Orgre are like onions, and ethics are like football.
There are rules in football. The rules change from era to era, from country to country, from middle school to the NFL.
People agree on the rules and it makes the game work. People enjoy it, it provides a livelihood to thousands of people, and entertainment for millions more.
You seem fascinated and obsessed by the fact that the rules are of human devising, and your position appears to be that the players might just as well start bringing along cricket bats and using them on their teammates during huddles.
Almost everyone else in the thread is saying, yeah someone could do that but it would be stupid, and the player doing it would almost certainly not enjoy the consequences of his actions.
And your reply to that (as I understand it) is:
What does it matter if the fans think the player is stupid and if the player doesn’t enjoy the consequences? After all, the rules only come from an athletic association and not from ancient collection of stories riddled with ambiguity and contradictory advice.
It’s the kind of argument that someone can try to answer, but that really doesn’t warrant anything more than eyerolls.
However, I would encourage you to take your own advice and start violating any social customs that are not specifically dealt with in your accepted set of divinely ordained rules. I’m guessing there isn’t anything about what language one should post in on SDMB, correct? If so, could you please post exclusively in pidgin English? After all, if there isn’t a a rule about it from God, there’s no reason not to do it.
Yeah, it was an interesting point that he finessed by saying that if the atheists are right then humans can’t tell. And just because an argument doesn’t warrant more than eye rolls doesn’t mean it can’t be fun to pursue anyway.
I’d like to attack this problem from another angle.
Shodan, imagine you are right. There is a God, and he defines an objective morality. However, he doesn’t tell anyone what this objective morality is, or at the very least gives many different, conflicting, and incomplete accounts of this morality. How, from a practical standpoint, is this any better than a world where there is only subjective morality?
There would be something to point at, but no one has any definitive knowledge of where to point. An argument with Hitler about the morality of the holocaust would be equally subjective, as you’d be arguing about who’s morality is closer to the objective truth - which neither of you knew.
If someone questioned you why you thought the holocaust was wrong, you’d have to explain why you think that you are right about what the objective morality. You’d have to explain why you think killing and torture of an entire demographic is wrong. This someone doesn’t have a cheat sheet to the objective morality anymore than you do, so he’d have to be convinced on the strength of your arguments, and it depends on whether his ideas of what the objective morality is is in any way similar to your idea of the objective morality.
If someone questioned me why I thought the holocaust was wrong, I would explain why I thought that systematic killing and torture of an entire demographic is wrong. Since there is no objective morality, I’d have to convince him on the strength of my arguments, and it’ll depend on his view of what morality is to be similar to my idea of what morality is.
I can’t imagine any way that you’d have an easier time convincing this someone than I would
I’d love to hear the reasoning behind this, but that would probably be considered a hijack. It would probably make for a great GD thread titled, “Mother Theresa was a Sociopath”.
I hope you did. I’d be curious to hear what you thought.
Yup.
Yup, again.
“potential.” That’s a tricky argument. Are you sure you wish to make it? Every fetus has “potential.” Every sperm does for that matter. I think you’ll have a tough time with the “potential” argument.
I disagree on many levels. That comatose person has high value as an organ donor if nothing else. Assuming there is hope for a recovery, we might assume that he is valuable to others who love him or to himself. He would have rights which would assign a high value to his life. Additionally, he also has a soul which inhabits his value (according to my faith based judgement.)
Accepted.
No, I think it would be a lot more complex. A universe with an immortal everliving God, would, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, “Have a lot of 'spaining to do, Lucy!”
Ok, then. Seeing as this is how you view this, why not just have fun? Do what you want, and to hell with the societal mores which constrain you?
Because Nihilism sucks. I once read something by a Doctor who stated that we should act as if all our medical ills and sicknesses are our own fault and doing. Clearly, he didn’t beleive it was true, but he made that to act as if it was was actually useful.
Similarly, whether or not there is a God, I think it’s extremely useful to act as if there were.
