Morals w/o God?

[User]

I go to a fundie school, and am forcefed quite a bit of tripe. Today's serving was some good ole "there can't be morals without God."

I see morals easily existing without God if you set up an objective for mankind. I see that objective to be happiness which can be reached through freedom. A society's laws need to be based on what is beneficial for man (what encourages the pursuit of happiness), but the laws cannot narrowily confine its subjects at the price of freedom.

Society's ethics should be based on the concept of all for one and one for all. You are part of society, yet you are also an individual. You are free, but you still are bound to help fellow citizens in their time of need (just as they will help you in your time of need). No man is an island, yet no man is just a part in a machine.

God is illogical and a hinderence to ethics. The only valid ethical systems must be based on reason.

So this would form some unholy mixture of objectivism, anarchism and humanism laced with atheism.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by User
God is illogical and a hinderence to ethics. The only valid ethical systems must be based on reason.
I tend to agree. But I wonder what in your view makes an ethical system "valid".

So this would form some unholy mixture of objectivism, anarchism and humanism laced with atheism.
Mongrels sometimes make the best pets.

[Shadowy Man]

How are there morals with God??

Q: "Why is that wrong?"
A: "Because God said so."

:rolleyes:

[ZikZak]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
How are there morals with God??

Q: "Why is that wrong?"
A: "Because God said so."

:rolleyes:

Exactly. The presence of the Xian God would remove all morals and ethics from life, not only because it embraces a might makes right philosophy ("it's right because Gawd says so") but because the rules are enforced at the point of a gun.

If you point a gun at someone and say, "help this little old lady across the street or I will shoot you," he'll do it, but the act has no ethical content. Similarly, if Gawd says that he'll fry you in Hell (or reward you in Heaven) for doing certain things, and this forms the basis of your actions, then those actions are equally morally void.

[ZikZak]

I've never been exactly sure how morality is connected with God in Xian theology anyway. Every fundie I've ever met has contended that God doesn't judge you by your actions, but by your beliefs. You can be immoral as you want to be and God will still send you to Heaven if you believe in him. We moral atheists get to fry in Hell. What this monstrous philosophy is supposed to teach you about ethics I have no idea. I suppose that Xians believe something along the lines of "If you belive in Jesus you will be magically transformed into a moral person with no need whatsoever to think about the consequences of your actions."

[jafosei]

I go to a fundie school, and am forcefed quite a bit of tripe. Today's serving was some good ole "there can't be morals without God."

I've become quite fond of Buddhist ethics, myself. They aren't based on the idea of a deity: there's no external force to punish you if you do the wrong thing. Buddha believed that ethical conduct promoted a happy and harmonious life both for the individual and society. Being unethical and immoral leads to unhappiness and suffering.

One of the most ethical guys I know has been an atheist for most of his adult life. A Muslim acquaintance has often remarked that he can't understand why this man is an atheist, yet he is also the most compassionate and selfless person he knows. He was a fine example to me, and it certainly helped my deconversion to see clearly how ethics and morality were really completely seperate from belief in a deity.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by ZikZak
Exactly. The presence of the Xian God would remove all morals and ethics from life, not only because it embraces a might makes right philosophy ("it's right because Gawd says so") but because the rules are enforced at the point of a gun.

Worse than this, the 'ethics' of the bible are horrendous -- a litany of evil and injustice the likes of which western civilization has not seen since . . . well . . . the dark ages.

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, my experience is that *WITH* God you get less morals.

A Christian can get forgiveness. An athiest can't.

My experience is that those who are strongly Christian are far more willing to weasel on morality. I consider any overt displays of Christianity to be a "Beware" sign.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Well, my experience is that *WITH* God you get less morals.

A Christian can get forgiveness. An athiest can't.

My experience is that those who are strongly Christian are far more willing to weasel on morality. I consider any overt displays of Christianity to be a "Beware" sign.

I can't say the same thing. I suffered through some rather severe violence at the hands of Christians when I was in grade school -- for the crime of being an atheist. But the one true friend who stood by me and even fought for me, was as strong a fundamentalist as I have known.

I can't judge a person's character by their beliefs. Only by how they behave.

Yet, it is the case, that many of the greatest evils have been done in the name of God. And, if you look at what is recommended in religious text, there is a great deal of evil to be found in anybody who thinks that they need to do what religion commands of them.

[User]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I tend to agree. But I wonder what in your view makes an ethical system "valid".

It needs to be based on reason not on what an invisible deity demands that you do to avoid eternal damnation. Is this good for humanity? Will society survive based on the laws without freedom being destroyed in the process?

[Albert Cipriani]

User says:

It [morals] needs to be based on reason not on what an invisible deity demands that you do

Such hypocrites! Not you specifically, but this place in general. I just wasted myself in a four-part formal debate here:
formal debate (http://http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59583)

arguing exactly your point. Yet everyone commenting on the debate in the peanut gallery was opposed to my position.

Here's how it works: argue anything at all and sign off as a "Traditional Catholic" and you will collect a herd of mindless naysayers like a wake behind a motorboat that you cannot shake no matter how fast and furious you explicate yourself. Frustrated by this place's double-standard. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Robert Anthony]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Worse than this, the 'ethics' of the bible are horrendous -- a litany of evil and injustice the likes of which western civilization has not seen since . . . well . . . the dark ages.

Criticizing judeo-christianity in the name of judeo-christian ethics? This is the unconscious naivety of secular humanism....

[Robert Anthony]

there is so much religious aftertaste to this "rationalistic" affirmation of ethics... I suppose it will be a while before people realize that, as Albert has stated, the worship of Religion and the worship of Reason are not as disparate as most would like to think.

I'll put this delicately: Reason is judeo-christianity's ultimate legacy.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Robert Anthony
Criticizing judeo-christianity in the name of judeo-christian ethics? This is the unconscious naivety of secular humanism....

This is either begging the question, or internally inconsistent. Either way, it is a step outside of reason and rationality.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Robert Anthony
I'll put this delicately: Reason is judeo-christianity's ultimate legacy.
Reason did not exist before Judeo Christianity?

I wonder if you can support such a strange idea.

[xorbie]

Albert

Such hypocrites! Not you specifically, but this place in general. I just wasted myself in a four-part formal debate here:

Now you know I enjoy slander as much as the next guy, but come on. You wasted yourself by consistently misrepresenting what I said, and then complaining when I had to repeat my original argument. Yeah... good show :rolleyes:

[Tom Sawyer]

there is so much religious aftertaste to this "rationalistic" affirmation of ethics... I suppose it will be a while before people realize that, as Albert has stated, the worship of Religion and the worship of Reason are not as disparate as most would like to think.

I'll put this delicately: Reason is judeo-christianity's ultimate legacy.

Reason was around long before the JC mentality gained any kind of prominence. It developed from the Greeks and the Romans and then it, along with any kind of major advancements, stopped for about 1000 years until the church's influence started to decline.

Also, the reason that a rationalistic affirmation of ethics sounds like religion is because we're talking about the same stuff, namely ethics. No matter which one of the POVs you take when talking about the subject, you're going to use a lot of the same words and concepts, so either will sound alike. I could just as well say that there is so much rationalistic aftertaste to this "religious" affirmation of ethics and in doing so, probably use most every sentence you would use arguing for religion, but just switch the two words.

[CJD]

Forgive the intrusion, but how does the atheist derive morality or obligation from premises about matter, motion, time and chance (if you think "reason" does not fall under this rubric, then please enlighten me)? Would this not truly be succumbing to what Hume called a "naturalistic fallacy"?

