Please do not let me dissuade you from stopping any Bundys or Hitlers you may encounter. I only ask if you have anything beyond “I don’t like what Ted and Adi are doing” in support of your action. From what you’ve written, the answer is no. Can you see why I might find this unsatisfactory?
Truly, a deity whose demands for ritual sacrifice may not be ignored!
Why do they ALWAYS start running laps just when your about to finally fall asleep? Damn you, and your nocturnal ways!
This seems to be something similar to America’s political climate; he who is loudest and expresses the least doubt is seen as strongest.
A moral code which is based on a book and held to fervently is seen as somehow stronger than a moral code which admits that it is based on no preternatural justification. A moral code which admits no possibility of grey area and claims an objective validity when it doesn’t have one is seen as stronger than a moral code which admits its limitations.
What would you prefer?
It’s more than “not liking” it. It’s feeling a moral obligation to protect others, but that’s a nitpick. To address your real point, no, I don’t have anything beyond my own moral authority, but a.) neither does anyone else and b.) nothing else is needed.
I could see how it would be unsatisfactory if I was trying to convince you that my moral standard was somthing binding on YOU, but I’m not. My morality is only binding on me, so I’m the only one who has to like it.
No.
I thought this was an inspired question!
I don’t know if you intended it, but for me, you raised the issue of lesser and greater moralities.
When is something just “aesthetically displeasing”, and when is it just plain “wrong”.
I join Swift in his contempt for our Lilliputian morality.
Slaughter in the name of Big-endian and Little-endian morality, when true morality is found in the words of the great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Blundecral ‘that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.’
A greater moral wrong in the name of a claimed lesser moral right, which (if the Blundecral is to be believed) is not a matter of morality at all.
Your kinda stuck shooting Hitler, since I doubt the S.S. will just let you make a citizens arrest and walk him out of the wolfs lair! Bundy is a different story.
Rest assured the human moral code that finds murder to be wrong was thriving long before the texts we look to for moral guidance were even possible.
Ahh, now this is startin’ to feel like the pit 
!
“Subjectivity” != “religion”
My personal choice (ie. computational output) of sports team, musical influence, epistemology or moral philosophy is not my “religion”. I have not “faith” in Liverpool FC, Frank Zappa, Karl Popper or John Stuart Mill. Such linguistic legerdemain only obscures rather than illuminates.
It seems hardly fair that you should ask so much more of yourself than of others.
Well, you have stated repeatedly, that much is true. You haven’t offered any reason that anyone should believe it.
Then you can have no objection to any action by anyone else, ever, including murdering you.
If you think it will help your position to restate it a few more times, feel free, but dont be disappointed if no one responds unless you add something new.
Does that mean that it is morally wrong to kill a gerbil? Why, or why not?
Well, no, it is the opposite of “objective”. Which means, in this context, “corresponding to something demonstrable”. I am thinking of the difference between the statements, “I like ham” vs. “the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides”. You can’t really argue about the first one - de gustibus non disputandum - and it cannot be considered binding on someone else. Nor can you show it to be true. Maybe you like ham, but the statement “you should like ham too” is meaningless.
Which is why, if all morality is entirely subjective, it isn’t very useful. “I value the continued existence of society” might very well be true. “You should value it too” is meaningless.
Not “somewhat” - “entirely”.
And, if I may say so, you are making the same sort of category mistake that Der Trihs is making. Moral actions can certainly be objectively measured. That is to say, one can certainly make reasonable determinations that such and such an action will bring about some end - laws against abortion will reduce the incidence of abortion, for example. What cannot be objectively established is that the end being brought about is the correct one. Nor even that there is a correct one.
No, AFAICT it is exactly the same thing. Atheists don’t have any standard that is “available for comment” either.
That was the point of the exchange with Contrapuntal. “Dogmatic, fundamentalist atheists” do make statements about the supernatural - they state definitely that it doesn’t exist. They often also go on to demonstrate some of the other characteristics of dogmatic religion - witnessing, abuse of the unbelievers, and the other unfortunate tendencies that tomndebb mentioned.
You’re arguing in a circle again (or still). Something is better because it is better.
Actually, if you think about it for a second or two, you will see that this is practically the definition of “subjective”.
Some people want to kill others; is this “subjective”? If not, then why is this desire not morally correct? Hitler wanted the Jews to be enslaved and suffer and die; is that objective? Can we use Hitler as a moral exemplar?
