This is what I’m getting too. How else to look at someone who rejects the notion that making their life more enjoyable is a worthy goal?
Do you WANT to enslave me and eat my family? Is your fear of God the only thing stopping you from doing it?
That’s a scary thought.
First off, I didn’t say it wasn’t rational. What I did say, what you cannot seem to comprehend, is that this does not make it superior, or good.
You are the one who abandoned, or claimed to abandon, all such sources of arbitrary value. You are the one who are assuming that survival is good, that health is good, that pleasure uis good.
The two cannot be reconciled. Either there is no good or there is. If good is purely subjective, then it does not exist. Ever. Period. No matter how many people might agree, if good is subjective, then it does not exist in reality. A googoplex of people beleiving a thing would not make it any closer to true, if it is not true*.
Furthermore, you are demonstratably wrong. I cannot think of any great or successful society ever, in history, which believed what you claimed. Yet they thrived. Rome was a brutal, conquering nation. They chose to let some people into their club, and some not. China built an empire out of nationalist snobbery. The MOngols killed people by the hundreds of thousands. They all did well.
But we need not go that far. You are braggin about your superior awesome morality (not ten secocds after claiming morality doesn’t exist) and how it is “rational” and right. Yet it is not and cannot be, because you are assuming your values are universal. What if Ted down the styreet thinks the highest good is massacring hookers? What is Jane enxt door wants to nuke Israel? Heck, what uif your long-suffering roommate would really prefer, deep down, to murder you in your sleep? (God forbid any of these be true).
These are all abritrary, eprsonal values. And they are no more or elss valuable than any personal good you may claim. They cannot be more or less rational, because arbitrary personal preferences are neither rational nor irrational.
So when you say, for example:
… it only proves that you aren’t talking rationally. You seem to believe that survival is somehow better than not-survival. But this absoilutely cannot hold for a wholly materialistic view. Death cannot be worse than life, or better, except as how an individual perceives it. A lot of people might agree, but whether you think that is biological programming or not, all opinions are equally valueless. You are only shoving your personal preferences into the air and pretending they are rational and right; you cannot perfectly square the circle.
Likewise, you judge this as “insane, indiscriminate predatory behavior”. Silly! How do you know it is not perfectly reasonable, and everyone ought to do it? Because you personally don’t like it?
No, you are in fact appealing to unversal values when you argue against it. And therefopre I have already won my case. You do believe in them. You may not want to admit it, but transcendant values form the basis of your behavior patterns and choices, even your arguments on this small corner of existence. You may not like it, but you are either just as irrational as the looniest Bible-thumper you disdain, or just as rational, with different judgements about right.
If there is no objective good, then nothing we do or do not not do can be called good. Ever, ever. If you have a cruel hereditary elite who exploits all others to fuel their amusements and peasure, that is not good, and it is not bad. it is perfectly and purely rational for them. Indeed, even on a pure biological basis, they are likely to bred more and thereby spread their genes more. But that is irrelevant because even the desire to reproduce is not ultimately rational without a moral basis.
So if youa re talking in the language of survival strategies, you ultiamtely cannot claim anyn rational primacy.
Elementary, by Der Trihs. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend theoretical arguments at all when they touch on morals, particularly when it is your own which are questioned. This isn’t the first time I’ve said this, and not the first time you’ve had an impossible task replying.
You cannot get morality from nature. No purely factural or logical basis for any action can ever be gleened from observation or reduction. You must either have an exterior source of value, and accept it as such, or deny all value and do as suits you best for whatever reason, oir you are an innately uirrational creature, going to and fro as its mindless whims demand. And if you are the nihilistic sort, then even the latter cannot be called “bad”, for the very reasons I have previously laid out.
Likewise, it is you who once again shoves your personal predelictions into the debate. I do believe in God, but I did not call him into this: you did. Transcendant values need not be from God. Men have varyingly gotten them from Nature, from the State, from Reason. I view all of these are fatally and immediately flawed, but it is important to note that all of the people who did so believed. Their values were immortal, set in stone, and valid for all everywhere, they thought.