Regards,

CJD

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by CJD
Forgive the intrusion, but how does the atheist derive morality or obligation from premises about matter, motion, time and chance (if you think "reason" does not fall under this rubric, then please enlighten me)? Would this not truly be succumbing to what Hume called a "naturalistic fallacy"?

Regards,

CJD

A very good question.

And if you go to Part III of my Ethics Without God (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46876) series, you will find this issue discussed in some detail.

Technically, the problem does not rest with the Naturalistic Fallacy (from G.E. Moore, which concerns the definition of words), but the older Is/Ought distinction (from David Hume, who argued that anybody who attempts to derive an 'ought' from 'is' needs to explain how they can do what he considers 'altogether inconceivable').

As I see it, the "is/ought" or "fact/value" or "description/prescription" distinction follows the "belief/desire" distinction for mental states. Beliefs concern descriptions of the world (not always accurate); desires concern prescriptions of possible worlds, and no set of beliefs entail a desire, logically or causally.

Still, desires exist. They exist as mental states -- descriptions about how the brain is wired. There is, in short, an underlying physical reality to values, and values are as real as anything else in the world of 'is'.

[Nowhere357]

CJD
Forgive the intrusion, but how does the atheist derive morality or obligation from premises about matter, motion, time and chance (if you think "reason" does not fall under this rubric, then please enlighten me)? Would this not truly be succumbing to what Hume called a "naturalistic fallacy"?
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nfallacy.htm) tells me the naturalistic fallacy was proposed by G.E. Moore (1873-1958) in Principia Ethica (1903). "Moore argues that "goodness" is a foundational and unanalyzable property, similar to the foundational notion of "yellowness," and is not capable of being explained in terms of anything more basic."

Morality refers to codified group behavior, and has the goal of improving the health of society. This elevates morality above subjective qualities such as yellowness, as it is possible to detect the effect of morality on society. The naturalistic fallacy is thereby avoided.

This atheist derives morality or obligation from introspection involving empathy and reason.

Btw "reason" does not fall under the rubric of premises about matter, motion, time and chance, because the premises about matter etc are derived using reason, not the other way around.

What is "rubric" anyway? Ah, "something under which a thing is classed : CATEGORY".
Did you know the word has theological connotations? Do you think reason and logic is a type of religion?

[Jamie_L]

To me, in practice, Christianity seems to have no more of a handle on morality than anyone else.

There are thousands of denominations, each with a variation on what is moral and what is not. Morality seems to be shaped by the practicers of the religion. If a particular sect won't tolerate their stance on morality, people move to another sect that will.

In effect, there are a thousand different Christian gods, each with their own list of "do"s and "don't"s. To say there are no morals without God is meaningless. Which god? Your God? The God of the liberal Christian next door? The God of the fundmentalist down the street? The God of the Mormon ringing my doorbell?

It seems to me like all people form their moral opinions based on their upbringing and life experiences. Be they atheist or theist. The ones that remain theists just chose to then tie that morality to a god. We choose not to. Other than that, I don't see any real difference.

Jamie

[CJD]

Thanks for the precision on Moore's naturalistic fallacy. I considered Hume's "is/ought" distinction to be a primary paveway to Moore's naturalistic fallacy, so I (mistakenly) intended to use them interchangeably.

I will follow that link and read, Alonzo Fyfe, so thank you for it.

Beliefs concern descriptions of the world (not always accurate); desires concern prescriptions of possible worlds, and no set of beliefs entail a desire, logically or causally.

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, God-talk is often quickly brushed aside as mere "belief," and thus descriptive, and thus incapable of avoiding Hume's critique.

The problem with that is the fact that what is being said about God is often overlooked. I am thinking primarily of what xians argue about the nature of God, namely, that he is normative. As such, the normative is actually included in the premises (the "is"), and necessarily leads to its conclusion (the "ought"). One example should be sufficient:

Consider Colossians 3:1, an argument from indicative to imperative, which may be formulated logically: "You are risen with Christ; therefore you must seek the things that are above." Is that a naturalistic fallacy? No. To be risen with Christ is both a descriptive and a normative reality. Those who are risen with him are elevated with him, in him, to positions of honor and responsibility. Among those responsibilities is the obligation to seek what is above.

Put differently, because God's commands are supremely normative—the self-expression of God's supremely normative nature—they entail normative conclusions. I guess what I am saying is that this argument, IMO, is just as reasonable (if not more so) than some of those to the contrary.

Regards,

CJD

[NearNihil Experience]

"God is illogical..." I agree with you there.

"...and a hinderence to ethics."
Really? How? If He really doesn't exist, isn't it the people who believe this shit that are the problem, not God?

"The only valid ethical systems must be based on reason."
I don't see why an ethical system can't be valid even if its based on capital accomplishment, emotion, fear, reward...reason too,...
might, fairness...

"So this would form some unholy mixture of objectivism, anarchism and humanism laced with atheism."

Take out the objectivism, and add some militancy and I'm on the boat.
;)

[User]

Originally posted by ContraTheos
"...and a hinderence to ethics."
Really? How? If He really doesn't exist, isn't it the people who believe that are the problem, not God?

Yes the people who adhere to God ethics are technically the problem. I was just streamlining my position. When the very concept you hold to is illogical you can't expect a solid ethical foundation, so, at the root of the problem, God itself would be the hinderence to ethics.

Originally posted by ContraTheos
"The only valid ethical systems must be based on reason."
I don't see why an ethical system can't be valid even if its based on capital accomplishment, emotion, fear, reward...reason too,...
might, fairness...

It depends on how we're using the word valid. I see many of the above as poor bases for an ethical system.

Capital accomplishment should not factor into the construction of ethics. If capital was the sole factor behind a society, 20 hour work days, child labor and a bloated minority class of fat cats feeding off of the people would be a-okay. The preceeding are all detrimental towards the happiness of the human race.

Emotion/fear/reward are all related. Christian ethics revolve around these three things. Emotion can often blind reason and lead to problematic thinking. If I get mad at a colleague and decide to murder him based on raw emotion, is that a valid reason? Ethics should find a way to build order, and protect society from unnecessary harmful impulses. Unfortunately, people are imperfect and emotion run wild equals pure chaos.

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. Fear falls under emotion making it subject to the same problem. Fear especially cuts down freedom, making you bound to something whether it is just or not. Fear cannot provide a clear structure for ethical thinking.

A solid ethical system is the reward.

Might is probably the worst thing to base any ethics on. This is also a core tenet of Christian thinking. God equals pure might, and his ethics revolve around pleasing him for unknown reasons whether this benefits humankind or not. Nazi Germany is an excellent example of might ethics. Could the extermination of Jews be valid in any ethical system? Under Hitler's might makes right philosophy, then yes it would. As long as the majority decides that it is okay, then it is. That is impratical, and can have disastrous consequences as seen in the Holocaust.

Originally posted by ContraTheos
"So this would form some unholy mixture of objectivism, anarchism and humanism laced with atheism."

Take out the objectivism, and add some militancy and I'm on the boat.
;)

But objectivism is such a jolly good word :D!

[Albert Cipriani]

Jamie L says:
In effect, there are a thousand different Christian gods, each with their own list of "do"s and "don't"s.

I say: In effect, there are millions of different girls, each with their own individual charms.

Jamie L says:
To say there are no morals without God is meaningless.

I say: To say that there can be carnal love without having access to one of these girls is meaningless.

Jamie L says:
Which god? Your God? The God of the liberal Christian next door? The God of the fundmentalist down the street?

