Heh heh, this is like a Great Debates thread for people who don’t like reading philosophy. For anyone who’s interested:
Atheistic morality
Free will as an illusion
Murdering meat-machines
Not believing = believing not.
Also, a non-solpisistic message of hope to my fellow meat non-puppets.
It seems interesting. He seems to be more outlining events rather than making an argument, but most of it does seem worthwhile. When we know (by using the methods of brain scanning he outlines) close to “exactly” how we work, then it does rather point to there being this “illusion” of self. I didn’t really understand why he chose to add that little snippet invoking God at the end, though - even if his essay is entirely with merit, it says nothing about God’s existence - it only tries to show how one understanding of self not involving God is wrong.
I would indeed have a difficult time, seeing as how i’m pro-choice. I would argue that the potential of a sperm to live we clearly cannot cope with - should we impregnate every woman on the planet, so that each sperm becomes new life? That would clearly effect those women, and the men who’ve produced the sperm, considerably negatively - plus, we’d run out of resources quickly, so what life everyone had would be rather short. So there has to be a line drawn somewhere between “potential” life and all that that entails and the existence and all that entails of already living persons. I would argue that the parents of the fetus have priority over that fetus because, as it’s been pointed out, we only feel what we feel due to our genes and the innate biological processes we have - and people, whether by this process, or in their soul, have not yet connected to the child to the extent they have with the parent. Hmm, we’re kinda getting into the abortion debate, here - I think i’ll leave it at that, unless you have any other questions.
Value, yes, that person does have - as you’ve pointed out, organ donation could be very helpful in the lives of others. However, while that gives the body (because it would be a body) usefulness, it does not give the body value as a sapient individual - it has no “soul” ( I would argue) and thus, as it’s bodily functions and brain activity are dead, so are they. The person has no “innate” value just for being a person - “it” has value as an organ shop. That he could recover is addressed in my previous post - the “fixed” person. I do not believe people have innate rights - rights are a concept of society, and as such this person has value in terms of law - but not innate, “being a person” value. Him having a soul is your belief, as you say, and mine is not.
Why? Take, for example, the creation of the universe - God waves his hand (or phlange, or cillia, or whatever) and there you have it; one shiny new universe. Easy, simple, fine.
Athiestic (and some agnostic’s) view - well, we don’t know. Maybe it was a “Big Bang”. Maybe a large cosmic elephant squatted and shat us out. Either way, be it with the interaction of atoms which caused a chain reaction, huge explosion, etc, or the biological and digestive processes of the cosmic elephant, it’s much more complex than just “Let it be - and it was”. A Deity existing would result in more meaning to the universe, certainly - but not, necessarily, more complexity.
Hypothetical - God comes down, and says, “Alright, guys and gals, change of plan - Today, and for one day only, you can sin all you want! No lasting repercussions, all will be forgiven, and souls will remain untarnished. Go have fun!”. Would you, personally, then think “Nice! Time to go score me some hot teenage chicks! Raping and pillaging galore!”. You would be perfectly fine and happy to go out and murder, molest, etc all day long? You would feel not a modicum of guilt? I think you would, even if you were absolved by your Deity. Which is also why we do not do such things - we would feel guilt, we would feel we had done wrong, and hell, we’d hopefully just think “No, I don’t want to hurt other people”. No matter what that emotion stems from, be it a Deity, a soul, or our flesh, we still feel it - and we will feel it no matter what our meatpuppet, rational, computer brains tell us as to it’s nonsense.
I don’t think i’m nihilistic. And even if I was - so it sucks, what’s your point? Like i’ve said, there doesn’t have to be meaning in the universe, or fairness, or justice - maybe it does just suck.
I don’t see how it’s useful either, but it could well be - I’m afraid I don’t see your point with this, though.
Ah. Problem. You mean act as if there were your God. Should I act as if Cthulhu existed? Should I act as if Zeus existed? Should I act as if the christian God existed? It is only useful to act as if the deity exists if they actually, do, exist - it wouldn’t be useful at all to act as if Cthulhu existed if he didn’t, or act as if Cthulhu existed and instead the christian God did. If you mean it’s useful “to other people” to act as if God exists, again, pick your God. If it’s an evil, vengeful,rascist God, is it still useful to act as if it exists?