That’s true. I did not apologize, nor do I intend to. First off, I find the offense itself sill and stupid and not really worth catering to. If someone wants to be offended, fuck 'em.
Secondly I think the characterization is accurate. Several people have argued that a theistic viewpoint makes us meatpuppets, not an atheistic. Wrong. The theistic viewpoint suggests that God gave us free will. We are not meatpuppets if we have free will.
Without a God, you are nothing more, nor nothing less than a meatpuppet (me, too.) You are controlled by your body chemistry and genes in a rigidly deterministic fashion. How you act, what you think, what you say, what you do is nothing more is controlled by the complex interractions of your genes and environment which have dictated everything there is about you.
Read that essay, if you haven’t.
You have no free will, an illusion of self-awareness and consciousness that exists simply for utilitarian purposes to program you to behave in certain ways.
You’d be a meat puppet. Without a soul, explain to me how you transcend mere meat puppetry into a “you.” You are nothing more nor less than a biological machine, like a car. What drives you are your genes. Hence, meat-puppet.
Meat puppetry is the inevitable consequence of atheism unless you wish to positive some ghost in the machine or other soullike entity.
I choose to act as if I do, because things make sense that way… for me.
Ok. I’m not trying to be offensive, but do you see how if that’s true than you are just a meat puppet?
Put it this way. Did you ever see The Champ? The whole thing is a formulaic manipulation designed to make you cry at the end. At the end of the movie I feel dirty and manipulated.
Let’s take a look at grief. Grief is a useful emotion from an evolutionary standpoint because its the consequence of valuing other people. Valuing other people makes you cooperative, and your genes have a better chance of perpetuating themselves through cooperation. Your grief is most likely visible and demonstrable so that it can be communicated to others reinforcing their desire to work together cooperatively and avoid loss from the group. Some animals demonstrate grief behaviors (I grossly simplify.)
If it’s just programmed into you by evolution and society, and you are just the expression of your gene’s tendency to replicate, than there really is no “you” actually feeling anything. It is just useful that you act this way. It’s your programming, and an illusion. It’s not real, your just being manipulated (not that there’s really any you to be manipulated)
Another thing is that atheism seems to lead inevitably into solipsim.
That’s just your genetic and societal programming speaking.
What is “good?” If you’ve defined values as being purely subjective, which you seemed to agree with earlier than you’re going to have a hard time defining “good.”
Fair enough. It’s the logical expression of your viewpoint.
Consider this. It is in the nature of humanity that we feel pain. We feel it all through our lives, emotional and physical. By killing somebody you end their capacity to feel pain, and even if you kill them painfully, that’s but a trifle compared to the pain they would feel if they lived a long life.
So, if you’re looking to reduce pain as a guiding ethic than murder would be a virtue.
And, as I point out, theists are in the same boat. They choose a “meta-ethical” basis seemingly at random. So, perhaps you should reconsider your “meta-ethical” criteria.
It’s not. That’s my point.
I’m not arguing that atheist morality IS superior to theistic morality. I’m arguing that a theistic morality ISN’T superior to an atheistic morality. See the difference? You’re really missing the point entirely.
However, if you follow the link I provided above you’ll see there’s an agenda behind this sortation. The “atheism is a religion” meme is being used to attack the wall between church and state in the United States. And that’s a bit more significant than just filling out a survey.
WTF – I don’t see people in this thread who self-identify as atheists questioning your code of moral behavior, or saying that moral relativism provides an excuse for abhorrent behavior, or that we should apply a model that includes neither consciousness nor free-will to ourselves and to our actions.
Shodan and Scylla, I would like to consider that you guys and most other members of this board share many of the same values, and that we all in fact recognize this to be the case. On the first point, I’m pretty confident – I’d be surprised if most of us did not place some value on fair play, loyalty, honesty, integrity, etc. On the second point, I’m not so sure, and given the aspersions that have been cast (from both sides), this could be open for debate.
