Aw shucks Cynic, who certified you as Diogenes? 
Sorry about that bad spelling, I’ll try harder and harder to do better and better and maybe Apos won’t have me banned and sent to the Barbeque Pit.
The pit isn’t any sort of banning, it’s just the appropriate venue for certain sorts of posts.
Yes, I think that is what I understood.
Dealing with HF first, was his act moral/immoral/amoral/immoral-but-ultimately-moral? I’d call it an immoral act with fortuitous consequences – if I were to shoot at someone, but miss, the missed shot hitting another would-be assassin, that would hardly be a moral act, no?
Hitler forgot point three of “my dictum”: remember, you might be wrong. There’s nothing that I am so sure about that I would commit genocide to achieve. What made him so sure? I would say wilful, and immoral, ignorance of his capacity to design a better world (if that was really what his intentions were, for all I know he may just have wanted the power-buzz).
However, just to really muddy the waters: it could be argued (but please don’t make me, I would find it distasteful) that the world, having seen the horrors of fascism in the early 20th century is less inclined to go there again, and hence the world is a better place.
I think the two examples you give raise some very interesting questions of what we might mean by a “moral” act. I’d like to hear more of your “take” on it.
Your posts may be contentless, off-topic non sequiturs but at least there’s always a smiley.
I’ve heard this theory before, and I consider it offensive, since though I myself believe in God (to a degree) some of the most moral people I’ve met don’t believe in God, period. What I wonder is, how do they rationalize these atheists that do act in ways they would consider highly moral if said atheist was a believer in God? Is it accidental, coincidental, or “proof” that they’re a good person who’ll eventually be in God’s grace once they wake up to his existence? I’m trying to figure out how they can believe that all morals come from God when not everyone who displays them believes in God…It strikes me as being akin to knowingly watching indie movies, yet proclaiming that all movies are made by big production companies.
Funny thing, the more developed a country gets, the more atheists arose.
Once you get too far in rational thinking, you refuse to accept such arguments as “because God says so”. Religion, in my opinion (let me make this clear, it´s MY opinion, I´m not stating facts) is a path to give the world an explanation (like science is another). Religion is like magic in some ways, an expresion of a low developed racionalization.
By the way, according to some posts in this thread, let me produce Kant here.
Kant said that there were three differents ways to act:
-Not according to moral (amoral/inmoral)
-According to moral
-Moral itself
The first one is acting without counting on moral, you can be amroal (it doesn´t matter) or inmoral (against moral itself).
The second is acting according to moral but motivated for fear of punishment or expecting some reward.
The third is acting according to morality because you beleive that that is the correct thing to do.
For what I´ve seen in this thread (and in my catholical education), most beleivers act according to moral because their afraid of being punished (by God, of course) or they expect a reward (an atic duplex in heaven or something like that), but not because they truly beleive that acting moral is good in itself.
Thus, atheists who act moral, don´t expect neither a punishement from above nor a reward, so they´re (we) are more moral in my opinion.
Do you mean “immoral”?
I can’t dispute what you’ve seen in your religious education, but where in this thread have you seen believers saying “I have to act good so I don’t get punished and I get a nice spot in Heaven?” I must have missed that. This is a caricature of genuine religious belief that gets my goat a bit. The “religious” people I know who are moral are so because they believe it is the right thing. Their appeal to a higher authority is not for punishment or reward so much as it is for the guidance of moral standards. That is, they feel humans are inadequate to define what moral good truly is, absent an absolute arbiter.
Dangerously close to pitting material – misses the point but picks up on the typo. Brilliant, well done.
[quote]
Their appeal to a higher authority is not for punishment or reward so much as it is for the guidance of moral standards.
Personally, I find such appeals craven.
Do what thou wilt,… I mean YMMV.
And the ones that aren’t?
Reminder to self: start Pit Thread “SDMB coding sucks”
Dear me. He spelled it wrong the same way twice and I was trying to be helpful, in case he thought “inmoral” was actually correct. I make mistakes like that and appreciate being corrected. And I can take typos in stride. I haven’t mentioned any of his other typos and I have dealt, positively even, with points he has made, because they are worth engaging. What indication is there that I “missed the point”? I have no issue with the three categories. They’re fine. sickboy51, please accept my apology if I have offended you. It was not my intention.