Very well - that’s a reasonable viewpoint, and while in “real life” I would be able to deny you some kind of service I provide, or an altruistic helping hand, I can’t withold that over the internet. So offense on here doesn’t really matter to the offender, unless they break the cardinal rules - for example, the forum rules here.
You argue free will is something, then, that only a “soul” can contain, or be imbued with. What makes you so sure that a flesh being cannot also have free will? Why cannot the ability of “free will” be flesh-based, as opposed to spiritually? We have evidence flesh exists. We have evidence of “free will” (Or at least, you believe in it). We have no evidence that humans have a spiritual essence. Logically, it would be more sound to say “free will is an aspect of our flesh” as opposed to “free will is an aspect of our soul”. Alternatively, you could say that there is no such thing as free will at all.
Which, actually, is what I believe. I’ll get to that now :-
I don’t think I transcend “meat puppetry” into a “me”. I agree that my biological reactions, flesh, brain activity etc are all just part of a “living computer”. I am, indeed, a creature of meat, controlled by impulses, which, complex as they may be, are still impulses. I can do many things - my complexity as a creature allows for this. But, in the end, I am just a living computer. So, I suppose I agree with your above words…
…but you don’t! “You” choose? With what part of you do you choose? The free will given to you by God? Very well, I posit that my free will is given to me by bananas. As long as bananas exist, people will have free will. This makes sense to me - bananas, with their mighty powers of omnipotency, are allowing me to have free will. We can’t test bananas for omnipotency, though. It is all logical. Except… bananas are not omnipotent, most people would argue. It would make sense - it is a logical argument - but that does not make it so. Only possible.
I do see what you mean - and I agree that I am a meatpuppet. But your argument was flawed.
Haven’t seen it - This is one of the things I don’t understand about people; why would you want to watch a movie, read a book etc. that makes you feel sad? I don’t want to feel sad, thanks. And yet these films/books/tv shows/whatever are very popular. I really don’t get that. Anyway!
Right, I agree.
As someone’s already pointed out before me, who is the illusion being played on? Logically, your argument is akin to saying that, given the right input, we could “trick” a computer into thinking it’s alive - believing that it’s actually a being as opposed to just silicon and cicuitboards. But wait! The computer…believes it’s a being? So, there’s some kind of evaluative process going on here. It “thinks” it’s alive? It’s been tricked into considering that option? So, there is in fact some kind of cognitive process already going on in the machine which analyses these things? Some part that the “trick” that it is alive is being played on? Possibly a…brain?
But hey, maybe i’m wrong (not sure how, but i’m sure you’ll point out it out to me). Let’s say there is no me, that in fact it’s all just biological nuances and synapses and various disgusting odours. As an agnostic, i’m willing to accept this as a possibility. So, let’s analyse it.
“I” (although there is no such thing, it’s just a trick, but I can’t think of a better word to describe “me”) have emotions - no, wait, they’re just created by my body. Nice! I can go out and kill some people, and while I feel grief and guilt that’s unimportant - it’s just a biological process, it carries no meaning to it. Maybe i’ll have sex with my girlfriend* - sounds like fun! But hey, just another biological process, doesn’t matter, it’s unimportant!
Ok, walk along the street, kill a person - hmm. I feel guilty. Eh, all bilogical, unimportant. Keep walking, kill someone else. Hmmm, still feeling kinda guilty, here. Oh well. Run after another person - they all seem scared for some reason, which is odd - that’s just a biological process, and it doesn’t have any meaning. Kill another person. Weird, i’m still feeling quite guilty, here. Why is that small child crying? Sadness is just a biological process! Doesn’t he know that? Meh. I’ll kill him too. Gah. Now I feel really guilty.
