Moral Relativism

coil · February 2004

It's been said by people like NemesisZero and Cronos (and very well), but no one claiming that a godless moral code is impossible has answered my first statement on the matter.

My moral code is simple: it's the "Golden Rule," without any religious trappings. When I do something that affects another, I ask how I would feel, were I affected as he is. If I wouldn't like it, I don't do it. It is a social contract; a limitation we impose upon ourselves in order to coexist in a society, a civilization. A premise of this social contract is that <i>rational</i> people will accept it because of the mutual benefit it promises, provided that everyone follows the same set of rules. The DVD-player thief was violating the social contract, acting outside of societally acceptable morality.

By the way, it must be said that morality can never be distilled down to an individual and examined without the world around him. Morality defines our interaction with the world, and as such must involve multiple individuals and the interactions between them.

The short version: "my right to swing my fist freely through the air ends at your face." Once again, do I need an all-powerful being to tell me that? Nope.

Legionnaired · February 2004

Then, morals only boil down to social cohesion, to whatever extreme must be taken.

So, for instance, I could murder, rape, steal, and do whatever I wanted, as long as it helped my society, my group of people survive better. If someone is loudmouthing and causing trouble, I would have the right to kill him, because he would be disrupting the society. Yet, we don't slay the nubs in the I&S forums yelling for flamethrowers.

To offer up a 'Golden Rule' requires that humanity have a basic dignity to them. If we are all just a random collection of amino acids and proteins, then we are all just a product of chance, and our lives mean nothing. Saying that we have importance because we exist as a result of that random chance is like saying that pulling a pair from a deck of cards is more important than randomly pulling a royal flush.

coil · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 22 2004, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If they are the same, then is there really anything wrong, at all? A society may require all of it's women pregnant, and thus, advocate rape. Is there anything wrong with that, if it fulfills the needs of the society?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The reason something like this just can't work - the reason no moral code held by any modern society advocates rape - is that the goal is too narrow-minded. It's an extremely utilitarian worldview: reproduction is good, therefore rape must be good.

However, utilitarianism is too black-and-white to form the basis of a stable moral code. In the given example, the flaw lies in the perceived "good end" - increased reproduction. That in and of itself is an inadequate goal; careful consideration while still maintaining a somewhat utilitarian outlook would create a goal of "raising more healthy children to adulthood."

With that goal, rape is no longer allowable - the emotional damage to the victim is too great, and would probably impair her ability to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child. It's therefore in the best interest of the society to embrace a moral code in which women have the right to say "no" to unwanted advances.

Regarding the "survival of the fittest" clause, the logic is the same. No man is an island; our strength is in our ability to form cohesive societies. A society is stronger when its members feel safe; if *you* can kill anyone you like, what is to stop anyone else from killing you? A promise of safety is impossible in a society whose moral code allows murder... unsurprisingly, there is no modern society with such a moral code.

A higher power isn't needed to make these decisions; logic and reason can be adequate. In some cases, logic may disagree with religion: the requirement that some Jews keep Kosher, for instance, might not appear in a moral code created without religion. Of course, it doesn't appear in all religions, either. Cronos made an excellent point: there are many morals that are constant across multiple religions; these are also the ones most easily arrived at through secular, logical deduction, and therefore may represent a set of fundamental morals or universal laws.

In my opinion, it's simple (and Nem has already said it): if it benefits the society and the individual, it's a good idea. If it fails either, it is likely not.

coil · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 22 2004, 11:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Then, morals only boil down to social cohesion, to whatever extreme must be taken. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That's utilitarian, which I've said is not my opinion and doesn't work for the purpose of forming a universal morality. Don't paint me in black & white to try and make me look bad.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, for instance, I could murder, rape, steal, and do whatever I wanted, as long as it helped my society, my group of people survive better.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, American slavery, the marginalizing of Native Americans...

Those are all examples - both secular and religious! - of "doing whatever you want" because it helps society. <i>Your</i> society. Those are a grand scale, good for one society at the expense of another - but they can be pared down. As I and others have said, something that benefits the society at the expense of the individual cannot work in the creation of a universal morality. What about the imprisonment or killing of convicted murderers? We punish those who *break* the moral code accepted by society. The social contract only works if everyone buys into it, and those who refuse to respect the rights of others under that contract thusly forfeit their own.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To offer up a 'Golden Rule' requires that humanity have a basic dignity to them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes and no. In one sense, the Golden Rule is the epitome of selflessness; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But when you think about it, it's actually profoundly <i>selfish!</i> Be nice to other people not because it's the right thing to do, but because if you do then they'll be nice to you! Frankly, I believe all animals are inherently selfish. The veiled selfishness of the Golden Rule is why it works at all.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If we are all just a random collection of amino acids and proteins, then we are all just a product of chance, and our lives mean nothing.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
My reason for existence is to live my life to its fullest. That's enough for me. However, it's not really the point of this conversation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Saying that we have importance because we exist as a result of that random chance is like saying that pulling a pair from a deck of cards is more important than randomly pulling a royal flush.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I assume you're trying to say that randomly pulling a flush (i.e. existing because some greater power made us) is better than pulling a pair (that we were created by chance).

