Morality

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

This thing really is utterly pointless without the vicar being here. He's now responding to different people as though they are making the same argument. I'm not. I'm not making an argument from evolution.

No he has only responded to your point.

You haven't mentioned evolution in your previous posts. You stated that the "harm principle is an absolute moral right".. he is arguing if that's the case it cannot come from evolution since evolution is naturalistic... He is saying you can not claim an absolute moral right whilst being an Athiest.

Why the fuck is he talking about evolution at all? I have not once mentioned evolution. He seems to think that because I'm an atheist, my morality comes from evolution but he doesn't. He's referred to social Darwinism, again, nothing to do with me. Morality from survival of the fittest is not something I agree with, quite obviously. Yet he's asserting that I somehow must believe morality from a natural process just because I don't believe in God, but I haven't, I have told him exactly what grounds I assert my absolute morality from and he has ignored it. He has also completely failed to respond to the fact, that, even if he's right, so-called objective morality is no better, so his fucking God, solves precisely fuck all. If the Nazis believe God is with them, God is useless as an answer to moral questions. He asserts the superiority of objective morality with no basis.

I'm not entertaining this debate any longer. Debating with theist fuckwits gets you nowhere. I cannot converse with them. They are dogmatists, I am not.

You don't claim evolution as the source of your morality(Harm principle), however memetics may explain its origin and development. The Harm principle may be claimed as an absolute but is somewhat flawed.

Take my scenario , a group of tribes people build a boat and they sail across the seas, during the voyage they are swept off course and food supplies begin to diminish, growing ever weaker from the journey eventually they reach land but the boat falls apart. On this Island are another tribe of the same numbers, they have food which they gather and hunt from around the Island, which is totally alien to the first tribe. The first tribe are sick and weak and face certain death and extinction unless they are helped.
However, the Island is small and can only support a limited number of human inhabitants. The second tribe can refuse help on the basis that they have not contributed to the harm and so have no obligation to the first. In utilitarian terms the groups are equal, so slaughter of Tribe 1 by Tribe 2 is morally neutral. Following Harris's well being principle, one group's well being comes at the cost of the other, it is not clear whether giving help or denying it gives the greatest well being.
You see therefore that a concept morality is easiest within societies, rather than between them. If the group is under pressure to survive morality and values can be adapted to manage the pressures, the morality can also sustain the group from internal pressures. The rigidity of a morality can also be advantageous when facing pressure from other groups and following it strictly can ensure the groups survival.

Morality is a product of human evolution. The conflict comes when different societies interact or groups like the Nazis expel others from society from mere offense rather than the harm principle. However Skashion the harm principle is not absolute because what is harm, can harm be forecast as Hitler so insanely did in stating that the Jews were plotting to overthrow western governments. Does harm have to come from the individual or a group to which they belong. No morality is absolute, because you have to use other principles alongside it. We can hope that morality preserves the greatest well being but sometimes mad men will bypass this princple.

 

[Skashion]

No offence RFK because I think you're a great poster but you're not raising any issues I haven't already dealt with. The harm principle is a jumping off point, a bare minimum. Personality morality can extend much much further.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

No offence RFK because I think you're a great poster but you're not raising any issues I haven't already dealt with. The harm principle is a jumping off point, a bare minimum. Personality morality can extend much much further.

I know, just questioning the topic of absolute morality, The harm principle is what you think society should start off from and your own personal morality evidently goes further than that. It may be that the harm principle may grow obsolete, I can't envision how it would, but it might.Why do we need an absolute morality?-It is good when sustaining internal pressures but what about external pressures?

 

[pominoz]

From what i have read here, it looks like Mark's brother has watched to many William Lane Craig youtube vids.
WLC is a snake oil salesman, and has no fucking idea, a philosopher and theologian, says it all.
You could spend days talking about how many angels could fit on a pinhead, with twats like that.

To be honest his a top guy, we go west ham together , have a pint and don't talk religion. He's new to the church and challenges my Athiest views but doesn't try and convert me

He says this -


In answer to your question do we need Religon to have morals then no we don't....