I can’t imagine how one could be a theist and justifiably deny all moral authority to the actions of somebody, whether theist or atheist, who is not of the same precise denomination. Likewise for an atheist. So, theists and atheists alike should be comfortable with their answers to the following questions - I’d be interested in hearing yours:
Do you perceive a moral code that guides what you consider to be ethical behavior? Is it desirable for you to follow, through your actions, the tenets of this code? Are there certain aspects of this code that a person, by violating them, would become in your estimation an immoral person? (me: yes, yes, yes)
Is it possible for your beliefs about what should be considered ethical behavior to change as a result of your own life experiences? Is it desirable that this should be so? (me: yes, yes)
Do you consider that authority for what you perceive to be your moral code manifests externally to you and independently from you, or is this code derived partially or completely internally within you? (me: internal)
If the authority for this code derives externally to you, do you consider this the only righteous form of authority to establish such a moral code? Who or what embodies the core teachings of the code and in what way are the teachings of this code communicated to you? In what way do you apply your own interpretation to the tenets of this moral code, and do you analyze them critically or without judgment? (me: N/A)
If someone’s behavior is substantially in agreement with what you consider to be your moral code, does it matter from where they perceive the authority deriving that code (if it differs from your own)? Would you consider that person to be a moral person? (me: yes, yes)
If someone’s behavior is substantially different from what you consider to be actions consistent with your moral code, would you consider that person to be an immoral person? In your consideration, does it mitigate the morality of their actions if they perceive the same authority as do you in deriving the moral code under which they act? (me: yes, no)
“Meat puppetry” implies that there is some sort of intelligence/soul controlling the physical puppet like a puppetmaster controls a puppet. If one takes a view common to atheists (though not necessary nor part of an atheistic belief) that intelligence or “youness” is caused by only physical things then the physical body is not a puppet. It is an autonomous body and can not be described as a puppet becuase there is nothing controlling it. The view theists commonly take (but again not necessarily caused nor required for theism) is that the physical body is seperate from the spiritual/mental/thing that causes “youness” portion of a person. In this case the body is a puppet and the “soul”/intelligence is the puppet master.
Scylla, I know you weren’t talking to me, but I feel the need to respond to some of the things you’ve said.
What the heck kind of puppet controls itself? That’s a robot, a machine, maybe an automaton. There are plenty of words. But puppets? That doesn’t make any sense. Or are you simply defining the word “meatpuppet” to mean “a human being who does not have a soul”? Or what? I’m seriously asking - I’m having trouble understanding the definitions of some words you’re using.
I don’t see how that follows. Can you back this up?
Another non-sequitor. What does a god have to do with whether the universe is deterministic or not? Or are you defining a god to be something creates a non-deterministic universe?
How can self-awareness possibly be an illusion? Either it’s there or it’s not. An illusion of self-awareness or consciousness is an incoherent concept. If it’s an illusion, then whose illusion is it? Unless you’re using the word “illusion” in an odd way, then the only things that can experience illusions are those things which have some sort of consciousness.
A driver is not part of the car. Genes are part of a person. Hence, there’s nothing puppet-like about it. (Not only that, but genes don’t “drive” people at all. They create proteins. Hell, they don’t even do that. They encode information that is used by to create proteins.)
This is important. You’ve just successfully undermined this line of argumentation. As you say, I can’t be being manipulated if I’m not there. But you claim I am being manipulated. Therefore, I must be there. QED.
I’d love to hear a defense of that claim! I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such a bold claim before, even from rather ardent Christians intent on converting me.
Since Shodan has an agenda grounded in politics, not belief, you will only get more of him evading the questions, rephrasing them to fit that agenda. He might argue better and occasionally offer some good posts in non political debate, but when it comes to politics, he’s just more eloquent than Aldebaran, december or reeder, but equally unwilling to concede a point.
Therefore you are a fundamentalist, dogmatic atheist who makes unproveable statements, and this form of atheism is much like other forms of fundamentalist, dogmatic religion. Correct?