I say: Which girl? The girl with the pierced tongue next door? The straight-laced girl with the braces down the street?

Point being, just in case you can’t catch the parallel, the fact that many people worship many gods says nothing about the existence of god or of the moral attributes of god. Likewise, the fact that many people make love to many different types of girls says nothing about love or the morality of making love. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Dr. Retard]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nfallacy.htm) tells me the naturalistic fallacy was proposed by G.E. Moore (1873-1958) in Principia Ethica (1903). "Moore argues that "goodness" is a foundational and unanalyzable property, similar to the foundational notion of "yellowness," and is not capable of being explained in terms of anything more basic."

Morality refers to codified group behavior, and has the goal of improving the health of society. This elevates morality above subjective qualities such as yellowness, as it is possible to detect the effect of morality on society. The naturalistic fallacy is thereby avoided.

Moore is not saying that goodness is subjective. Far from it.

One thing to note about the "naturalistic fallacy" is that it's not supposed to be a fallacious argument. It's supposed to be a general problem for all theories of "naturalistic ethics", as Moore calls them. Such theories claim that the property designated by 'good' is identical to some natural property. Moore claims that all such theories are mistaken. Why? Because, for any natural property N, it is sensible to ask the question, "Granted that such-and-such exhibits natural property N, is such-and-such good"? Remember that natural properties are just descriptive properties of natural phenomena -- they're the sorts of properties we take to be recognizable by science.

An example will help. Suppose you take the property of goodness to be identical with the property of pleasantness. 'Good' and 'pleasant', then, designate the same property. But you can still ask of any experience, "Granted that this experience is pleasant, is it good?" And you're not simply wondering whether the pleasant experience is pleasant. You're wondering whether it's good. So goodness is not the same thing as pleasantness. This type of anti-naturalism argument is called the Open Question Argument.

Your proposed identification of goodness with the health of society serves as another example -- Moore would accuse you of the naturalistic fallacy. For, take any situation where society is healthy, and ask, "Granted that society is healthy, is this a good situation?"

Moore's argument is, I think, deeply flawed (this (http://www.kalderon.demon.co.uk/oqmi.pdf) is a good paper on it). But his conclusion is appealing, and we should all see what he's getting at. Natural facts, on the face of it, are not the same thing as moral facts. A moral nihilist could agree with you about any natural facts you bring up, and still deny that there are any moral facts. Moral facts are supposed to enjoy normative authority over rational agents. Natural facts leave this authority unexplained. To be sure, natural phenomena are what bear moral features -- any naturally indistiguishable worlds shall be morally indistinguishable. But it's difficult to see how the special normative authority we expect of morality can be explained by naturalism.

Perhaps this will serve as a rhetorical way of bringing home the force of these considerations: "Why should I care about the health of society? Is there some law written in the sky that says I have to promote the health of society?" Does your standard enjoy any authority over us, and if so, what does this authority consist in?

Now, bear in mind that all of Moore's arguments and considerations go for supernaturalism, too. God's will and God's nature are just as inadequate as anything for explaining the special character of morality. This is why Moore opts for "non-naturalism", which is supposed to be a real 'one of a kind' category.

(Also, Hume's is/ought problem is very similar to Moore's naturalistic fallacy, but all the same, they shouldn't be confused)

Originally posted by CJD
The problem with that is the fact that what is being said about God is often overlooked. I am thinking primarily of what xians argue about the nature of God, namely, that he is normative. As such, the normative is actually included in the premises (the "is"), and necessarily leads to its conclusion (the "ought"). One example should be sufficient:

Consider Colossians 3:1, an argument from indicative to imperative, which may be formulated logically: "You are risen with Christ; therefore you must seek the things that are above." Is that a naturalistic fallacy? No. To be risen with Christ is both a descriptive and a normative reality. Those who are risen with him are elevated with him, in him, to positions of honor and responsibility. Among those responsibilities is the obligation to seek what is above.

Put differently, because God's commands are supremely normative—the self-expression of God's supremely normative nature—they entail normative conclusions. I guess what I am saying is that this argument, IMO, is just as reasonable (if not more so) than some of those to the contrary.

This looks rather unintelligible to me. Or at least, it's unintelligible in all the important spots. What does it mean for God's nature to be normative? In what does this normativity consist?

If someone told me that a basketball was the source of normativity, I'd be very puzzled. That's how I am when someone tells me that God (or his will or his nature) is the source of normativity. I don't see the connection.

[CJD]

Dr. Retard, I am not sure if you are being coy, or if there truly is a vocabulary gap between us.

Let me sum it up as simply as I know how:

There are important implications if God’s nature is normative.

First, the “Euthyphro problem.” In Plato’s dialogue of that name, the question arises as to how “holiness” is to be defined. Euthyphro takes the common sense position that holiness is whatever the gods say it is. Socrates, however, demurs. If holiness is loved by the gods, then it must be something distinct from them. So: do the gods love holiness because it is holy, or is it holy because they love it? Socrates and Euthyphro come to accept the former. The latter, they agree, would make holiness something arbitrary, as if a god could simply define anything as holy.

Ethical philosophers down through the years have applied such reasoning to the concept of ethical goodness. Does God love the good because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? The latter answer would seem to make goodness something arbitrary; but the former answer would seem to make goodness independent of God.

The problem is resolved, I think, by this principle: God’s nature is righteous and therefore normative. God loves goodness because he is good, and therefore he commands goodness in his revelation to man. Therefore in one sense, God loves the good because it is good; the concept is not arbitrary. Yet he does not need to look outside himself for a standard of goodness. That standard is his own character.

IF his character/nature is normative, then what he commands is also normative (in that the premises of the apparently descriptive statement have normative elements, and therefore necessarily lead to the prescriptive). In this way, Xians avoid the "is/ought" problem—a problem I think unbelieving ethics is fundamentally unable to solve.

Capice?

Regards,

CJD

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by CJD
Ethical philosophers down through the years have applied such reasoning to the concept of ethical goodness. Does God love the good because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? The latter answer would seem to make goodness something arbitrary; but the former answer would seem to make goodness independent of God.

The problem is resolved, I think, by this principle: God’s nature is righteous and therefore normative. God loves goodness because he is good, and therefore he commands goodness in his revelation to man. Therefore in one sense, God loves the good because it is good; the concept is not arbitrary. Yet he does not need to look outside himself for a standard of goodness. That standard is his own character.

Actually, according to the principles of logic, this does not solve a problem.

What you are doing is turning two conditions:

If God approves of X, then X is good.
If X is good, then God approves of X

And you are seeking to turn it into a biconditional

X is good if and only if God approves of X.

But a biconditional is true if and only if both of its conditinals are true -- in this case, if and only if ethics is both arbitrarily based on God's will and independent of God.

It doesn't solve the problem, it creates a contradiction.

[Jamie_L]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Point being, just in case you can’t catch the parallel, the fact that many people worship many gods says nothing about the existence of god or of the moral attributes of god.

Actually, I wasn't trying to make a point about the existence of god or the moral attributes of a god. I was pointing out that I don't think people who worship a god come to their morals in differently from people who do worship a god. Or, to put it another way, the morals of religious people as a whole are just as subjective and varied as those of non-religious people.

On a side note, I find the god-girl analogy to be off somehow, though I get what you are trying to say.

Jamie

[CJD]

Hello, Alonzo.

I have to emend your point to clarify my position:

What you are doing is turning two conditions:

If God approves of X, then X is good.
If X is good, then God approves of X

And you are seeking to turn it into a biconditional

X is good if and only if God approves of X.