Do you see the point? Just because it is an unimportant process with no meaning, doesn’t mean I do not feel it - my rational thought does not override the emotion. Say we could override all emotion, say our rational thoughts and ideas could dominate all our emotions and what we feel, then yes, we’d be meatpuppets - cold, unemotional, drones, just waiting around to die or wandering around doing whatever until we get bored. Luckily, we can’t always override our emotions - we are able to sometimes (like when firemen beat their fear of being burned up to save someone) but not all the time.
Are we just biological processes, encased in a meaty shell? Yep. I dare you to not enjoy having sex with your partner, though. 
Not so. Solipsism says the only thing we can be certain of is our own self - surely your argument further up your post has been saying that (for an athiest) we are under the illusion of having a self? Thus, you know, we can’t be sure?
My argument against yours was that we are biological processes - so yes, i’d say solipsism is something I believe in. However, as an agnostic, I’m prepared to say it doesn’t necessarily.
Quite so. Your point? It’s still there, I still feel it, as i’ve pointed out.
“Good” was being defined as 1) resulting in me feeling happy, love, (enjoyable emotions), etc, and also not feeling sad, lonely (not enjoyable emotions), etc. and 2) resulting in others feeling enjoyable emotions and not unenjoyable ones. Why 1? Because I enjoy them. Why 2? Because I feel empathy. Why do I feel empathy? It’s a biological process of my flesh. Why does it matter? Look further up my post.
Likewise, It’s understandable why you praise your view of morality - it’s the logical expression of your viewpoint, namely that God exists. Fair enough.
Ah. A problem appears. As you point out, we do feel pain. We do not enjoy this. We also feel happiness. We enjoy this. A better restatement of your point may be “If they feel more unenjoyable feelings than enjoyable ones, it would be fine to kill this person”. Logically, if that person will, indeed, through their life feel more unenjoyable emotions than enjoyable ones, then yes, it would be logical (and compassionate) to kill them.
Two qualifiers, though, need to be taken into account - firstly, the person’s perception of their life. It’s a cliche, so i’m sure you’ve come across a story, or in your life, when a person has been dumped/divorced/had a partner die. They are in a lot of pain - maybe more pain than the enjoyable emotions they had all throughout that relationship. But what do they say? “I know i’m sad, but it I had the chance to do it all again, I would”. I know this is not the case every time, but you must agree that people do feel like this. Why are they willing, essentially, to take on more pain than (for lack of a better word) pleasure? Well, biologically we’re built to “forget” pain, so that we don’t end up cowering in our houses afraid to go outside or do anything. We still remember it as a “warning”, though. So sometimes people are willing to take on more pain for a smaller amount of pleasure - it’s not as clear cut as a simple ratio of pain to pleasure being a good judgement for killing.
Second qualifier - you have to take other people into account. A depressive person who has had only a few brief moments of happiness in their own lives may, nevertheless, brought happiness to others - the cliche’d “clown crying on the inside”. Maybe they’ve made others feel pleasure - this has to also be taken into account in the ratio of pain vs. pleasure.
I think Revenant Threshold nailed it pretty well. I don’t for a minute believe that your average theist tries to behave morally solely because of what god says. I don’t think your average theist would go out and harm people if, for a day, god suspended all rules of morality. You wouldn’t lose your compassion, empathy, and belief in the benefits of a peaceful, well-ordered society. Most people follow these tendencies, call them moral laws if you will. Theists and atheists believe differently as to the source of these laws, but as a practical matter, we all follow them. The only problem is theists believe these laws come from god, therefore if you have no god, you have no moral law. There’s nothing further from the truth.
Give me a break - I wasn’t looking for how you would answer those questions if you were to adopt a philosophy that you clearly don’t hold, and you know that was not my intent. Why you would completely duck giving me your own perspective I really cannot imagine. Care to try again? Thanks.
**Shodan **, you seem to be working very hard to convince us that atheistic morality is subjective. Which is rather odd considering that it’s a point that all the atheists in this thread readily concede. You also seem to believe that theistic morality by contrast is NOT SUBJECTIVE, but you haven’t offered any explanation for why you believe this. That’s the crux of the matter.
Let’s return to my post that started this line of debate. I’ll rephrase it slightly to remove all mention of atheists to make it clear that it’s solely addressing the question of theistic morality:
There is an objective reality. The universe is organized in a particular way.
