So, SentientMeat, whenever you try to convince someone here on the SDMB of your position, do you use emotion, or do you use logic?
Or, whenever you use logic, you are automatically appealing to someone’s emotions, since they “value” logic?
Both. In fact, I use both reasoning and emotion whenever I am awake.
Yes. What would be the point of putting that effort into typing the shapes onto the screen if I thought nobody would attach any significance or value to my posts? I suppose I could consider it a honing of my logical skills, rather like playing computer chess, but I much prefer to imagine the human contact I am making with my fellows, you included.
Thanks for illustrating your point further, Polerius. To describe my way of seeing the situation:[ul][li]If the machine is remote controlled by someone who’s likely to nuke me from orbit if I destroy it, I don’t. Pure self interest.[/li][li]If it’s remote controlled by someone who’s likely to feel sorrow or pain if I destroy it, I don’t. Morals.[/li][li]If it’s remote controlled by someone who’s likely to be slightly annoyed and then forget it if I destroy it, I might destroy it. Letting it be would be more moral, but destroying it only slightly wrong.[/li][li]If it’s self-contained and sentient, I don’t destroy it. Morals.[/li][*]If it’s self-contained and not sentient, I might destroy it. If noone owns it (lets say it was thrown away by its owner) destroying it isn’t morally wrong or right.[/ul]So, again, for me the remote controlled aspect of it isn’t relevant at all.
[QUOTE=hildea]
To describe my way of seeing the situation:[ul][li]If the machine is remote controlled by someone who’s likely to nuke me from orbit if I destroy it, I don’t. Pure self interest.[/li][li]If it’s remote controlled by someone who’s likely to feel sorrow or pain if I destroy it, I don’t. Morals.[/li][li]If it’s remote controlled by someone who’s likely to be slightly annoyed and then forget it if I destroy it, I might destroy it. Letting it be would be more moral, but destroying it only slightly wrong.[/li][li]If it’s self-contained and sentient, I don’t destroy it. Morals.[/li][li]If it’s self-contained and not sentient, I might destroy it. If noone owns it (lets say it was thrown away by its owner) destroying it isn’t morally wrong or right.[/ul]So, again, for me the remote controlled aspect of it isn’t relevant at all.[/li][/QUOTE]
But you see, if you know for sure that it is remote controlled, how do you know if you are under scenarios 1, 2, or 3?
If you are sure humans have a soul, how do you know what the scenario is, what the implications are for killing a human?
It seems this argument is based on the fact that we are ignorant about the nature of this hypothetical soul. I’ll ask you again, if we someday discover that souls really exist, and we end up learning as much about them as we know about the human body today, would that make it all right to kill people?
Partly, yes.
Well, it depends what we find out about them, doesn’t it?
It’s not so much what we discover about the souls per se, but what we discover about the world they exist in and how it relates to our world.
It doesn’t matter, to a degree, what a soul is made of, or what makes it tick. If souls exist, and if your soul will go on existing forever, it would be good to know how that soul will be affected by your behavior on this earth.
If we discover that, say, there is eternal punishment if we kill a human in this life, that is different than if we find out that there are absolutely no consequences from killing.
What if we discover that the Deity rewards those who kill? What if some version of “slaughter an infidel and win your place in paradise” turns out to be true?
I’m leery of basing our rules for moral behavior on a supernatural being whose own moral standards are unknown.
Would you bow down to an unjust god?
I don’t know about that. It means we shouldn’t kill humans if we don’t want to get punished, but there’s still a difference between “we shouldn’t do this because it’s immoral” and “we shouldn’t do this because God will make us pay”. The threat of damnation doesn’t make killing wrong any more than the threat of broken legs makes it wrong to skip a payment to the local mob boss.
Correct, if there is a world after this one, the rules in the “next” world coud be anything. We have no idea what they may end up being, even though religions claim to know the rules.
Well, what is “moral” behavior?
It seems that it is behavior that agrees with the social contract, which in its essence is a utilitarian issue.
People recognized a long time ago that it makes sense to have a social contract since, overall, it ends up benefiting us all (a utilitarian argument). And so behaviors were classified as “moral” and “immoral” and people raised in these societies were taught which stuff is “bad” and which stuff is “good”. But, at their core, these concepts exist for utilitarian reasons, because they benefit you (and me and everyone)
But, if we happened to live in a world where there was an afterlife, then it would make sense to think of what benefits you in the afterlife (since it lasts for eternity).