No, I am saying that "X is good because God Himself is X, and because he has commanded it."

*edited to add: And vice versa, "God is X, commands us to do X, so we therfore ought to do X."

If there truly is material equivalence here, how have I created a contradiction?

*edited to add: At least from the Xian perspective a normative standard is posited. Matter, motion, time and chance are hardly normative, that is, hardly able to prescribe morality. If you jump off a cliff, you will die. Gravity could care less.

Regards,

CJD

[NearNihil Experience]

"Yes the people who adhere to God ethics are technically the problem. I was just streamlining my position. When the very concept you hold to is illogical you can't expect a solid ethical foundation, so, at the root of the problem, God itself would be the hinderence to ethics."

So the concept of God is the problem, not God himself. But many people find God a reasonable assertion. Maybe not the Xtian God, but the universal God thingy that touched off the Cosmos.
And if he touched it off, he\she could have laid in place certain modes and highest forms of actions...ethically speaking.


"Might is probably the worst thing to base any ethics on. This is also a core tenet of Christian thinking. God equals pure might, and his ethics revolve around pleasing him for unknown reasons whether this benefits humankind or not. Nazi Germany is an excellent example of might ethics. Could the extermination of Jews be valid in any ethical system? Under Hitler's might makes right philosophy, then yes it would. As long as the majority decides that it is okay, then it is. That is impratical, and can have disastrous consequences as seen in the Holocaust."

Atually, I find might, natural prowess,etc to be the most straight forward form of ethical accomplishment, since at its root it is amoral and the closest thing to natural existence. God never uses God's might. It's always groups who have secured power working in his name. Power is the ultimate moral since it is undeniable and seems to have a singular imperative..."Kill or be killed." This is as honest and straight forward as the world get. "Lead, follow, or start your own group." Its up to the minority to fight back with what power it can.

Now I agree with you that reason can go far, but often ethical situations have no precident, upon which reason often relies for a comparative balancing of actions. I really champion an amoral life with a limited personal set of ethics that provides enough stopgaps to prevent constant conflict, based mostly on wanting to be left alone to do your own thing. And reason can lead to conflict just as easily and unreason.

"Capital accomplishment should not factor into the construction of ethics. If capital was the sole factor behind a society, 20 hour work days, child labor and a bloated minority class of fat cats feeding off of the people would be a-okay. The preceeding are all detrimental towards the happiness of the human race."

Most of what I'm saying is, What if you were the bloated fat cat?
Life feeds on life. I agree the fatcats could do better withy there resources...but how you treat others is up to them, yes them. Can't let people take advantage, no matter how desperate. That's why capiyal avccomplishment means little ethically, but it is an important factor in who sets the status quo:i.e. power.

"Emotion/fear/reward are all related. Christian ethics revolve around these three things. Emotion can often blind reason and lead to problematic thinking. If I get mad at a colleague and decide to murder him based on raw emotion, is that a valid reason? Ethics should find a way to build order, and protect society from unnecessary harmful impulses. Unfortunately, people are imperfect and emotion run wild equals pure chaos."

What you call an unnecessary harmful impulse is what someone else might call "being on the ball." One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Taking advantage of situations towards one's own benefit often seems immoral, but aren't we often just jealous we didn't think of it first?

I often find myself admiring despots, madmen, conqurers, emperors etc, not for their ends, but for the amount they accomplished. I think Hitler was great in his rise to power...he was just a murderous fuck to boot. Imagine all the resourse and power gatherd around such a person who was willing to do good things, say build the Jews new better ghettos instead of gassing them. These men were pretty self-moral and violent with their resource. I won't complain about how they got there...its what you do with it all that counts.

Emotion shouldn't be outright rejected as a valuable tool for decideing ethics. Alot of what we call ethical is based on simple emotion, then rationalized until we forget its origin and chalk eveything up to reason. Often reason and emotion go together...but I think you are refering to harmful and violent emotion, which has its place, but not in constructive matters.

Reason can often blind or emotion also. reson can provide simple minded justification also. Why the death penalty...deterrance is a reasonable answer, not an emotional one (even if it doesn't work). Vengence is an emotional answer. And justice is an illusion.

[Nowhere357]

Dr. Retard
Your proposed identification of goodness with the health of society serves as another example -- Moore would accuse you of the naturalistic fallacy. For, take any situation where society is healthy, and ask, "Granted that society is healthy, is this a good situation?"

"good situation" for what, to whom? The answer, of course, is that from the pov of society (or individual), health and life are good, sickness and death are bad. Which begs the question but what can I do?

Natural facts, on the face of it, are not the same thing as moral facts.
If I understand this, this simply means that actions in and of themselves are amoral, which I agree with.

"Why should I care about the health of society? Is there some law written in the sky that says I have to promote the health of society?" Does your standard enjoy any authority over us, and if so, what does this authority consist in?
I suppose because we want to fulfill our desires, and sickness and death oppose that. No authority beyond this: if we oppose the majority or even the militant minority and we may have to fight about it. We each can decide for ourselves. Line in the sand so to speak.

Good post. Some of it ("This is why Moore opts for "non-naturalism", which is supposed to be a real 'one of a kind' category") went over my head.

[Dr. Retard]

Originally posted by CJD
Hello, Alonzo.

I have to emend your point to clarify my position:

No, I am saying that "X is good because God Himself is X, and because he has commanded it."

*edited to add: And vice versa, "God is X, commands us to do X, so we therfore ought to do X."

If there truly is material equivalence here, how have I created a contradiction?

*edited to add: At least from the Xian perspective a normative standard is posited. Matter, motion, time and chance are hardly normative, that is, hardly able to prescribe morality. If you jump off a cliff, you will die. Gravity could care less.

Regards,

CJD

I assume you mean that God's nature leads him to make commands, and these commands dictate moral facts. By this theory, the truth of moral facts is to be explained, ultimately, in terms of God's nature.

So let's take a moral fact: rape is evil. You claim that this fact is true because God's nature is somehow anti-rape. I want to know what this "because" means. I can see two possibilities:

(1) This "because" is one of strict analytic entailment. This means that moral terms like "evil" and "good" designate nothing more than facts about God's nature. The fact that rape is evil is then identical to the fact that God's nature is anti-rape. "Rape is evil" is just a peculiar way of talking about God's nature. And if someone recognizes that God's nature is anti-rape, and then wonders whether rape is evil, then that person is linguistically confused. This position, much like ethical relativism, falls victim to the arbitrariness charge and the intuitive pull of the Open Question Argument. God's commands correlate with moral facts, not because God is responding to reasons, but because moral facts are nothing more than facts about what God can't help but do. Surely there's something about rape that makes it evil, other than the essence of a world-governing spirit. This position doesn't explain the normative character of morality; it simply eliminates normativity, defining it away in terms of non-normative facts.

(2) This "because" is a truth-making relation. This means that moral facts are not identical with facts about God's nature, but that those facts about God's nature somehow make the moral facts true. Then you have an is/ought problem. How do you get from these descriptive facts about God's nature to the normative facts of morality? What third set of facts underlies this relation? This is all quite mysterious.

I don't think you opt for the second possibility, seeing as how you claim that God's nature is normative. But this, again, makes no more sense to me than claiming that a basketball's nature is normative. Normative facts are supposed to be something distinct from mere descriptive facts.

Your position seems to face the same problem as someone who says moral facts are true because of facts about the social customs of 1970's Frenchmen. If this "because" is saying that moral facts are nothing but (constituted by) these French facts, then the normative character of morality is just eliminated. If you say that the French facts somehow make the moral facts true, then you have an is/ought problem.