A statement is judged true or false based on how well it correlates with the objective reality of the universe.
Different religions make contradictory statements about objective reality.
Therefore SOME claims about the nature of reality by SOME religions MUST be false.
We have no empirical evidence to sort out false religious claims from true ones.
So the choice of which religious moral precepts to follow is a SUBJECTIVE choice.
I’m not about to present you with an objective basis for morality, but I must ask. If you faced Hitler, could you tell him nothing more than “I, personally, disapprove of the extermination of the Jews”?
Yes. I could try to kill him.
Oh, and yes, I would feel justified in saying “What you are doing is wrong.”
How is this even relevant ? If there is a God, why would his opinion count as “objective morality” ? If there is no “objective morality”, the existance of God won’t make one appear. Even an omniscient being can’t see something that doesn’t exist.
That tends to happen when you can’t take the other side seriously.
First, as I said, God would not be a “moral authority”. Second, the difference is simple : life is better for the vast majority of people if they are fairly honest, nonviolent and so on. That is an objective difference; a society when everybody constantly lies to, cheats, robs and murders each other is a far less pleasant/safe one than a moral society.
“Predator”, “liar”, and “murderer” are objective differences. You can call them good/evil, right/wrong or bleen/gorb; they are still real. The label can be changed, but the underlying reality continues.
Personally, I don’t care about “valid”, whatever that means. I care about “better”.
No, theist morality is worse, at least the God based version which seems to be what you mean. If you base your morality on God, you base it on nothing at all; God is either nonexistent or silent. Basing your morality on God is the same as saying “I can do anything I want, as long as I claim God wants me to !”.
Because unless people care about each others welfare, the vast majority of humanity will immediately perish in a orgy of death and destruction. Every petty annoyance, every temptation will be an excuse for lethal force, and almost all of us will die.
How’s that for an objective reason ?
I’m with you, Scott. Dio might agree with killing him, but the other part is the puzzle. And though I agree with you, I’m at a loss as to how to justify it.
Of course I could do more. I could blow his brains out. In my moral system it’s perfectly ok to kill Hitler. Why wouldn’t it be?
Actually, you said that atheists and theists would agree on the answer, and I demonstrated that (IMO) this is not the case.
I am interested in exploring whether or not the position espoused in this thread (“you don’t need God to establish a morality”) is valid. I recognize, as I mentioned, the temptation to try to shift over defending a position to attacking one, but I am resisting it. So in that sense, yes, I know what your intent was. Or perhaps, I believe I know. 
I am pretty sure this is supposed to mean something, but I am doggoned if I can tell what it is. If you don’t have anything “valid” to use, how do you know that any morality is “better”?
Are atheists equally basing their morality on “nothing at all”?
On what do you base your morality, how do you tell that one is better and another worse, and why is that standard worthwhile?
If you say “there is no basis”, then that is exactly what I have been arguing all along. If you say there is some non-arbitrary basis, then what is it?
And why is having a pleasant society a valid moral standard? Are you going to try the “well, that’s what everyone wants” line again? Why does that desire take precedent over the desire to kill anyone who gets in your way? That is not an objective standard; it is subjective.
And exactly the same thing can be said about atheist moral beliefs - all of them are entirely arbitrary and subjective.
For the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter in the slightest if we are talking atheist or theist morality, as I keep repeating, over and over. So your distinction is entirely beside the point.
Fine - all moral choices, without exception, are entirely subjective. There is no reason to choose one over the other, it is solely and entirely a matter of taste, and no justification is possible. Hitler felt it was OK to kill Jews. There is no basis whatsoever to say that this was an invalid moral choice. William Wilberforce believed that slavery was morally wrong. There is no basis whatever to say that this was a valid moral choice. Beating Matthew Shepherd to death, invading Iraq, sacrificing your life for your children, smashing puppies with a ball peen hammer - all are exactly equivalent moral choices, because there is absolutely no sustainable reason to prefer one over the other.
As I keep saying, let’s agree, your point is established. Let’s not use God for a basis for our morality.