OK -
Yes
As far as I can tell
Yes
No, and
No
respectively.
Because you apparently haven’t read post 76.
Now if you set off on another round of “No, you haven’t answered the questions”, feel free to piss off. I’m a little tired of it.
So you didn’t read this part of my post -
It’s useless to everyone else, therefore any moral exhortations you have ever made are invalid and worthless. It is also useless to you because it doesn’t achieve anything - no matter what you do, it is in service of a completely arbitrary standard with no validation either available or possible. And one which does not make it possible to determine that killing you (or everyone) is morally wrong.
I have been assuming all along that there is no God, and that therefore He does not defines an objective morality. Granted those premises, it is not possible to rationally choose any moral standard from any other moral standard.
I don’t think you are so much “attacking the problem from another angle” as changing the subject. Which, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is something common to these kinds of discussions. My experience is that atheists are much more comfortable on the attack, and much weaker on defense. Which accounts for the natural tendency for them to disregard answers that are inconvenient to their positions, and attempt to argue against positions which (for the purpose of this discussion) I have disavowed.
What I (and presumable Scylla are saying is that let’s try to examine the concept of morality, granting for the purpose of the discussion that God does not in fact exist. Let’s not argue that, let’s see if we can find common ground.
What seems to follow logically is that if abhorrent behavior is a meaningless concept, and doesn’t require any excuse. There is no such thing as a standard by which you can determine that an action is praiseworthy or abhorrent.
But what I am asking is, is there any rational basis for putting value on fair play, loyalty, or honesty? What is it about fair play that makes it any different from unfair play, or honesty that makes it preferable to deceit?
AFAICT, atheism necessarily denies that there is any moral authority available. Can you suggest one? So far, all we have are what I would call “acts of faith”, where some things are accepted because “that’s what I think, and only I count in the grand scheme of things”, or “because it makes sense to me”, or “that’s what everyone thinks”, or just because.
OK, but let’s say I am an atheist. If your assumptions are correct, then it should make no difference to my answers.
And here we run into the first problem.
Me: yes, no, no. I can perceive a moral code. But I can’t see any rational reason to decide that it is better than anything else, or nothing. And therefore there is no such thing as an immoral person.
What’s the difference between a moral and an immoral person? One is bleen, and the other is gorb. What does that mean? Nothing, it is purely arbitrary (or subjective, if you like - I decide what is bleen and what is not).
Me: yes, no. Same problem - you have offered no reason why any moral decision is desireable or not.
Why would it be desirable to change from one meaningless noise to another?
Me: (assuming atheism) internal.
Me: N/A.
Me: no, no.
Since we haven’t established that any moral standard is valid, it doesn’t matter what the other person’s standard is - it is still unvalidated. And therefore we have not been able to establish that there is any such thing as a moral person.
Me:no, no, for reasons stated above.
Do you see the problem? Somewhere between your first and second question, you have assumed something that you haven’t demonstrated - that any moral standard is valid.
And thus all we get is a lot of attempts to say, “well, theist morality isn’t any better”. Fine and dandy - theist morality isn’t any better. No morality is any better. Because there is no such thing as a valid standard of morality. It is all purely subjective, like being a Red Sox fan vs. going to the opera.
If you just want to leave it at that, fine, but then you have no standard to determine that even things like fair play or the Holocaust differ morally. And therefore saying things like “the invasion of Iraq was immoral” is exactly equivalent to saying “my leg itches”.
Unless you can come up with some reason why anyone else should care if your leg itches, or why it is better to scratch the leg rather than chop it off with a chainsaw, or kill yourself so that your leg never itches again, or kill your neighbor so that he no longer roots for the Red Sox, then you haven’t done much by way of establishing a moral standard than means much of anything.
I wonder why some thiests seem to believe a moral code must be imposed upon them by a higher authority rather than rely on their own ability to devise an ethical code of their own.