You seem to confuse Religion with God, and if I may say with some caution, your hostility towards towards Religon is justified and agreed with by me and many millions,

Religon is an organisation of ideas surrounding God, God is distinct from this

You may bring up your daughter and love her with all your heart and strength but that may not and probably wont stop her hurting others through her life.....

Now times that magnitude by Billions and the same effect happens

You can love God and hate Religion at the same time if you so wish, many do......

I have no need for a "god', i am an advanced version of bacteria, so is everyone else.
And i am happy with that ;)

Edit- bolded the wrong bit :(

 

[Skashion]

I know, just questioning the topic of absolute morality, The harm principle is what you think society should start off from and your own personal morality evidently goes further than that. It may be that the harm principle may grow obsolete, I can't envision how it would, but it might.Why do we need an absolute morality?-It is good when sustaining internal pressures but what about external pressures?

To guarantee freedom, quite simply, the freedom that exists when we are born with control of our anatomy, our own actions, and hence have something by which to be judged and held accountable. Ringfence freedom and people can pursue their own morality using the freedom that has been ringfenced.

 

[BlueHammer85]

It is indeed correct that being an Athiest does not mean you do not have empathy etc, and that as an Athiest is a lack of belief in a God, however although you say it is not a claim of moral righteousness, that does not make an Athiest either free from moral dutys OR mean that a lack of Belief in God shuns you from any belief or worldview ..

You do have a belief and a Worldview (a world without God) and that has to be justified as much as any other worldview.

When I said this is not about God I meant in terms of the next phase....of course this is about God it's the basis of the whole argument, I am keeping this debate down to one subject so we do not go into many different areas, and mainly because in a purely naturalistic world I struggle to find logic in an absolute moral right and wrong formed from evolution (a natural process without God)

Empathy CAN come from a natural source but that does nothing to what is right and wrong as previously explained I can have empathy towards a friend but my feelings of greed may outweigh that, meaning I will perform a wrong despite my empathy , empathy is in your world a chemical feeling, fine but still you cannot claim with all the empathy in the world that your action is right or wrong since the world still remains in a natural state and wrong or right is subject to the communities/individuals that form them.

Survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom has no relation to morals, we certainly haven't got to the top of the chain with that mentality in your argument or mine, the animal kingdom is dying largely out due to the billions of mass killings for food, medicine and clothing for many many milleniums, we have got to the top because of our superior intelligence and taking advantage of their weaknesses. And in terms of human history man has made consistent warfare on each other for centuries and still is....

The Harm principle is noble and honourable but rare in our world and certainly not common or have any link over the billions of years of evolution. There is no link here .this is clutching at straws.

On the point of.....you can't have a meaningless universe and adhere to a meaningfull life and your answer being the first half of the sentence can be true etc....

no....I am afraid it cannot be, you can BELIEVE you have meaning and that is EXACTLY what you do, it is in your words a smokescreen, you have given meaning to your life by stating an affect on your bloodline, DNA and the effect on others, but your simply not thinking deeply enough, all those things are a) a combination of matter(you) - no more than that, you mean as much as and no less than, bread, paper, a pig, a stone whatever, whatever happens now and in future generations ULTIMATLEY ends......in nothing, if you do give any meaning to life it is because your brain has to, to find meaning from a universe doomed to nothing, ultimately all your values you adhere too, the efforts of doctors to stop suffering, the campaigners seeking to change the lives of woman's rights, all these come eventually to zero

If your argument is I think it is a good idea to adopt the Harm principle for the continuation of our spiecies then fair enough, that I can agree on

But you cannot say that it is objectively Moraly right, since my community or my mind have diifferent ideas to your notion of right and there is no objective moral law to appeal to

In a world of only atoms and chemicals....what goes, goes, and to end in your words.....

i am the source of my morals.......so why the bloody hell should I adhere to yours then.