Then atheism is another religion. It offers the same basis for morality as theism, cannot provide any proof of its moral claims, and even denies that any rational standard is possible.
Therefore, in that sense as well, it is a religion, and based on faith, just like a religion.
Regards,
Shodan
Because I have a better chance of living to old age and not having my stuff stolen if we all agree to abide by some standards of behavior. Ultimately, it’s in my best interest.
Could it be that you’re finally beginning to understand? I doubt it. But that is exactly what everyone else has tried to get across to you. ALL morals codes are subjective. You and Scylla seem to think your religious morals are objectively set by some God. But there is no evidence to support that.
Summary of the argument so far:
Theists: “God exists - we get our morality from that”.
Athiests: “God doesn’t exist, morality is just part of ourselves”
Theists: “Well, wouldn’t that only be subjective?”
Athiests: “Hmm. Yep, pretty much. Doesn’t mean it’s unimportant, though”
Shodan: “But look, your system is subjective”
Athiests: “Yes, we know. We’re saying all systems are subjective - even yours”
Shodan: “But your system is SUBJECTIVE!”
Athiests: “Uh…Yeah, we know. We agree. So’s yours? Anyway, your system is just as subjevtive as ours - your system is not objective either”
Shodan: “Guys, think about this though: Your system is only subjective!”
Athiests: “…”
Atheism doesn’t provide any basis for morality. The only thing that my atheism tells you about my morals is that they aren’t based on a religious text. I might have a utilitarian view of morality, in which case it is my utilitarianism that provides the basis for my morality, not my atheism. A different atheist may derive his morals from a sense of empathy, in which case his morality comes from his empathy, not his atheism. A third atheist may see morality as a social contract to keep things running smoothly. Again, it is her belief in an orderly society that provides the basis for her morality, not her atheism.
There’s a sort of hole in this, though. First, “subjective” is not an equivalent term to “rational” or “real”. We may arrive at subjective conclusions that reflect rational observations of real things. If we all get together and collectively decide that murder is wrong, it is based on the very real phenomenon of our collective will. This may be somewhat subjective and imperfect. However, not only is it rational, it is quite superior to basing our laws of morality on a god that for one reason or another never seems to be available for comment.
Also, you’re playing a bit loose with the definition of religion there, as atheism continues to posit nothing about the existence of supernatural beings or forces.
No argument here. But what I asked was " could you tell him nothing more?" That is, can you say “x is wrong” and mean something more than “I find x aesthetically displeasing”?
I realize that you are responding quickly to a variety of posters, so you must not have taken the time to carefully read my post before your own response. Allow me to refresh your memory - this is what I said:
I didn’t say that you would share my perspective, but that I expected that you would be comfortable with you own viewpoint - of which, I’m still in the dark since you’ve not yet taken the time to provide it. Thanks.
With all due respect, I don’t think that this is what has been communicated to you at all by the various self-identified atheists (of which I am one) in this discussion. You are being disingenuous to say otherwise. What has been said is that what each person perceives as their moral code to guide what they consider to be ethical behavior derives partially or completely internally within them. And that therefore there are reasons for each person to judge what they consider to be ethical or moral behavior - they need only look to their values to see whether an action corresponds to their interpretation of morality. When enough people who share the basic framework of acceptable behavior come together, some of us like to call it, oh I don’t know, a society. In the U.S., for example, we value not only the ethics of the majority, but also protection for the rights of the minority - at least in theory. Or do you hold that the only moral authority that can invest our Constitution and Bill of Rights with validity must be supernatural?
Do you know what is good and what is not good? Do you need to ask anybody to tell you these things?
No. Atheists are basing their morality on their own personal aesthetic. Theists do the same but, unlike atheists, theists pretend that their aesthetic is endorsed as somehow being externally “valid” by an invisible magic authority. Morality is purely intuitive for both atheists and theists. Atheist simply have the guts to admit that and theists don’t.
We’ve been over this repeatedly. There is only one valid moral authority- my own.,
Worthwhile to who?
No one says that.
Personal aesthetic.
Because I say so.
