You state that as a fact (and one that I agree with) but not everyone agrees. Moral relativism is a dirty phrase for some.
I’m not up for HOW, not at the moment, at least not with your specification of avoiding or unpacking all jargon and non-mainstream terminologies etc. (Perhaps later). As I said, such a liberation is radical and complicated. Our existing laws are mostly designed to treat everyone as having the same responsibilities and the same rights as anyone else in the same context. And (with good reason) we tend to be suspicious of laws that aren’t “blind” and equitable. I’d be as skeptical as most of you would be if some politician popped up advocating a severe modification of the “one size fits all” equitable law approach in order to benefit some outgroup, and this issue doesn’t create an exception to that. So it’s a very long range goal sort of political opinion. I have notions in my head but they are sufficiently dependent on other changes having already taken place beforehand that it would be a long post and I doubt many people would ratify my assumptions or grant my postulates about intermediate changes and resultant social conditions.
WHY is easier. Freedom / liberty / personal authority is something that should only be abridged when it has to be. When individuals are deprived of it without a compellingly good reason, that is oppression, that’s how we define it. Or it’s how I define it at any rate, and if you define it differently I invite you to explain yours. I have been a minor and was subjected to the paternalistic and invasive and insulting restrictions and controls that are generally legal and sometimes mandatory when minors are involved, and I experienced it as oppressive. The argument is often made that since we all age out of being minors, it somehow doesn’t matter or doesn’t count that our will and preferences and choices and our expression of our thoughts and ideas are so casually thwarted when we are minors, with virtually no legal protections. (Our SAFETY is far better protected…that’s a vastly different consideration than our rights, though, so let’s avoid confusing them). I’d counterargue that since everyone passes through childhood, and not just as “a” phase in life but self-evidently as our introductory experience, the way we are treated politically as minors affects how we think of ourselves for the rest of our life, and I believe it makes most of us devalue ourselves as societal contributors; it makes us both irresponsible and apathetic, with lowered expectations of society and of ourselves in the social context.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used such a subjective word, but it was there to indicate the reason why the teenage boy would want sleep with her (which brought to mind some of those “hot teacher” sex scandals). But you can leave that word out if you want, objectively it wouldn’t matter if she’s conventionally hot or not.
And again, each case is different and will affect a victim differently. I’m just stressing the likelihood can increase/decrease based on some of these factors.
Roger that. Every gearhead I know believes it be a travesty of justice that he is not able to drive the public highways at whatever speed he feels capable of handling.
Most of mine have already been listed, but one that I truly believe yet seems to freak out most people is that I believe driving is a right, not a privilege. Except teenagers, it’s a privilege for them; but once you’re an adult? It’s a right.
I believe that every single person who drives thinks that they are way, waaaaaaaaay better at it than they actually are.
After every trip to my gun club, I have similar sentiments regarding people who own guns.
I agree that there are broad agreements on many moral issues, but there are disagreements, and I think those disagreements cannot be resolved by reference to external evidence or through logical argumentation.
This is your idea of an extreme view? I’d be surprised if this *weren’t *the case; see Dunning-Kruger effect.
Edit: well, I guess the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn’t predict that everyone will overrate themselves, so I guess your view is still extreme.
Extreme outside the SDMB:
I believe that the average atheist is at least as well-behaved, morally, as the average religious person. Quite possibly better-behaved.
**
Extreme inside the SDMB:
**I also believe that the average atheist is unable to construct a logically consistent argument for why anyone should behave morally.
Wow, that is extreme.
I agree with you and have since I was a reasonably religious child and conversely when I became an agnostic adult. When I was young, I wondered why people wouldn’t just do as they please if religious restrictions didn’t exist. As an adult without many religious views, I found out there really isn’t anything except for fear of punishment, reprisal, or concern for your loved ones well being. I think the latter is mostly an inborn socio-biological trait and a very useful one for the survival of the species but it doesn’t have to correspond perfectly to any religious or man made laws.
Even as an agnostic, I despise secular humanism and all it stands for while I embrace socio-biology. If I was convinced that I could make my descendants the winners in both the short and long term while screwing over everyone else, I would certainly do it.
I don’t know whether to be glad someone agrees with me, or disappointed that my “extreme view” is not so extreme. 
Seems to me tautological that people should behave morally. Surely, to the extent that “morally” and “should” (in the relevant sense) have any meaning, they are defined so as to match each other.
The actual question is, what kind of behavior is moral? (Is there any objective such thing, what does/would it even mean for it to be “objective”, is morality a useful concept to have, etc.)
I have a pretty poor opinion of my driving skills. I wonder how bad I really am?
It’s probably fortunate for everyone that, 99% of the time, that means “being an effective, truthful, even-handed, and fair member of your society”.
It just seems logical to me.
-
It’s usually mathematically advantageous to act in everyone’s best interest in specific circumstances, and almost always in the broader scope.
-
It’s socially beneficial - people will like you better.
-
It’s pragmatic, legally speaking.
-
Biologically, it’s difficult to deactivate our mirror neurons. We’re physically hard wired to feel what other people are feeling.
-
Psychologically it’s difficult to commit harmful acts without damaging your state of mind and sense of well being. And generally being overly duplicitous complicates things and can make you neurotic.
In short, it feels good, and reaps more benefits of various kinds overall than the alternative.
Yeah but if we’re going to be selfish, why even care about your descendants? Screw them over to benefit yourself too!
“Usually” to all of them. It does not address the “would you do it if you were 100% sure nobody would ever find out” element of morality, nor does it really go to “should” and “ought.”
Clearly, not stealing a million dollars from a bank serves the best interests of society, ensures that people will like me better, keeps me out of jail, and removes a possible source of guilt. But those are practical considerations, not moral imperatives. They do not tell me what I should do if don’t give a damn about society or other people, if I can guarantee I won’t get caught, and if a cost/benefit analysis says I’m willing to put up with some guilt for a million dollars.
IMO, you pretty much need a transcendant standard for that, whether you call it Karma or God or whatever.
Mind you, some atheists have quite sophisticated moral philosophies; the arguments haven’t really persuaded me, but they have persuaded the people who hold them, which is the important thing. But the majority of atheists, IME, are morally well-behaved from practical considerations or because deep down, they’re running on the fumes of religion.
Well there is no “ought”. It’s replaced with “more beneficial, for all concerned”.
As far as no one finding out, you yourself know, and that’s damaging. Even if you don’t care about anyone else, and even if you can completely erase all paranoia of being found out, you are still essentially subscribing to the world view that people secretly can do and want to do something bad to you without you catching them.
But what you’re talking about isn’t any different than religious reasons. Something can be clearly “non beneficial” for a logical atheist, or “clearly sinful” for a religious person, and they can still make up a justification for it. There’s nothing magical about religious based morality that prevents people from convincing themselves they can get around it somehow. If you are selfish and think you can get away with it without guilt, religion isn’t going to do anything for that either.