If behavior that benefits you in the afterlife is different than what the social contract says on earth, why is it “immoral”? You are simply looking at the utility you get from your behavior, which is also what “moral” behavior on earth has at its root.
Of course, even if someone is convinced that a soul and an afterlife exist, we have no way of knowing what the rules are. Religions claim they do know, but, in reality, I think no one knows.
So, in the absence of knowledge of the rules of the afterlife, but assuming someone is convinced souls and the afterlife exist, how should that someone behave? Beats me, but I guess the best bet is to “play it safe” and try to be nice to everyone.
Does that differ from the behavior of a person who is convinced souls don’t exist? I think it does, to a degree, since this person is working in a world whose rules he knows, and can make judgement calls about whether to do something or not.
The other person, who doesn’t know the rules of the meta-world he is in should find it harder to decide whether doing something is advisable or not, and therefore should, in theory, be more cautious than the person who does not believe in a soul or afterlife.
So you’re arguing that religious people have a harder time determining right from wrong? :dubious:
As an atheist I would disagree with your statement that morality is purely a social construct. I think a lot of it is hardwired into our genes. Different societies express our basic human moral instincts in different ways, but all moral systems are ultimately grounded in a collection of social emotions that evolved when we lived in small hunter/gatherer bands. Loyalty and trustworthiness and kindness aren’t merely ideas; they’re woven into the very fabric of our brains.
But there’s a difference: the “social contract” in the real world exists for everyone’s benefit. If we all play along, we all benefit. However, that is not true of the afterlife, at least how I’ve seen it explained. If I choose to act immorally, that affects other people’s lives in the real world, but it does not affect their chances of going to heaven.
No, I don’t think the existence of an afterlife–at least the stereotypical Christian one where you’re either punished or rewarded based on your own choices in life–affects morality at all. It only affects the consequences that our actions have for ourselves.
Well, yes, that’s the point I was trying to make, actually. Knowing whether something is remote-controlled or not gives me zero useful information for determining whether it’s moral or immoral to destroy it. Likewise, knowing whether someone has a soul gives me zero useful info for determining whether it’s moral or immoral to kill him/her.
However, I know that I enjoy living, and it’s reasonable to guess that you’re capable of enjoying life too. Thus, it’s immoral to kill you. No information about souls neccessary or useful to make that desicion.
Polerius, When you say
I think that you may actually be almost getting it.
The issue here is the possibility of there being consequences to your actions. And insofar as your contention is that having a soul belief opens up the possibility of consequences following you beyond your brief existance in this mortal world, and that such a belief may influence your behaviors in this world, I’m with you. And you yourself here recognize that such a belief may even guide individuals to actions that would be otherwise considered immoral by terms of human social contracts, if they are convinced that it serves the interest of their immortal soul. Such immoral by human social contract actions may include murder. In fact have included both torture and murder both by individuals and institutions. There is nothing about soul belief that is protective in and of itself. It can just as easily be used to incite murder as to prevent it. Has been so used on many occassions. What matters is what you have accepted as moral and that you feel constrained by those beliefs. No matter what the basis of those beliefs may be.
No. I was answering the question from hildea, about what should soul-belief, in and of itself, without being attached to a major religion, result in.
Religious people, as they exist in our world today, not only have soul-belief, but also have a bunch of other beliefs about the afterlife, and that of course makes them quite sure they know what is right from wrong, but this is not what was being addressed in my reply.
Still, it is hardwired into our genes for the same reason: Utility.
I hate to make this about existing religions, but, for the sake of argument, if someone is 100% convinced that if he kills people (for any reason) he will go to hell and if he doesn’t he will go to heaven, and if he is 100% convinced that hell is a horrific place that you want to avoid, do you think that this person might kill another human being?
I highly doubt it.
Finding out that something is remote controlled gives you some information: that someone who is at the moment out of your reach can see you and monitor what you are doing to his remote-controlled device.
You of course don’t know anything more, e.g. you don’t know what the intentions or powers of this monitoring entity are, but it should affect how you treat the device compared to if you knew it wasn’t remote controlled.
Yes, this is the rationale we all use, and I understand.
But, I think it doesn’t follow logically.
A= “I enjoy living”
B= “You enjoy living”
C=“I shouldn’t kill you”
You are saying
(1) A => B
(2) B => C
Maybe (1) is correct (though we can never be sure), but (2) is not a correct logical step.
B does not imply C.
This would be true:
D = “Everyone who enjoys living should not be killed”
Then
(B and D) => C
But D is simply an axiom. Many of us happen to use that axiom, I agree. But if someone doesn’t use it, then, that’s it. We have no arguments to stop him from killing.