Just look at your judgment that "[m]atter, motion, time and chance are hardly normative." That seems right. And the same goes for any facts about God's nature. They're hardly normative. Normativity is supposed to be something different.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by CJD
Forgive the intrusion, but how does the atheist derive morality or obligation from premises about matter, motion, time and chance

You're not going to suggest that a Christian could do it better than an atheist, are you?
crc

[edited to add:] Just ignore this post, CJD, I would delete it if I could. You've already made a couple of appropriate responses that I had not read when I posted this.

[Dr. Retard]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
"good situation" for what, to whom? The answer, of course, is that from the pov of society (or individual), health and life are good, sickness and death are bad. Which begs the question but what can I do?

If I understand this, this simply means that actions in and of themselves are amoral, which I agree with.

I suppose because we want to fulfill our desires, and sickness and death oppose that. No authority beyond this: if we oppose the majority or even the militant minority and we may have to fight about it. We each can decide for ourselves. Line in the sand so to speak.

Good post. Some of it ("This is why Moore opts for "non-naturalism", which is supposed to be a real 'one of a kind' category") went over my head.

Moore's non-naturalism is mysterious to everyone else, too. I doubt you're missing anything.

It looks like you assent to the following: When it comes to morality, there are no facts other than facts reporting our attitudes (interests, concerns, convictions, desires, sentiments, etc.), and facts reporting what tends to help us gratify those attitudes.

If so, it looks like you're denying any special moral facts, and proposing that moral language be employed according to your personal standards of societal health.

[User]

"So the concept of God is the problem, not God himself. But many people find God a reasonable assertion. Maybe not the Xtian God, but the universal God thingy that touched off the Cosmos.
And if he touched it off, he\she could have laid in place certain modes and highest forms of actions...ethically speaking"

God is a concept, and, anyway you look at it, the problem.

If there is a God who isn't alligned with any religion, it very well could have set up ethics. Yet there is no possible way to prove that any system of ethics is the true system of ethics created by God. There is no instruction manual from this unknown deity, so it is impossible to know the true ethics of this God (assuming in the first place that it exists).

"Atually, I find might, natural prowess,etc to be the most straight forward form of ethical accomplishment, since at its root it is amoral and the closest thing to natural existence. God never uses God's might. It's always groups who have secured power working in his name. Power is the ultimate moral since it is undeniable and seems to have a singular imperative..."Kill or be killed." This is as honest and straight forward as the world get. "Lead, follow, or start your own group." Its up to the minority to fight back with what power it can."

I don't understand what you mean when you say that might is the closest thing to natural existence? What is natural existence?

God, in a Christian tradition, uses His might to punish unbelievers on the Day of Judgement. That is a pure example of might makes right.

Power doesn't equal a moral. Power is an attribute that can be gained. Power has no relationship to an ethical code.

"And reason can lead to conflict just as easily and unreason."

Only if everything else is unreasonable.

"Most of what I'm saying is, What if you were the bloated fat cat?
Life feeds on life. I agree the fatcats could do better withy there resources...but how you treat others is up to them, yes them. Can't let people take advantage, no matter how desperate. That's why capiyal avccomplishment means little ethically, but it is an important factor in who sets the status quo:i.e. power."

What if you weren't the fat cat (which is the majority of the population)? It doesn't make sense for a small group of people to triumph at the expense of the majority. I am not a fat cat. The overwhelming majority will never taste true power, so why should an ethical system be tailor made for an incredibly small group of people?

"What you call an unnecessary harmful impulse is what someone else might call "being on the ball." One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Taking advantage of situations towards one's own benefit often seems immoral, but aren't we often just jealous we didn't think of it first?"

It is irrelevant whether someone is "being on the ball." That says nothing about whether it is right or wrong for society. Terrorist/Freedom Fighter is quite vague. Jealousy is not necessarily immorality.

"I won't complain about how they got there...its what you do with it all that counts."

Hitler failed in every respect.

I'm taking it that you value power as the greatest thing for the individual? I think of ethics as what is the greatest thing for a society of individuals. Less than 1% of people will experience the power you talk of, so why cater to it? Everyone cannot be them, and if everyone was like them then it would lead to self-destruction.

Your thoughts on emotion should be considered, yet pure emotion cannot decide a mass ethical system. Emotion is a very personal think which fluctuates from person to person. Reason can be used to deduct what is the best way to live in side a society of equals. Which way will encourage happiness, freedom, and thus prosperity.

[Albert Cipriani]

Jamie says:
The morals of religious people as a whole are just as subjective and varied as those of non-religious people.

That's because the religions of religious people as a whole are just as subjective and varied as the philosophies of non-religious people. The only fair or remotely interesting comparison is the one between the morals of a particular religion (not the fools who claim to embrace it) and a particular philosophy (not the fools who claim to embrace it).

On that basis, the morality of Catholicism, which is the Natural Law, is more coherent and life affirming than any philosophy I know. The reason for this is simple. The standard of behavior is set by how things are rather than how we feel or wish things were. Ergo, Catholic morality is objectified by an absolute appeal to reality rather than temporized by a relative (and hence incoherent) appeal to our individual or collective idiosyncrasies. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Nowhere357]

Dr. Retard
It looks like you assent to the following: When it comes to morality, there are no facts other than facts reporting our attitudes (interests, concerns, convictions, desires, sentiments, etc.), and facts reporting what tends to help us gratify those attitudes
I find this a bit misleading. Our attitudes can involve facts from outside ourselves, such as the state of the health of society. The facts can be interpreted differently, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I suppose this idea could be included in "convictions" for example but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

If so, it looks like you're denying any special moral facts, and proposing that moral language be employed according to your personal standards of societal health.
I'm not sure whether I deny "special moral facts" or not since I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not claiming that moral language be employed according to my personal standards of societal health - more like my personal standards are based on the moral language of societal health. Or something like that - I'm still learning.

I do know that our morality is not based on arbitrary guesses or subjective whim - we are not shooting blind. The overall goal, orientation, direction of our evolving morality seems clear - toward freedom and resposnsibility.

[NearNihil Experience]

"God is a concept, and, anyway you look at it, the problem.

If there is a God who isn't alligned with any religion, it very well could have set up ethics. Yet there is no possible way to prove that any system of ethics is the true system of ethics created by God. There is no instruction manual from this unknown deity, so it is impossible to know the true ethics of this God (assuming in the first place that it exists)."

Who has an instructions manual? "Yet there is no possible way to prove that any system of ethics is the true system of ethics..." You said it right there. Whether there is or isn't a God noone can prove any ethics as "true ethics". I don't think there are universal mores are out there... just because I'm revolted by the thought of killing and innocent child doesn't mean there's not some twisto eating babies for fucking fun.

I still say people are the problem. And people who believe on God are the problem to your system. No matter how much you reason with them, they are never going to listen to your inferior human(non-deific) ideas about morality. Reason does not apply. Reason is not legal tender at the Bank of Dumbshits.

Humans create morality out of fear and need for security, backed by the threat of the masses retaliation for non-compliance. They are afraid you might do something they would call immoral, and you are afraid they might do something you would call immoral.


"I don't understand what you mean when you say that might is the closest thing to natural existence? What is natural existence?"

The lion eats the gazel, unless the gazels get together to help fend it off...if they can...
In a "State of Nature" kinda thing.
Or I may have a mental fixation on killing and eating and have overlayed that onto my view of the world.;) :p

"God, in a Christian tradition, uses His might to punish unbelievers on the Day of Judgement. That is a pure example of might makes right."
BUt there is no God that's going to do that. Why give this any weight? Its a fictional example...

