Morality

[BigJimLittleJim]

Seems to me the Vic is doing what religious types thru the millenia have always done - obfuscated and built up complicated scenarios to justify their own lifestyles and power bases - in itself a quite successful means of attracting goods and services off the gullible.

Mankind prospers in co-operation, we look after the poor and the needy when we can, because it might be us or our genetic bloodline/loved ones one day, simple.

People who deviate from this principle cause worse societal conditions for the masses - think Nazi's and Communists - if we stick together we stand a better chance of living long and fruitful lives, and so do our children etc..

Therefore on a selfish level it pays to be an upstanding citizen - over the years this can mean attending church and paying lip service to religion to ensure we're all looking after each other. Religion can be very good for a flourishing society.

In my own opinion, organised religion is an outmoded means of organising ourselves, although many of it's central tenets are worthy of keeping in a civilised society.

What I do not understand in light of today's free flow of information, education, and general tolerance, is how can a sane human being not spend the five minutes questioning the existence of a supreme being higher power, and not come to the inevitable conclusion there isn't one????

Clergy types can philosophise at me 'til they're blue in the face, but none of them can produce a shred of evidence to prove God exists - there's more of a case for Sasquatch.

 

[The Flash]

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

You're on drugs mate. pauldominic made more sense than you do and he was certifiably batshit crazy.

You're having the most convoluted argument, mostly with yourself, about morality and ethics.

It's easy.

Don't be a **** to others if you don't want to feel like one.

That's the long and short of it.

 

[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.

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

I think Skashion and libertarianism goes too far, the harm principle is an absolute for freedom and justice in a sense but taken to the nth degree and it just seems wrong. As shown by Skash's stance in the Jeremy Forrest thread, whilst there was sympathy and remarks questioning his sentence for JF, Skash was the only one who objected to a prison term. At the moment the harm principle seems a great principle, one to cherish and build our laws around but I don't believe it is productive to embrace it fully. I think my reservations stem from the fact that it appears almost too liberal (and that is hard to say as a leftie) and that it may not be adaptive enough in the anthropological sense.

The Vicar's point that he has an objective absolute is wrong though because god is not objective and means different thing to different culture there is no objective definition of god, so how can you claim him to be an objective source. This takes you into immediate conflict with people of other gods, why should they follow the teachings of your god. You may claim the Abrahamic God of the three monotheist religions to be one but what about animism and paganism, Zeus or Ra are surely not past representations of him?

Your earlier point about hating organised religion but loving God comes across simply as a heresy accusation, religions have continually done this over the ages whenever there was a new split and a new denomination. There are countless sects within each of the 3 monotheist religions most claim to be the true source of God and generally pour scorn over the less fundamental franchises.How are you doing anything different from this?

 

[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.

That is one hell of a theory - plus species evolve over MILLIONS of years, humans have Been on this earth for 5 million years On a time span of 4 BILLION, homo sapiens are but a second on the clock of evolution, there is no way you can even closely make that assumption, we won't even know if that's true for millions of years to come, not to mention the fact that evolution has always been based on the stronger species gaining the upper hand through whats considered immoral both physically or mentally for 9/10ths of that time span

I am glad that you admit morals have evolved, but you must now take the stance that morals are simply that..... a way of bettering our chances of evolving(theoretical at best)....they are NOT absolute

REMEMBER

One thing you cannot do EVER however from now on is state an absolute moral right...

If you say for example we are WRONG for invading Iraq...know that you have come to that reasoning as a result of evolving social conditions, no more!

if I think the opposite to you that is the result of my social conditions

Right and wrong simply do not fit in here....even though they are a result of evolution they become relative....in other words, right and wrong are indifferent

No more claiming an absolute ....they do not exist in the evolving world of naturalism

 

[Skashion]

When's this guy going to get to his defending of 'objective morality'? I'm looking forward to it.

1. He's got to prove there's a God.
2. He's got to prove that those who wrote and pieced the Bible knew what God wanted.
3. Half of the Bible contradicts the other half, he's got to prove his interpretation is correct.
4. He's then got to prove his interpretation has some use in a world where the Nazi's were aided and abetted by Christians.

 

[BlueHammer85]

When's this guy going to get to his defending of 'objective morality'?

Hard work isn't it, we'll get there.

 

[Skashion]

When's this guy going to get to his defending of 'objective morality'?

Hard work isn't it, we'll get there.

No we won't. The vicar is full of shit like all dogmatists.

 

[Bigga]

"Morality" evolves.

Probably the most interesting two words in most of this thread. I find it interesting that atheists are fine with this free flowing concept, but cannot attribute the same concept to the Bible, where a type of existence was captured within written words.

'Why is that this could slaughter that and they do whatever to the other?' is often the argument, but fail to recognise and implement the two words quoted to a time that existed to now.

'Evolution' is the word of the day, is it not? Is this simply exclusive to atheists? The moral compass, as a society, has shifted hugely since the days of Abraham, but the core of its intention(the positive roots) must still remain as it has entwined in today's compass, mixed in with the natural urge of Man.

You cannot claim a moral 'progress' in one part of society. It's impossible for evolution on all scale not to impact everything.

Just a morning thought.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

"Morality" evolves.

Probably the most interesting two words in most of this thread. I find it interesting that atheists are fine with this free flowing concept, but cannot attribute the same concept to the Bible, where a type of existence was captured within written words.

'Why is that this could slaughter that and they do whatever to the other?' is often the argument, but fail to recognise and implement the two words quoted to a time that existed to now.

'Evolution' is the word of the day, is it not? Is this simply exclusive to atheists? The moral compass, as a society, has shifted hugely since the days of Abraham, but the core of its intention(the positive roots) must still remain as it has entwined in today's compass, mixed in with the natural urge of Man.

You cannot claim a moral 'progress' in one part of society. It's impossible for evolution on all scale not to impact everything.

Just a morning thought.

It doesn't work when religion itself doesn't include evolution as one of its principles and said important figures don't come back 2,000 years later and go "Actually we forgot to mention shit changes".

 

[Skashion]

I find it interesting that atheists are fine with this free flowing concept

I'm an atheist, I'm not.