Presumably the same moral code as Diogenes the Cynic - “whatever I like is morally OK”.
Sure you agree - how do you convince him, and on what basis?
No time for more right now.
Regards,
Shodan
I think that’s the crux of the matter here - religious people believe that there is an objective part of the universe, and that it is fair. Athiests think that there is no such objectiveness, so there can be no “fairness” on an objective level ( because it doesn’t exist), there can only be subjective fairness.
Time for another example! Wooo!
Imagine in the world, the majority of people are just out for themselves - murder, rape, etc. are common - it’s a dog eat dog world. By majority, I mean…well, let’s say everyone. By most of our standards (subjective moral viewpoint) they are immoral. What do they think of us? Well, if they hold the same morals as us, but pillage and rape anyway, then they are (subjectively) immoral to themselves as well, and we are moral (in comparison). However, if their moral standards allow for such things - if they believe that to pillage and rape is right, and moral - then they are moral people, and we who do not do such things are immoral.
So why are we better than them? We’re not. We and imaginary world people have differing standards, but there is no overarching objective standard to compare ourselves against. So, in essence, are they evil people? No. Are we? No. To us, form our viewpoint, they are evil. To them, we are evil.
So why don’t we just act like they do and do what we want? Well, it’s against our moral code. Same reason they don’t act morally - it’s against their moral code. All subjective, of course, but that’s what we believe in.
I imagine it may be argued somewhere in this thread that they are less moral than us because their actions will result in more people suffering. I certainly believe this is the case - i’m a utilitarian (and a negative utilitarian) so to me, their entire system of morals is “evil” because it results in less people and people suffering. But remember, in that world, causing suffering is moral - so from their perspective, we are just as evil as we think they are.
There is no alternative. It is the only possible source of morality. He doesn’t need to convice others (actually only you are demonstrating the lack of understanding). It is just the way it is. The Tao of Morality, if you will. You’ve shown no evidence for any source of any “objective” morality that is any less subjective than Dio’s. Everyone lives by their own moral code which is only valid for themselves. The fact that so many share many of the same precepts - stealing is wrong, murder is bad - is what makes it possible for society to work.
It truly frightens me to think that so many theists, like you and Scylla, seem to only refrain from sociopathic behavior because the book you venerate tells you it’s wrong to murder or steal. That’s the impression I get from those of you who express wonderment that we atheists aren’t savages cutting a swath of destruction through the Civilized Christian World. If you ever lose your faith, will you become a murdering, looting psychopath? You have no internal values that govern your behavior?
Hmm. I read this, and actually found myself agreeing with Shodan. Interesting.
Easy. We know that we have our own morals. Thus I believe in them. Are they “valid”? Subjectively, to me, they are. Objectively, no, because no system of morals can be “valid” - there is no objective standard to compare them to.
Yes I can - I don’t want them to. Objectively, does it matter? Nope. My murder is not wrong objectively - but you seem to confuse “not wrong” with “right” - it’s not that murdering me can be done because it doesn’t matter, it’s that because it doesn’t matter subjective ideas on it can be taken into account. Like, for example, my not wanting to be killed, my family and friends not wanting me to be killed, the killer wanting to kill me etc.
Tell me, i’m interested (other have asked this of you, but you don’t seem to have responded). If your God came down, told you that sinning, for one day, was moral, and good, and then everything would be back to normal (and you’d be forgiven) afterwards, would you go out and sin? Your God says it is morally correct - i’m presuming you’re out there pillaging and raping with the best of them.
This is a poor argument. You yourself had not added anything new - why? Because you feel you aren’t getting through to us. Same deal for us.
Objectively? No, because there is no objective moral standard. Subjectively? Depends on the person. To me, yes, it is morally wrong - the owner of that gerbil will be saddened, the gerbil may be in pain, and these are things I find bad - thus it would be morally wrong to cause them. To someone else, it may not be morally wrong. Each of our views are just as objectively valid (because there is no such thing) and to each other our views are subjectively wrong.
I agree. However, if the argument was “I do not like being killed” moving to “you should not like being killed too” is not meaningless - because a majority would agree with it, we can legislate to protect against it. This makes the majority happy - which, from my moral viewpoint, is a “good” thing. Objectively, again, it doesn’t matter - there is no spoon. Uh, objectiveness.
It is not meaningless if the majority agrees - it means we can act in unision (roughly) to continue society’s existence. Objectively? Yup, meaningless.