What the hell makes you think other people have a desire to “kill everybody who gets in their way?” I’ve never had the slightest desire to kill anyone who got in my way. I find the thought of killing somebody to be exceedingly unpleasant. Don’t you?
When have we said any differently? You are the one who keeps trying to argue that morality can exisy objectively, not us.
The only one TRYING to make a distinction is YOU. We AGREE that there is no objective difference beween theistic and atheistic morality. You’re the one who was trying to argue nonsense about “meta-ethics” and insist that religious morality is somehow more “valid” than atheistic moral aesthtics. You seem to have the idea that we’re trying to say our morality is necessarily better than religious morality but that’s not the case at all. We don’t see a difference in “validity,” we just don’t believe in God and can’t make ourselves believe in God. We see submitting to a religious moral authority as being a different autonomous moral choice than one that we would make. We’re not saying it’s less legitimate. The only ones trying to argue a difference in legitimacy in this thread are you and Scylla.
True.
False. All taste in beer is subjective. That doesn’t mean that there is no reason to choose one beer over another.
Justification to WHO?
Yes there is. It violates my moral aesthetic.
Yes there is. It pleases my moral aesthetic.
They are all completely subject to my own moral judgement. I personally have perfect and absolute authority to decide what is morally right or wrong. No one else’s opinion matters. No one else has moral authority. No one else can correct me.*
Huh? 
How do you get from here to there? Religion is not defined as “a basis for morality,” so your point fails right there. Morality does not require “proof” since it is nothing but an experiential descriptor and if you can show how a rational standard is possible, cough it up.
Faith in what?
Do all humans have the ability to tell the difference between objective right and wrong? Yes or no?
Sigh, thank you.
However, the fact that morality is subjective doesn’t mean it’s imaginary or arbitrary. Morality is a social construction, just like money or language. Dollar bills don’t have inherent worth. They are worth something only because most people BELIEVE they are worth something. The word “buffalo” has no intrisic meaning. It means “a large shaggy ungulate” only because most people BELIEVE that’s what it means. Killing is wrong because most people BELIEVE that killing is wrong. All three are social facts manufactured by consensus.
You can’t manufacture a social fact by yourself. I can go around calling seashells money, but they aren’t. I can say that jumping up and down on one foot constitutes a valid contract, but it doesn’t. I can say that shooting **Diogenes ** is a moral act, but it’s not. Social facts exist by consensus.
And yet, somehow the world continues to function. People go about their daily lives spending money and having conversations and making moral choices despite the fact that all these things are purely subjective.
I thought you said religion was “a set of beliefs about God based upon an unprovable assertion”? Now it’s somehow wrapped up in how moral questions are decided? You seem to be shifting your definition of religion to suit your own purposes: “I don’t know what a religion is, but atheism is one!”
Besides, atheism makes no moral claims. Atheists themselves, personally, may make moral claims, but atheism is silent on the subject.
Atheism doesn’t even deny that a rational standard is possible. If empirical evidence were presented that the unverse is organized in such a way that objective moral truths exist, I (and I think most atheists) would acknowledge those truths. My argument is that barring emprical evidence of objective moral standards, we are all moral relativists. You seem to think this is license to behave like a sociopath. Remind me to never let you borrow my car. 
Hmm. Essentially, yes, you can mean more than that - because he caused untold amounts of suffering, and this is a “bad” thing from my moral viewpoint. Thus I can say to him “I find your beliefs and actions morally repugnant, and also that you are an evil, insane man”.
Of course, this means nothing objectively - he is not wrong because his actions are innately wrong, he is wrong from my perspective because he’s broken my moral boundaries. Hitler is not, universally speaking, wrong. Objectively, he is no different from you or I, because there is no “objective” system of morality.
In case you think i’m making the point that he did no wrong, that’s not the case - from my perpspective, and many others, he did breach moral boundaries. He certainly caused suffering, and from most people’s perspective this is bad. Thus, under the system of laws and cultures in which we comprimise our ideals and morals in order to fulfil some of them, he can be arrested and sentenced to death/numerous life sentence/whatever (if he’d not killed himself).