Even if it were, what if cooperation with you is not the way they want it? You are ultimately assuming that people are good and/or “reasonable” (With reasonable being defined here as “in a manner that suits me, Snowboarder Bo”. And people liek this exist everywhere. it there is no morality,l no good, then they are not bad and cannot be condemned. We might defend ourselves, but would and could have no obligation to defend you, except as how we opt to contract. But if we ever broke that contract, or even just lied about it, there’d be no moral problem. Honesty or Non-Hypocrisy just might not be one of our personal predelictions.
You cannot get innate value, including the purely selfish (but not evil, irrational, or good under the ultimate materialism laid out) goal of survival and a better life, out of the personal desire for it. You can either accept Transcendant value, or live without any judgement. There is no logical third option.
Logic Fails are beginning to be the stock-in-trade of a certain segment of the board.
Let’s say for the sake of argument alone that your gratuitous, pointless implied insult is correct. In that case, you would be correct to be scared… if you value your own life and fear death. If not, you have no reason to be. And from nature, you can never ever get any validation that this is correct. Period. End of story. it is neither correct nor incorrect, because life and death have no moral value, because morality does not exist.
We might agree not to kill each other, but you have no judgement to fall back upon except that I ought not to break the agreement because I get out of it more than I put in. And that cannot always be true. I might be able to take your wealth, and that might be worth more to me than your life - and critically, it must be worth more to me than the safety I get from the agreement. But that can easily be true.
Indeed, even if I have no interest in killing your family (I don’t, for the record, and you’re disgusting for implying I do), you have no arguement against me doing so, without appealing to morality. You may promise your mates/the government/the law will punish me if I break the contract and do it, but that is only if I am caught. It is also only a ward against damage, not an inducement to act responsibly.
Moreover, why not? Many peoples have quite enjoyed massacring or exploiting their enemies. They were perfectly willign to work withint hemselves. Outsider were fair game. And these worked quite well: they were often pillars of progress and growth. So from a purely material viewpoint, your only rational question should be “Will I benefit?”, not “Is it right”. I don’t happen to share that view, but you and your friends are the oens arguing for it, and then being in denial over the consequences therefrom.
*Excluding variable, conditional statements like “One Hundred people believe X to be true, wwhich can vary in accuracy over time.”
Since this is your starting point, this is where the crux of the biscuit is.
and quite simply, demonstrably, you are wrong.
If "good"is purely subjective, that means a definition exists. That means there are things that can be quantified as either “good” or “not good”.
Your basic premise is wrong and unsupportable. Because of that, every argument you put forth is wrong and unsupportable.
Incorrect. If good is subjective, then it is always arbitrary and unquantifiable. All opinions are arbitrary and unquantifiable. And even if it were quantifiable, it would have no more moral value than the number 6 does.
In fact, the entire point of subjective concepts is that cannot be defined as good or bad. I do not like pain, but I call pain bad because I have a specific belief system which allows me to understand that pain results from harm and that harm itself is bad. Thus, I can choose to rationally avoid pain (in the self and others), while recognizing that it has a defined value which also allows to embrace pain when necessary for an even more valuable good than freedom from pain. But if pain is only subjective, I cannot rationally do any such thing.
I might (just as I scratch when I itch) avoid it myself, but I rationally recognize that pain is meaningless and have no moral, logical, or ethical reason to avoid causing it in others.
Seriously, this sucks. I feel like I’m trying to hand you a better verison of your own mkeager philosophy.
I don’t think you know what “quantifiable” means. Or “subjective”, for that matter. Or “objective”, based on your last couple of posts.
And you keep leaving out important terms. When you say “good”, you mean “inherently good”, and there is no such thing, unless you define “inherent” in this case to mean “what god said”, in which case it’s subjective to your god, in which case it’s subjective.
You keep trying to make words mean what they don’t mean.
It’s not an insult. I’m trying to understand your position. You’re saying it’s wrong for you to kill me because God says it’s wrong. But why does God’s opinion matter? Why follow his rules? Unless you’re afraid of what he might do to you if he doesn’t.
But if you’re not following his rules out of fear … if you’re following them because you like them and think that they’re good rules … well, couldn’t you follow them without believing in God? Couldn’t you follow them without believing that they’re transcendent?
Just like money has no value unless God imbues it with value. Right?
Human life has value because we collectively agree that it does. Just like dollar bills have value because we collectively agree that they do. If we all start treating dollar bills like worthless pieces of paper, then that is what they become. And if we all start treating human beings like disposable pieces of meat, then that’s what WE will become.