"Power doesn't equal a moral."
You are absoutely right...seems the opposite, don't it?

" Power is an attribute that can be gained. Power has no relationship to an ethical code."
I, and a few other people I'm sure, see a direct link to he who has the power establishes the ethical code of a society...status quo stuff.
I assume its against your ethical code to force someone to act according to your set of ethics..well, i hate to tell you but the people we are talking about are a little more willing to enfore their set of ethics...by force of law, popular support and organizing against you, screaming in that 1% Powerful Peoples ear, telling them they'll keep getting them elected as long as they fold and fuck your rights to freedom of whatever.

"I'm taking it that you value power as the greatest thing for the individual?"
Not exactly. I would say freedom\liberty are my highest ideals involving ethics. But one who has complete freedom has complete power over his actions. One is at liberty do or carry out any action to himself or others...This is the state of nature...guys like Ted Bundy took advantage..then the state of Florida took advantage.

One is free and at liberty to do anything one finds necessary. Really, there is nothing there to stop you. But with freedom there is responsibility. The responsibility to understand that you affect and influence others through your action. People need to understand that they only need act responsibily to avoid the State of Nature consequences. Alas many an animal in man's frock are among us. They are no respecters of freedom and life.
Conquers, despots, shady preachers, madmen, Alabama Supreme Court Justices, violent tyrants, "Moral Majorities"...when they come to fight they come with the Devil in tow...and when one fights the Devil one can never find hot enough fire.
This is a pretty long winded way of say the ends justify the means.

Which brings up...

"Hitler failed in every respect."
Shit no dude...he was a complete failure in the end. I remind the audience that Hitler's rise to power was legal and documented at every step. That takes some cleverness and a whole lot of not failing.



"Less than 1% of people will experience the power you talk of, so why cater to it? Everyone cannot be them, and if everyone was like them then it would lead to self-destruction."

I'm telling you everyone has 100% freedom(not including impossible things like flying or Midas's touch, magic and that la-la, but science does seem promising). Not necessarily lots of power or money...that just helps give you more options with your freedoms...taking advantage of the working class and all the things fatcats like to do without acknowledging it.
And there's part of my point....imagine a fatcat with a big heart. Guys who own megashit and go out of there way act in a just and fair manner. Instead of going out of their way to suckdry and destroy their workers for better profit margins. These greedy fucks are free to not act like they do and you are free to critize them...or force them to stop...But be ready to take responsibility for whatever happens.

"The overwhelming majority will never taste true power, so why should an ethical system be tailor made for an incredibly small group of people?"

What do you mean why? Why ask why? As it is, we live in a world, obviously tailor-made(thought we atheists believer there was no tailor,interesting;) ), favoring power...kill, eat, faster, bigger, smarter,faster,stronger,etc...

And here in lies my question to you. We find our selves in an amoral world...Hobbes's harsh,brutal,and short "State of Nature."
A world where morals are only created through our societal and personal reactions to certain behaviors... so one can see or learn about a certain behavior and know it is antisocial behavior for whatever society one is in. We don't know, for each one of us, whats right or wrong until we experience reflection of our reaction to that experience.

From what do these reactions stem? Programing(suggests a programmer)? Necessary tool of evolutionary development? Chemical reactions necessary to process neural input and our internal reactions(inner monologue) to this?

And what really makes you think that your system of ethics based on reason is any better than the one each and every person uniquely has out there in the world?
Remember, if you want someone to act according to you\like you, you must realize that you must take responsibility for the freedoms they just handed over to you. It kinda like Xtians who think "What Would Jesus Do?" Instead of"What Am I Going To Do?" They are not Jesus, you are not everyone else.

Everyone tries too. The Bill of Rights, the Bible, the Constitution, The Koran, TV preachers, Magna Carta, Emancipation Proclaimation, lawyers, judges, policeman, military, your Mom and Dad, My Mom and Dad...


I do agree that reasonable discourse can futher relations and relationships...further than unreasonable discourse. But I also think emotional discourse can also further relations. Humor difuses a tense situation....a little kindness or compassion can save a life, a simple word of cheer can save a life for Xist sake!...it has saved me from myself sometimes.

Tell me a little more about how you think reason can help and be related to ethics and morals. I'm still a bit fuzzy on the subject and curious.

rock on.
josh

[NearNihil Experience]

"It is irrelevant whether someone is "being on the ball." That says nothing about whether it is right or wrong for society. Terrorist/Freedom Fighter is quite vague. Jealousy is not necessarily immorality."

He who jumps on the ball first is in possession of the ball. It says nothing directly about what is good for society, but it is an observation that if you want to be in charge, you must be an opportunist. You ask me its good for society to be fiercely competative. Those who don't want to compete don't have to...but thewy can't go around complaining that they never had a chance 'cause they never too the chance. Ya gotta play to win.

There is an underlying moral plurality in nature and in human society...again I don't think there are universals.
A terrorist is someone trying to kill you to prove a point or scare you into doing something\stop doing something. You are being victimized.
A freedom fighter is someone trying to kill you to prove a point or scare you into doing something\stop doing something. You are being victimized.
The difference is wherther you agree with what it is that someone is tryng to accomplish.

Some people would say American troops are terrorizing the Iraqi population into organizing around their system, AMerican Democracy...we are not leaving until they fall in lockstep with our ways. However, some people would say our soldiers are freedom fighters for the Iraqi people, bringing them freedom by force.
Same coin, two sides. Who's to say who is right, by any definition?

Jealousy not immoral. okay. Not immoral to xtians either..with their jealous God. What about vengence? Ambition? Security?

[User]

"Who has an instructions manual?"

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, etc.

"Whether there is or isn't a God noone can prove any ethics as 'true ethics'. I don't think there are universal mores are out there... "

I see where this is going, and I partially agree. There will never be a "true ethics", because there will always be someone who disagrees. There are no universal morals, either. I think rape is wrong, yet I'm sure there are some people who would disagree with me.

The goal of ethics should be to create an environment that is the most beneficial for society. One in which the greatest number of people possible would prosper, and one that doesn't destroy itself.

"I still say people are the problem. And people who believe on God are the problem to your system."

Maybe so.

"Humans create morality out of fear and need for security, backed by the threat of the masses retaliation for non-compliance. They are afraid you might do something they would call immoral, and you are afraid they might do something you would call immoral."

In many cases this is true. Still, some things are beneficial for society, others aren't. Those things that aren't would be immoral.

The lion eats the gazel, unless the gazels get together to help fend it off...if they can...
In a "State of Nature" kinda thing.
Or I may have a mental fixation on killing and eating and have overlayed that onto my view of the world."

Watching too much National Geographic, eh? I don't see people in terms of lions and gazels. I see us all as equals working together to live our lives in pursuit of peace, prosperity, and happiness. Lions and gazels are simple in comparison to basic human interactions.

"BUt there is no God that's going to do that. Why give this any weight? Its a fictional example...

You mentioned that there is no God using might? I mentioned this example. I believe in no gods. So what god were you talking about? I see NO god exerting force over anything in the universe.

I, and a few other people I'm sure, see a direct link to he who has the power establishes the ethical code of a society...status quo stuff.

Yes, I see a link between "who has the power" and "who establishes the ethical code of a society." Whether the code they establish is a beneficial one or not is a far different story.

"Not exactly. I would say freedom\liberty are my highest ideals involving ethics. But one who has complete freedom has complete power over his actions. One is at liberty do or carry out any action to himself or others...This is the state of nature...guys like Ted Bundy took advantage..then the state of Florida took advantage."