Because it shifts the responsibility for decision making from the individual or for some other reason? I suppose they might view it as humility rather than cowardice. YMObviouslyV
I guess I would have to categorize them as hypocrites.
I think your first example is not quite analogous because missing and hitting the bad guy is an unintended consequence. The subject did not accomplish the act he intended to accomplish. We wouldn’t say that his intention was immoral.In Huck’s case, his consequence was entirely intended. He meant to free a slave and he did. He believed that it was immoral to do so, but we, as readers, would still call his intention moral.
Since objective morality is impossible to determine, (there is no way to “test” for morality. If God does not exist, then morality has no meaning outside of human thought, and even if God does exist, he’s not letting us in on any definitive moral standards, we still have to rely on our human minds) and individual morality is too variant, quirky and unreliable, I think the best we’re left with is consensus. We agree to agree about certain things. Sometimes that consensus changes. What seemed incontrovertably immoral a hundred years ago may be seen as harmless today. Conversely, we may also come to abhor, over time, certain conventions or practices that once were seen as unremarkable or even morally positive in the past.
Some moral standards appear to be universal and historically consistent: murder, theft, rape and incest are seen as undesirable and repellant in virtually every culture and every era. Of course, there an infinte number of qualifications and exceptions to all of the above, which just goes to show that morality is rarely, if ever, absolute and IMO, is a product of culture just as much as language and religion are.
Therefore, as it pertains to the OP, a person could hold no belief in any gods, or even an assertive belief that gods are non-existent, yet still follow the dictates of his or her cultural morality. It hardly needs to be said that one can belief in God and still break all kinds of moral codes, so it seems to me that theistic or non-theistic belief is unrelated to one’s ability to behave according to cultural expectations, or to feel empathy, compassion, etc.
I mean we wouldn’t say that his intention was moral. His intention was immoral.
I agree… in the above example the act of genocide would be a calculated descision and morality does not come into the picture. Japan was not nuked because someone thought it would be moral to do so, it was nuked to prevent further destruction and death and to bring to a quick end a conflict that had already cost millions of lives on both sides.
Moralitly is a vauge figment of imagination. Its relates to the similarities in structures of a society but is often mis-understood.
Moral values often define fundamentals of a religion but not the other way around. Thats why we have similar morals in almost all religions.
PS: the quote should be ‘Take Care of the Queens English’. Long live the Queen!
Apologies accepted. First, English is not my first language (I think that is quite noticeable), “inmoral” is the correct word in my first language, that´s why the mistake, , thanks for the correction by the way, I´m always willing to learn.
Second, I think i must apologize. You see, I´ve been lately in two different threads, this one and the one about “does God exist?” and so I´ve taken posts from the other one to be from this one. No, no people in this thread said something about “acting moral in order to get a reward or avoiding some sort of punishement”. Sorry, apologies again.
But I was educated with this discurse: “obey God´s laws or you´ll be punished”. Now I think I should be moral because that´s the proper thing to do, but most catholics I know sense that acting moral is like getting points to to to heaven. Such things as charity, praying, etc. seem to give them “points” to get to heaven, like if you use a lot your credit card you´ll get a discount next time you buy some gas for your car. That was the point I wanted to make.
And I´m not the kind of person who sents somebody to the pit for nonsenses. Be very rude to me and I´ll think about it, but now… no, best not.
Milum: A calculation is not a “moral”.
Take care with the King’s English.
-
novemberromeo *:PS: the quote should be ‘Take Care of the Queens English’. Long live the Queen!
-
Milum* What? Yall elected a Queen? What did you Blokes do with the King? Blimey, it’s hard to keep up with the mother country these days. Maybe the new Queen will throw out the immoral law that makes you all buy a licence before you can watch TV.
Good luck and May God save the Queen. (Unless she is an Atheist, which is her God-given right to be so, although I am sure that she would be happier as a Baptist.)
And as for you Great unwashed, here are two definitions for “morality”, see if either one pleases you.
- The learned behavior actions and constraints of social animals that enhances the ability of the breeding group to continue through time. These behavioral modifiers are elaborate and highly sophisticated mechanisms in the Great Apes and Mankind so are shaped and structured and reinforced thoughout childhood, so much, in fact, that they becomes as much a part of the individual as his or her sexual organ, maybe even moreso.
In field studies of the Great Ape all were found to be true to their early years of morality training . So too were the findings in the studies of men and women except for one group who chose to call themselves “atheists”. They disclaimed childhood and claimed that they had found “morality” on their own as they grew bitter and old.