Believing that God provides some absolute standard of morality is no different than believing that gold provides some absolute standard of worth. But gold only has value because we all agree that it does. It’s just as much a fantasy as fiat money is. And Christian morals only exist because a large number of people believe that they do. If they stopped believing, Christian morality would evaporate like the morning dew.
No, it’s human nature that does that. For all your speechmaking about how it’s not objectively better to be pain free and alive, I’m quite sure that if someone tried to burn you to death you’d object.
Again, that’s silly.Social constructs like nations are quite real, despite being nothing more than a lot of people agreeing that something exists. And so do biological states like happiness and pain. “Good” is a social construct determined by our biological and psychological nature; it isn’t independent of humans like the laws of physics, but it is “objective” in a sense due to humans having a shared nature. I can go anywhere in the world, to the most isolated primitive tribe and be sure that virtually no one I meet will like it if I stab them.
They did better than morally more primitive cultures, and worse than morally superior ones like ours. Morality isn’t the only factor in success (nor did I even imply that it was), but it does matter.
But the hookers don’t want to be killed, Israel doesn’t want to be nuked, and I don’t want to be murdered. Morality is the standard that we all can collectively agree to live by. I agree that I can’t murder other people, and in return they agree not to murder me.
That’s a ridiculous claim. Materialism is the worldview that tends to value life because this life is all we have. It’s the believers in spirits and souls who need to make mental gymnastics to explain why they don’t just go around casually killing people for convenience or amusement or care when a loved one dies (since after all the body is just a vehicle for the spirit). Moral behavior requires that one take a materialist viewpoint, regardless of ones official viewpoint on materialism since the real, material world is what effective morality deals with.
No, because people who act like that tend to be killed and a “society” composed of such people would be lucky if they didn’t kill themselves off entirely.
Garbage. If there is an “objective good”, I don’t care. I have no means of knowing it, and I have no reason to assume that it is something I would consider remotely good or desirable anyway. If “objective good” demands that I enslave people, then I’ll be “objectively evil” and like it.
More silliness. I was pointing out the obvious facts that pretending that good requires some “transcendent” source to be valid has no other purpose than to claim that atheism is incompatible with being moral. Like you are doing right now. All you keep doing is prove me right about that, over and over.
Of course it can, we do just that all the time, and I’ve explained why and how. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it untrue.
I forgot earlier to point this out. It actually made me laugh so hard I had to reach for a napkin.
And then to follow it up with this!
HAHA!
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel!
In a sense, this is the point I figure should sum up the thread.
I’d like to phrase it a little differently, as well. To me, the question for religious people comes down to cause and effect: is it that actions are right or wrong because God says so, or is it that God says so because those actions are right or wrong?
If it’s the former, the religious position is an odd (though consistent) one: there’s nothing wrong with murdering innocents or enslaving them or whatever, unless God forbids it. In fact, murder and slavery would become praiseworthy if God endorses it next week, and then continue to be The Right Thing To Do until God steps in to make it wrong again. It’s not that God is against child molestation or whatever because there’s something wrong with the stuff; it’d be morally good if God declares it so, because it’s evil if and only if God comes out against it.
If it’s the latter – well, then, like the man said, who needs God?
^^ excellent, succinct summary, TOWP.
Ok. Here goes.
I agree that reality is what it is regardless of what you believe. However, the truth isn’t always readily apparent. We don’t always have the facts, and if we do, we don’t always interpret them properly. We all choose our beliefs based on various factors. But, logic starts after we choose a starting point.
Logic doesn’t deal with absolute truth. Logic only deals with relative truth. So, you are the one who has screwed up because you think that it isn’t a logical statement if it isn’t objectively true.
Every logical statement starts with assumptions. Statements that are not proven to be true but accepted for the sake of argument. The truth of those assumptions is dealt with somewhere other than in the logical statement in question.
If X then Y.
If Y then Z.
So, is Z true? Funny, the statements may be logical, but it doesn’t tell us if Z is true. It can only say that if X is true, Z will be as well. And that relative truth doesn’t change if X turns out to be false. The statements don’t magically turn illogical because X is false. We have to make our own decision on whether X is true or not, and getting it wrong doesn’t throw “logic out the window.”