Freedom is one of the most important things in a society. Yet, the freedom you talk of is people endlessly screwing each over in a corrupt system. That is not freedom. That is disguised as liberty.

"One is free and at liberty to do anything one finds necessary. Really, there is nothing there to stop you. But with freedom there is responsibility. The responsibility to understand that you affect and influence others through your action. People need to understand that they only need act responsibily to avoid the State of Nature consequences. Alas many an animal in man's frock are among us. They are no respecters of freedom and life."

Thus there has to be some sort of structure to protect society from those who don't respect freedom and life. I don't see any way around it.

Conquers, despots, shady preachers, madmen, Alabama Supreme Court Justices, violent tyrants, "Moral Majorities"...when they come to fight they come with the Devil in tow...and when one fights the Devil one can never find hot enough fire.
This is a pretty long winded way of say the ends justify the means.

I agree that the ends justify the means in some ways. But we are all going to meet our final end the grave. We need to set up a society that defends itself from those who would destroy it.

"Shit no dude...he was a complete failure in the end. I remind the audience that Hitler's rise to power was legal and documented at every step. That takes some cleverness and a whole lot of not failing."

Okay I agree completely.

As for the freedom/fat cats issue...

Alright, so you're not backing fat cats directly, you're backing their freedom? Also, you're saying that people have as much power to do good as they do evil? I back the second statement. The first one is problematic because of the evil option. People cannot be free to attempt to destroy others.

"What do you mean why? Why ask why? As it is, we live in a world, obviously tailor-made(thought we atheists believer there was no tailor,interesting ), favoring power...kill, eat, faster, bigger, smarter,faster,stronger,etc..."

The worldview you see promotes destruction of society, not overall prosperity.

And here in lies my question to you. We find our selves in an amoral world...Hobbes's harsh,brutal,and short "State of Nature."
A world where morals are only created through our societal and personal reactions to certain behaviors... so one can see or learn about a certain behavior and know it is antisocial behavior for whatever society one is in. We don't know, for each one of us, whats right or wrong until we experience reflection of our reaction to that experience.

From what do these reactions stem? Programing(suggests a programmer)? Necessary tool of evolutionary development? Chemical reactions necessary to process neural input and our internal reactions(inner monologue) to this?

You raise very good points, and I agree with you on more than you would imagine. Societies do seem to form our concepts of right and wrong. Whether there are universal morals truth or not is uncertain, yet this is all beside the point. What we do know is that we are here. We can feel emotions, both pain and pleasure, and we have brains that have developed past the other animals. We are social animals and must exist within societies. This is how we are, and I would base this on chemical reactions as part of evolutionary development. How it happened doesn't matter as much as what to do now that we are here.

How do we preserve society and prosper as a group? I don't see any attempts at societal self-preservation. It's all survival of the fittest which tears people apart. We need to have a system that insures survival.

And what really makes you think that your system of ethics based on reason is any better than the one each and every person uniquely has out there in the world?
Remember, if you want someone to act according to you\like you, you must realize that you must take responsibility for the freedoms they just handed over to you. It kinda like Xtians who think "What Would Jesus Do?" Instead of"What Am I Going To Do?" They are not Jesus, you are not everyone else.

I'm trying to preserve society with minimal conflict. People can have their own system of ethics within the governing system. Mine would be the governing system.

Tell me a little more about how you think reason can help and be related to ethics and morals. I'm still a bit fuzzy on the subject and curious.

I see reason as the ultimate means of survival. Your emotions can often be a help to you, and enrich your life. They can also be a hinderence. Reason is a clear process of discerning the truth from the false. Emotions can often blind your judgement, and cloud your consciousness. Emotions can lead to reckless behavior. When's the last time reason led someone to go drive off a cliff? In a mass ethical system reason can be the only approach. Emotion is highly subjective.

[User]

He who jumps on the ball first is in possession of the ball. It says nothing directly about what is good for society, but it is an observation that if you want to be in charge, you must be an opportunist. You ask me its good for society to be fiercely competative. Those who don't want to compete don't have to...but thewy can't go around complaining that they never had a chance 'cause they never too the chance. Ya gotta play to win.

Everyone can't be in charge, and in our society some people are going to have to be screwed over while others rise to the top. Also, you're assuming that everyone has a level playing field in society meaning anyone could rise to the top. This is not true.

Earlier you said that our morals are a reflection of our culture. I agree, and I'll take it one step further. Our very persons are a reflection of our cultures. We are all represenatives of a certain culture, making no one a true individual. This is the flaw I see in your thinking. We are all not as unique as we'd like to think. We're placed inside of cultures, and only on rare occasions do people break out and change roles.

My whole idea is based on the fact that humans are part of a larger mass. Yet we are still individuals within the mass.

There is an underlying moral plurality in nature and in human society...again I don't think there are universals.
A terrorist is someone trying to kill you to prove a point or scare you into doing something\stop doing something. You are being victimized.
A freedom fighter is someone trying to kill you to prove a point or scare you into doing something\stop doing something. You are being victimized.
The difference is wherther you agree with what it is that someone is tryng to accomplish.

I agree with you. Yet how can we prosper in this environment? Should there be any system of ethics in your opinion? Should anarchy reign in the streets? What would the after effects of this be? How could society survive if everyone could have everything they ever wanted regardless of the greater good?

What about vengence? Ambition? Security?

No emotion is immoral. Only actions can be immoral.

[NearNihil Experience]

Let me start by saying how glad I am to see people your age out there thinkning and trying this hard...bravo. I kinda wish I would have started my journey towards a better self earlier...but, I had a bit of a detour through a bottle of booze,a really big bottle of booze...
BUt I wouldn't be who or what I am today if I hadn't have done what I had done.

"One in which the greatest number of people possible would prosper, and one that doesn't destroy itself."

right on, but I think it is ineviatable that a society will eventually destory itself or be destroyed by someone else. Natural order is the old dies off in favor of the new..history is littered with examples.

" I see us all as equals working together to live our lives in pursuit of peace, prosperity, and happiness. "

I'm glad you see all people as equals, but we are not, and there is nothing on which to attach a marker to and say, with any sort of meaning, "all men are equal in abilities x, means y, or accomplishments z." This was Kants great ethical failure, as he felt that all men were equal in their capacity to do good\right\non-harmful action. Hence his Categorical Imperative and is basic matter, "Do that which is maximally right at all opportunity." What is "right" changes for every person. If we are equal it is in our 0% capacity to be consistent in action and thought, with ourselves and our interrelations with others. We are none of us equivalent or equal, same, congruent, etc
If you see us all and yourself as equals, how do you mean we are equal...in our capacities, our actions, our worth?What?

" Yet, the freedom you talk of is people endlessly screwing each over in a corrupt system. That is not freedom. "

Trust me, I'm not saying that's how I want it either witht the corruption and screwing...but that's how I see the world's workings now... and alot of human societies through history too, if not all. Yes, that is the freedom I'm an talking about, but things could be better. Freedom comes with a price, and if we truly have great freedom then along with freedom comes a great price...vigilence and responsibility in action. We are truly free to be the fatcat, the lion, the Hitler, but we can be the Ghandis, Dahli Llamas, or gazels...
BUT more often we are really the guy helping an old lady with her groceries, the dad playing ball with the son, the mom's running endlessly from job to job to feed the kids she sees for maybe 2-6 hours in a day if she is lucky. Or some kid stealing a wallet, some dead beat dad, or White-Russian-o-matic Mom(tm).