Basically the whole point is - A man who believes in a universe governed by naturalism and evolution cannot then claim an absolute moral right

 

[blueish swede]

You do not understand evolution, unfortunately. Survival of the fittest means survival of those that are best suited - that have the best fit - to the prevailing conditions. It is a less common meaning of the word today that confuses a lot of people. For example it may mean those who have a balance of greed and empathy that allows them to progress successfully in a society without being an underdog or attracting too much revulsion. Such an individual may not necessarily have the ability to run very fast or very far but still increase their chance of having offspring that survive to maturity.

Also if you re-read your post you will see that you answer many of your own objections.

There is no absolute moral right or wrong. As I implied earlier in the thread, the concept of morality is merely a construct that is the result of prevailing social conditions. "Morality" evolves.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

You do not understand evolution, unfortunately. Survival of the fittest means survival of those that are best suited - that have the best fit - to the prevailing conditions. It is a less common meaning of the word today that confuses a lot of people. For example it may mean those who have a balance of greed and empathy that allows them to progress successfully in a society without being an underdog or attracting too much revulsion. Such an individual may not necessarily have the ability to run very fast or very far but still increase their chance of having offspring that survive to maturity.

Also if you re-read your post you will see that you answer many of your own objections.

There is no absolute moral right or wrong. As I implied earlier in the thread, the concept of morality is merely a construct that is the result of prevailing social conditions. "Morality" evolves.

Exactly and if he doesn't get the point then we can always use memetics and anthropology to emphasise it.

 

[BlueHammer85]

You do not understand evolution, unfortunately. Survival of the fittest means survival of those that are best suited - that have the best fit - to the prevailing conditions. It is a less common meaning of the word today that confuses a lot of people. For example it may mean those who have a balance of greed and empathy that allows them to progress successfully in a society without being an underdog or attracting too much revulsion. Such an individual may not necessarily have the ability to run very fast or very far but still increase their chance of having offspring that survive to maturity.

Also if you re-read your post you will see that you answer many of your own objections.

There is no absolute moral right or wrong. As I implied earlier in the thread, the concept of morality is merely a construct that is the result of prevailing social conditions. "Morality" evolves.

Good post, the vicar was objecting this point with skashion as he stated the harm principle was an absolute.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

If you had empathy then you wouldn't steal from your friend. If you had it you would have compassion and sympathy too.

Survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom has no relation to morals, we certainly haven't got to the top of the chain with that mentality in your argument or mine, the animal kingdom is dying largely out due to the billions of mass killings for food, medicine and clothing for many many milleniums, we have got to the top because of our superior intelligence and taking advantage of their weaknesses. And in terms of human history man has made consistent warfare on each other for centuries and still is....

This is babble. The human race gets bigger all the time. And the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't have wars for medicine food or clothing.
Also you state morals had no part. But the fact that we learned to co operate for the greater good of humanity means our morals played a part in it.

no....I am afraid it cannot be, you can BELIEVE you have meaning and that is EXACTLY what you do, it is in your words a smokescreen, you have given meaning to your life by stating an affect on your bloodline, DNA and the effect on others, but your simply not thinking deeply enough, all those things are a) a combination of matter(you) - no more than that, you mean as much as and no less than, bread, paper, a pig, a stone whatever, whatever happens now and in future generations ULTIMATLEY ends......in nothing, if you do give any meaning to life it is because your brain has to, to find meaning from a universe doomed to nothing, ultimately all your values you adhere too, the efforts of doctors to stop suffering, the campaigners seeking to change the lives of woman's rights, all these come eventually to zero .

What does this have to do with morality? Again this is another argument of whether or not there is a God/after life.
And you yet again confuse what atheists think. You also judge 'meaning' by your own religious beliefs.
We have meaning whilst we are here. This is because we have the ability to think about what we do. No one has ever said, in the grand scheme of things, we have any more meaning than a pig. Yes the world will end. But that doesn't make our efforts any less meaningful whilst we are here. It just doesn't add up to your religious view of meaning.