If “A” then “a.”
If “not A” then “not a.”
(Or, you can sum up both statements with: “a” if and only if “A.”)
It doesn’t matter whether “A” or “not A” is objectively true. And we may not know which. So, we have to pick one. We all choose what we believe. But, if you believe “A” and “not a,” then your beliefs are not logically consitant. And remaining logical demands that you change one belief. That is what I already said, And you are completely wrong about logic.
If, like Der Trihs, you already know the absolute truth value of every statement, then you don’t need logic at all. And in his case it shows. But, if, like the rest of us, you don’t always know what is true, you have to pick a starting assumption and then derive the relative truth from it.
Getting the starting assumption wrong doesn’t make your belief system illogical or inconsistant. And having the right starting assumption doesn’t make your conclusion right if you don’t follow the logic; and you don’t. You “choose to believe” a conclusion that doesn’t follow from your assumption. And that is what throws “logic out the window.”
I feel like that all the time dealing with some of these guys.
I said Der Trihs would blithely continue to think he’s sailing along, and I fully expect that. But, I have blown him out of the water. He’s clearly wrong in his view of logic. And only the illogical could disagree. He’s already proven he isn’t worth debating. Snowboarder Bo, has decided to join him. They are standing on mist and thinking it’s a solid deck. Anyone who still agrees with him is only imagining the ship they think they’re standing on, and is likewise not worth debating. So, who falls in that category?
You are ignoring that we are talking about reality, not abstract logic; so it matters very much if your claims are objectively true or not. And starting with a conclusion you chose to believe is NOT how logical reasoning works.
Guess what? I agree. Guess what else? I don’t think it sums it up in the way you think it does.
“if you’re following them because you **like them **and think that they’re good rules”
These are choices. You’re choosing what you like. And “thinking” something is “good” isn’t the same as it being good.
When you say, “and think that they’re good rules,” you really mean, “and they fit with my objectives.” It doesn’t change anything I previously said about you not having any basis to think your objective is better than any other. Although, many atheists do apparently:
Time has yet to tell whether Rome did “better” or “worse” than us. And on what criteria do you judge? Longevity? Wealth? Conquest? Territory? You can’t judge better or worse until you decide on a criteria and then you are just picking the objective you prefer and calling it good again. It sums things up nicely.
Our society is more powerful, wealthier and fulfills the collective desires of its people better than theirs did; that’s as close to “objectively superior” as you are going to get. It’s certainly a better standard than the hypothetical opinion of a god. A god that you can’t even demonstrate is possible, much less real and moral.
I already told you what my objective criteria are: Are the rules consistent? Do they lead to outcomes that feel satisfactory according to my moral instincts? Are they workable in practice? Do they make sense with what we know about how the universe works?
For example, I believe all people deserve to be treated equally. I believe this because it satisfies my innate sense of fairness, and because no one has ever demonstrated to me a practical reason why men deserve more freedom and power than women, or whites deserve more freedom and power than blacks.
Some religious sects believe that women should be subservient to men. The only reason they give for this is “God says so”. I think that’s stupid and evil and the world would be a better place if they could all be convinced to change their morality to be more like mine.
And how is this different from Stalinists and Maoists killing tens of millions of people for the sake of a future Utopia? In practical terms, how is that better than the Aztecs performing thousands of human sacrifices a year so that the gods will send rain? You assume secularists are inherently more rational and humane than theists, which is a huge assumption. History certainly doesn’t support it.
That society you’re bragging about is largely the creation of theists.
It’s not. The problem is a mindless adherence to an arbitrary rule set, whether that rule set has a secular or theistic origin.
Morality is the set of rules we choose to live by. The ultimate measure of a particular set of rules is the outcome it produces. A set of rules that consistently produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness is a bad set of rules, and needs to be changed to something better.
Again with the attempt to lump together Communism and atheism. Atheism is not Communism. The Communists, again, are a monotheistic religion in all but name and acted the way they did because that’s how monotheisms act when they have the power.
Because society is mostly composed of people who at least go through the motions of theism. But the creation of that society has been one long war against the same theism that they nominally supported. It has been created in spite of the malignant parasitism of theism, not because of it, and has involved the crippling of that theism.