I agree. An athiest would argue that there is definetly no objective standard at all. A theist would say there is. Myself as an agnostic would currently say there probably isn’t.
Yes, they do; their own moral viewpoint. Just like theists. The difference is, theists are more likely to have similar views than athiests are to have similar views.
They do indeed. However, as I just said, theists tend to collect in groups that have the same beliefs - as you have a standard to judge against, you have similar views - “This standard is the good one, do that”. Athiests, while they may agree on some things, have no such similar “standard” to judge against - they are more likely to display different beliefs and viewpoints than theists are.
I agree. There is no objective, so we are no “better” objectively than a world of people who pillage and rape and consider those things moral. We think they are immoral, they think we are immoral. No objective difference.
Yes, it is.
If you believe it’s morally correct, it’s moral to you. If you don’t, it’s not. All entirely subjective.
Nope, subjective.
Yes, we can in order to teach others as to what the “majority morality” of our culture is. The “majority morality” is the system on which our laws are based. The MM may say that Hitler was bad, or good. Either way, we can teach others about our own beliefs and how they should act according to our own beliefs and the MM (so in schools and so on).
Yes, that’d be the moral code they had, probably. It is no more or less valid than my own, because there is no “validness” of such a thing - it’s like saying that an idea is purple - purple is not a descriptor which makes sense in terms of the concept of “idea”.
Most people disagree and are disgusted with what you do, person. You are causing suffering, person, and I presume you yourself do not like to suffer. How would you feel if someone did that to you, or someone you loved? You are causing that exact same pain to another.
And if they are not convinced, well, the majority morality disagrees with his actions, so he’s arrested and jailed.
You really aren’t getting it at all. I’m telling you the moral system under which I operate. Whether you “believe” that’s really the sysem I operate under could not be less relevant. You still keep stubbornly missing the point. You still think that the moral system that I operate under has to be objectively justified to anyone else. It does not. If it’s “valid” to me, it’s valid. I am the only one who has to operate under it.
Yes I can. My moral system requires me to judge the actions of others.
you know, statements like this only show that you’re really out of your league in this debate. You’re completely lost. You don’t understand what’s even being discussed.
Because they are judged by MY moral lights, not their own,
The facts are objective, the immorality is not. It’s only immoral if you THINK it is.
You can only use yourself as a moral exemplar.
Which is exactly the same moral code that YOU operate under. It’s the only moral code that ANYONE can operate under. Are starting to get this yet?
Can all human beings tell the difference between objective right and wrong? Yes or no? Why are you so afraid to answer that question?
“Subjectivity” != “uselessness”
The outputs of biological computers can only have utility to those biological computers. Again, one makes a personal, subjective choice of axioms comprising a particular epistemology, moral philosophy or whatever precisely because of its perceived “utility”.
This entire thread seems to simply be endlessly restating Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
Well, I can see you are only interested in ignoring peoples comment, but I will comment on this anyway.
Why is the claim made that instinctual morality is superior to a religion derived by a religion? Well, because the person who admits that their morality is subjective will object to an entire race being wiped out. However, if a god tells a worshiper that something is moral, then it is, full stop. Even something like:
Gee. I sure hope Shodan doesn’t know any of those there Amelek dudes cos it’ll surely be clobbering time.
Actually, as an atheist, I’m explicitly NOT making the claim that atheist morality is superior to theistic morality. And I don’t think most of the other atheists in this thread are making that claim either. Many theistic moral systems are engines for great good in the world. My point is only that they’re just as subjective as atheistic moral systems.
This entire line of debate started with **Scylla ** making comments that suggested that he didn’t believe atheists were capable of making rational moral decisions given that they don’t have an objective basis for their morality. Since then it has consisted almost entirely of atheists demonstrating that theists don’t have an objective basis for their morality either, and the theists ignoring the implications of that revelation.
Yes, I would agree with that, but nonetheless, Brain wreck did post #315, which I posted, and which Shodan replied to. Since Brain was not logged in, and since I agree with him, I replied to this comment.
Regardless of the fact that most atheists aren’t arguing that angle, it is still true that “Because God said so” as morality leads to absurdities.
Did you even read what I wrote?
It has nothing to do with humans killing gerbils. It has to do with gerbils killing gerbils.
Gerbils don’t have morality. But gerbils don’t wantonly slaughter each other. Why not?
What makes you think that he wants you to follow his moral code? Do you want him to follow yours?
I mean, if you don’t have one, I’ve got a spare that I could sell you - only $14.95. 