled to your opinion (and stop shakin yer head at me).
i have shot this guy down countless times, gone away and back he comes
with the same old nonsense arguments over and over again.

he has had numerous opportunities to clarify and has chosen not to do so.
so either what you are saying is incorrect or he's being a pain in the arse
for no apparent reason.

"As so many people have argued (me especially), morality has no definition without a God to provide it."
his own words ^
doesn't say a 'belief system' he says 'a god'

[Amit]

a god entails and implies a belief system

hell a god (or gods) create a belief system

[PerpetualIdiot]

Why have ignored debate so far and asking inane questions? If there is no god, than morality is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Oh I'm very logical, you should believe I everything I say, but I don't believe logic is man-made but I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. You should just accept my word as fact because I'm logical and always right.