- (See 1.)
___________________________________________
Milum, I fail to see why are you so harsh to people who have different opinions than yours.
Anyway, I was educated ina catholic ambient (I went to a catholic school for about ten years) and now I´m an atheist (if being an atheist means that such thing as a the God described in the Bible doesn´t exist). If morality came from God (one and only God) why is it that there are so different religions with different moral values in the world? (this is a given fact, if somebody wants me to go further in this matter, thought, just ask). And another given fact is that morality itself is no a… uh… “finished” thing, you see, it evolves in time, for good or for bad, but it changes (just notice that some values very prized in the fifthies are no longer considered valid nowadays, in western culture). If God would want us to act in certain way wouldn´t he give us the same moral standars to everybody? wouldn´t he give us a moral standars as accurate and perfect that they wouldn´t need to change?
On the other hand, man´s creations, including social structures, are of no perfection, social structures change and so, moral values do, in accordance to those new structures.
Oh good grief. Can we have an end to this childish sniping? You have no cites for any of your claims, you have yet to formulate a single coherent arguments. Your sole contribution in 236 posts and counting appears to be acting undeservedly smug for some reason you never bother to reveal. It’s such an exceedingly tiresome act that I simply can’t figure out why you waste your time here with it.
Ah, then I did offend. 
Thank you for your graciousness. I wasn’t meaning to be snarky, but I know people can be language snarks and I should have clarified.
I thought that might be the case. Do you mind if I ask what your first language is? (I like to learn stuff, too.)
Understood, apologies accepted, no harm, no foul.
Ah, and that’s the point I wanted to engage. I think this may, in part, be due to the fact that religious education is inculcated early. According to the three stages you posted, reward/punishment is an appropriate level for someone at a “lower” stage of morality - a place a child would be by definition. It’s a learning stage, not an inherent corruption (IMO). Anyhow, I think people who never examine their beliefs can cling to that stage if they don’t choose to grow in their spiritual life. But I don’t think it’s an essential feature of all religiously based morality. That is, I believe both theists and atheists can reason morally at the the third stage.
None of which answers the OP’s question, however, which I still see as asking whether a particular unbelief (as opposed to an action or a motivation for an action) can be moral or immoral in itself.
Right from the get-go you are rude and off-topic and wrong.
IF we accept that morality is solely learned then exactly how could it progress, in an evolutionary* manner, or otherwise?
So bang goes that definition (without me having to worry why the hell you think it is pertinent to compare one’s morality with one’s primary sexual organ – oh, unless that’s what informs your morality of course).
Having rebutted your first point I find there is nothing but a smiley left to rebut.
Consider it rebutted.
- see your previous post “…Morality is an invention of evolution that is evolving today…”
Again, I´m not offended if somebody corrects me, it depends on the way that correction is made. anything done to improve my english is fairly wlecome. My first language is Spanish, by the way.
And for this you said:
“But I don’t think it’s an essential feature of all religiously based morality. That is, I believe both theists and atheists can reason morally at the the third stage.”
I agree, but I´ve seen very often (too much for my dislike) how religion is used to opress people. I didn´t pretend to mean that all religious people stay in that satge, but most of those I´ve met, do. you see, if god gives you a “way of managing things” why should you bother to think further on that matter? Unfortunately, thinking is not a very practiced sport nowadays.
Being from Spain and all, I know a little of using religion to opress people, and that´s what bothers me most about religion, it´s often used to prevent people from thinking by themselves, because if you begin to do so, you could come to conclussions not matching religious dogmas (is that the way yo spell “dogma” in english?), and also, you are questioning the power of religious hierarchy.
If you read my very first post in this thread, you´ll see what my response is to the OP of this thread. The reason why atheism can be considered iMmoral 
itself by some religions (specially catholic, which is the one I know best), and I think I have answered the question (I mean, I think I gave an aswer that can be considered as a very reasonable one). Anyway, this question turned somehow into a debate about morality itself and if it comes from God or if it is a human creation, which is an interesting one, if you ask me.
I´m always willing to argue (in the good meaning of the word) if you all want to go further in this question or you want to move it to another thread more specific like “Does morality come from God or is it a human issue?” or else “can we conclude that there are some moral principles unique to all human race despite cultures and if not, should they?”.