Let me give an example:
Assume there is a person who is a selfish asshole and who also happens to be convinced there is no soul and no afterlife.
You can try all you want, but there is nothing you can do to convince this person that he shouldn’t kill. As long as he doesn’t accept axiom D above, there is no way to convince him to not kill when it benefits him (e.g. he gains somehow and can avoid being caught)
However, assume that you can 100% convince this person that there is a soul and an afterlife and that he will be punished for eternity for killing people here on earth. Do you think this will affect the asshole’s behavior? I think it would.
It is the only thing that would convince him to stop killing.
Of course, not everyone in society is a selfish asshole, but many people are (let’s not restrict this to just murder but let’s include “immoral” behavior in general).
In a society where no one believes in the soul and the afterlife, there is nothing stopping the assholes from doing immoral stuff (besides the law, but the law can’t catch and persecute everyone)
In a society where everyone is 100% convinced that immoral behavior results in eternal punishment, then it would be hard to imagine anyone doing anything immoral.
In a more realistic society that teaches that there is a soul and eternal punishment for immoral behavior, most people will not be 100% convinced of this. There will be some that are convinced enough that they will avoid immoral behavior, but there will also be some that aren’t convinced enough to stop them from something they want to do very much. (I’m talking about the assholes here, because nice people will avoid doing bad things under any scenario)
One last point: of course, belief in the afterlife can be abused by religious people in power and make people do bad things. However, I consider this to be similar to any abuse of power.
Exactly. Like I said, the existence of an afterlife changes the consequences for his actions. He won’t kill someone if he thinks he’ll suffer eternal punishment for doing so… just like a local business owner won’t miss his Mafia payment if he thinks he’ll have his legs broken for doing so. The morality of killing (or standing up to extortion), however, is not based on the threats God (or Tony Soprano) makes.
If that were true, then all the atheists would be out on murderous rampages. Instead, we have consciences just like everyone else.
Why do you guys seem to always make the same false conclusions?
I said: “In a society where no one believes in the soul and the afterlife, there is nothing stopping the assholes from doing immoral stuff”
I also said: “Of course, not everyone in society is a selfish asshole, but many people are”
So, even if everyone was an atheist, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that everyone would do immoral things, just the assholes.
Just to define some terms here:
-
nice person: someone for whom, due to the effect of genes and social upbringing, the Golden Rule has become an integral part of who they are. They behave according to the Golden Rule automatically.
-
selfish asshole: someone for whom, for whatever reasons, genetic or bad upbringing, the Golden Rule has not become an integral part of who they are and does not govern their actions.
In any society that tries to teach people the Golden Rule as they are growing up, there will always be some who turn out to be assholes, while the majority will turn out to be nice people.
So, even if everyone is an atheist, the nice people will still automatically behave according to the Golden Rule. That’s why it’s not true that everyone “would be out on murderous rampages.”
Polerius, your argument isn’t supported by real-world data. If “selfish assholes who don’t believe in God” are more likely to commit crimes than “selfish assholes who do believe in God” then we should see a higher proportion of atheists in the prison population than in the general population.
In fact, the prison population pretty closely mirrors the general population in religious composition, which suggests that a person’s religious beliefs actually have very little to do with whether he behaves morally or not.
Cite.
(Interestingly, while criminality doesn’t seem to correlate with a lack of religious belief, it does seem to correlate with a lack of religious observance. It seems to be worse to believe and not act upon it than to not believe at all.
Selfish assholes will be selfish assholes whether they believe in souls or God or gods or not. If they “believe” then they will twist their beliefs to justify their assholedom, and be self-rightious selfish assholes, which is even worse. Even worse yet they may successfully institutionalize their assholedom-inspired twisted beliefs. Leading others to the path of selfish assholedom. And others to unselfish assholedom, sacrificing themselves in service of twisted values. This we know happens. We’ve seen it. What we haven’t seen is selfish assholes not behaving as selfish assholes because belief in a soul stopped them.
Do you have a value system that guides you away from selfish assholedom? Do you feel that you are part of a society that holds similar values? That there mght be consequences for your actions both good and bad? These are the questions that matter. It does not matter if that value system is based on souls or Christ or Allah or truths that you hold to be self-evident or the IPU. It doesn’t matter if you motivated by fear of eternal punishement or eternal reward or belief in the Book or a contract with God or just because it is what you believe is right so you should do it or that your Momma told you so and smacked you upside the head if you did wrong. It is the possession of the value system that counts.