"Alright, so you're not backing fat cats directly, you're backing their freedom?"

I'm not really backing anything. I was just observing that all of us has unimaginable freedom in action, ex: Hitler and Ghandi, fatcats and dregs.
I am saying you are free to do whatever you want, even to those fatcats. You can take a swing at those fucks from Enron...really the only thing stopin' you is the laws against it.

And I didn't see the laws, like the ones you want to make different and more, stop those Enron guys from bilking alot of people. Responsibility in action...if those guys were to go unpunished, some individual should take it into their own hands to do so if they felt it was appropriate.

Not terrorists, those cowards attack people who have no quarrel with them, not innocent, but uninvolved. What does a bunch of kids in a daycare center in Oklahoma City do to some hick to have him want to kill them? NOthing, because they were uninvolved and Timothy McVeigh freely murdered those children and then the State(federal?) government freely executed him. He was extrememly irresponsible with his freedom, so his liberty was taken.

"Also, you're saying that people have as much power to do good as they do evil? I back the second statement. The first one is problematic because of the evil option. "

I never said anything about evil, but I would say it in terms of "good for me \ bad for me" or "I like it \I don't like it".
Subjective all the way baby...'cause I can't tell anyone how to feel and its rude to try.";)

"People cannot be free to attempt to destroy others."
Well they are...and there really ain't much anyone can do about it.
You can try reasoning with people, but usually interaction involves unreasonable people. Best you can do is either be the big guy\s, or get in good with the big guy\s. Better one spends time learning to defend himself, than learing parlay with fools and madmen.


"The worldview you see promotes destruction of society, not overall prosperity."
Again, I am not necessarily promoting any worldview...not promoting, relating. I'm trying to relate you to my experiences and information, not sell them to you or convince you of anything...I can't. Only you can say what's taken away by yourself in aby exchange...freedom.

Societies are destroied. See also: Human History 1-...present.
Gotta make room for the new stuff. You don't seem very impressed by animals and nature, but if you stop for a second you can leran so much by just stopiing in the woods and checking it out, putting 2 and 2 together about how nature cycles and wanes and continues...I'm no Pagan, but I sympathize very much with their awe for nature.

and animals have taught me so much about behaviors.
like how not to lick your balls, and proper throat shredding while killing prey, hump whatever you feel like ;) :p , and living with the group, homes, social natures, and parenting...

"How it happened doesn't matter as much as what to do now that we are here."
Quite true.

"It's all survival of the fittest which tears people apart."
Yup, competition for resources and all that...

"We need to have a system that insures survival."
That would be nice...but, how?


"I'm trying to preserve society with minimal conflict. People can have their own system of ethics within the governing system. "
Good luck. Speak way to philosophically, one can say that society always is at the minimum of possible conflict. However, one can quite clearly also say that the possible amount of conflict is actually always maximal. Glass half full? Half empty? Nope, there is no glass. :cool:


"Mine would be the governing system."
Now you're talking about power...and I wanna know how you plan to get it without compromising your morals or ethics?

Why is nice, but How is the way somehthing gets done.

"Reason is a clear process of discerning the truth from the false."
Only an individual can set his or her own standards of reason and what determines whether something is true or false. I may not believe in God, but I am free to tell some guy who does that I think he's nuts. Noone is authority of what is true and false , only unto himself. And if you were to try to enforce reason as a standard, you are halting people's freedom to be unreasonable...according to what you deem reasonable...Now you are the tyrant ...

And that is not what you want at all, is it? If it is, go for it. Just be careful and humane.

"Emotions can often blind your judgement, and cloud your consciousness. Emotions can lead to reckless behavior."
The odds, logical mathematical probability, state that the chances of drowing in 1 inch of water are outrageous, but it happens. Reason would say not to worry about it it can happen. Same with getting hit by lightning.

"When's the last time reason led someone to go drive off a cliff?"
A stuntman reasoning that his paycheck is worth it.

" In a mass ethical system reason can be the only approach.
Emotion is highly subjective."

If it is the only approach, your back to the tyrant. Is it not unreasonable to be a tyrant?
Reason is also highly subjective as any reasoning originates in an individual, unless you believe in mass consciousness.

"Everyone can't be in charge, and in our society some people are going to have to be screwed over while others rise to the top. Also, you're assuming that everyone has a level playing field in society meaning anyone could rise to the top. This is not true."

Its not a level playing field, but anyone can rise to the top if provided or seeking the right opportunities. William Jefferson Clinton: little white trash kid---> Two term President of the USA.
Adolf Hitler: starving art student----> guy EVERYONE wanted dead.

"Earlier you said that our morals are a reflection of our culture. I agree, and I'll take it one step further. Our very persons are a reflection of our cultures. We are all represenatives of a certain culture, making no one a true individual."

True, there is no escaping influwnce from a myraid of inputs.

"This is the flaw I see in your thinking."
"This" what?

"We are all not as unique as we'd like to think. We're placed inside of cultures, and only on rare occasions do people break out and change roles."
We are neither constructs or automotans. All of us share traits and common input and common histories but everyone has a nearly infinite combination of those traits, histories , and input. No two ever alike.

"Should there be any system of ethics in your opinion?"
It would be nice, but I think its kinda pointless...people are gonna do whatever they want. All you can threaten them with is guilt and fear of Hell and jail. And that doesn't work on most people.

"Should anarchy reign in the streets?"

No. But it does. At any moment chaos could erupt. riots, bombs, shoot outs...even floods, hurricanes, tornados... Imagine if you lived in Iraq right now...



"What would the after effects of this be?"
I don't know, start a riot and find out. But I'm guessing rebuilding, money spending, loss of life, loss of services, go see a major flood plain...

"How could society survive if everyone could have everything they ever wanted regardless of the greater good?"

It kinda like Ghandi saying when asked, " What do you think of Western Civilization?" and he replied, " I think it would be a great idea."
Society is like the half\ half empty cup. There is no society, there is no greater good, and there is no everyone.

What you call society might not survive, but what the next generation calls society will be all around them. People can do whatever they want regardless of the law, ethics, or the greater good. And to stop them is to kill their freedom to do and be as they see fit and which everyman is entitled to freely criticize, but never halt,...except the actions causing the crying or death of a child.

later...

[OBKB]

The temptation is to great for me not to cut and paste this reply I posted at NewMan (http://forums.strang.com/viewtopic.php?t=4480)

Three fingers are pointing back at us as we point our index finger at each other.

The middle (second) finger of this discussion is the reluctance to understand the high idea of immortality and the primordial synergies that insist each entity is collectively responsible for all immortality. Casting our fortunes with the extremely barbaric life-after-death ideologies has no substantial, provable, logical or rational return on our investment. If our chosen source for generating revenue is coffins and grave sites then we would be well advised to propagate the idea of life after death.

The ring (third) finger of this discussion is insistence without credible evidence that sentient beings can not have morals except by way of theistic prescription.

The little (fourth) finger of this discussion appears in the form of no longer engaging in meaningful dialog between sentient beings. How do you respond to corporal punishment?

I was raised in the theistic philosophy and have a bit of historical knowledge of organized religion. There was and is a large Catholic entity that preceded Protestants. Given that the Levites came out of Egypt and were engulfed in Roman rule I feel qualified to make references to the Catholic influence and mission in what some consider the modern world. In the secret rooms of gallant people the plot to deceive and control by way of theocracy remains fruitful regardless of denomination.

[Poseidon]

I am curious if anyone has read the essay, by CS Lewis, "Man or Rabbit," from God in the Dock?