Frankly, I think that pulling a flush would be closer to existing by random chance. Having been created by a god requires only one "leap of faith" - that there is a god, and he/she made us. Being the product of an infinite series of chances... now, *that* is an example of truly beating the odds. If we really are just a happy accident, then *damn* am I glad to have been lucky enough to be born. I think I'm going to go out and live life to the fullest.

Legionnaired · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Frankly, I think that pulling a flush would be closer to existing by random chance. Having been created by a god requires only one "leap of faith" - that there is a god, and he/she made us. Being the product of an infinite series of chances... now, *that* is an example of truly beating the odds. If we really are just a happy accident, then *damn* am I glad to have been lucky enough to be born. I think I'm going to go out and live life to the fullest. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If I was the product of an infinite ammount of chances, then it is entirely possible, if improbable, that someone in the future will be <i>exactly the same as me.</i> Nothing would be unique at all about me, nothing would be different, my experiences would have the same importance attached to them as theirs. I mean nothing in the long term, thus, I am insignificant.

Logically, if I am just a chance occurance, I as an entity am not special, nor is any one person on the planet. Collectively even, we're all just a bunch of nothings, and the presence of 5 people that aren't special has the same weight as 2000 people who aren't special. Absolutely nil.

If there is nothing special about human life, then why set up morals to protect it?

coil · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 22 2004, 11:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If I was the product of an infinite ammount of chances, then it is entirely possible, if improbable, that someone in the future will be <i>exactly the same as me.</i> Nothing would be unique at all about me, nothing would be different, my experiences would have the same importance attached to them as theirs.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I suppose. Kinda cool to think about it. ^^

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I mean nothing in the long term, thus, I am insignificant.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
To the long term? Probably. On a great enough scale, the greatest leaders and conquerors, philosophers and artists, *everyone* is insignificant. But are you insignificant to yourself? I define my worth by my own situation, not by some scale too large for any human being to even fathom.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If there is nothing special about human life, then why set up morals to protect it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Again, it's all a question of perspective. No, I don't believe there's anything special about human life in general. But do you value your own life? I value mine. Your next door neighbor, the mailman, your coworker, the girl you stand next to in choir every week... do they value their lives? Probably. That's reason enough for me.

moultano · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 22 2004, 11:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If I was the product of an infinite ammount of chances, then it is entirely possible, if improbable, that someone in the future will be <i>exactly the same as me.</i> Nothing would be unique at all about me, nothing would be different, my experiences would have the same importance attached to them as theirs. I mean nothing in the long term, thus, I am insignificant.

Logically, if I am just a chance occurance, I as an entity am not special, nor is any one person on the planet. Collectively even, we're all just a bunch of nothings, and the presence of 5 people that aren't special has the same weight as 2000 people who aren't special. Absolutely nil.

If there is nothing special about human life, then why set up morals to protect it? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
There are two types of significance, intrinsic and extrinsic. Religious philosophies give human kind extrinsic significance, and reserve intrinsic significance for god. Humanistic philosophies stop the recurrance one step earlier and attribute intrinsic significance to humans. There is nothing different logically between the two, except possibly that humanistic philosophies solve the problem more elegantly.

If I ask you why humans are significant, you will say that this is because god is significant. If I ask you why god is significant, you will likely reply that it is inherent within god that he is significant.

If you ask me why humans are significant I will reply that it is inherent within humans that they are significant.

So long as you think of significance only in the extrinsic sense, none of our arguments are going to seem logical to you. It is however just as valid to ask why god is significant as it is to ask why human life is significant. Both answers require the concept of intrinsic significance (ie, the necessary premises I described before).

coil · February 2004

moultano, if you were a chick I'd totally kiss you. Nice post!

Cronos · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 23 2004, 04:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is Reason that prevents a man from killing another man.

I reason that another man has lived a life as rich and varied as mine, that if I am to end his life, then I am to end mine. Do I wish to end my life? No? Then I shall not kill him. Would he be missed by his family? Yes? Then I shall not kill him. Is he threatening my life? No? Then why kill him?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because the most fit survive. If you kill him, it leaves more mates, food, and shelter available for you. And besides, experiences don't matter in the long run anyway, it's just the passing on of genes. Why not kill him?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
To comment on this point alone, that argument holds water with solitary hunters.

But humans are cooperative, they are NOT solitary hunters. Humans are social animals. You can either kill him and take what he would otherwise have, or you would befriend him and share your resources, do what lone persons cannot do. Man forms monogamous relationships more often them promiscuous relationships.

There is reason behind cooperation. Damn good reason. It is the source of our strength as a species.

One man alone cannot achieve much except for survival. 2 Men can achieve a better kind of survival. A group of 500 individuals can, given time, spawn an entire civilisation. A million people can do anything with the right amount of infrastructure.

Humanities strength is exponential with population. The more humans you have the more power man gains.

Does this mean that the individual is insignificant? Yes. Absolutely. If you had any idea of how immensley massive the universe is, you would realise that a single man is an invisible dot on an invisible dot in the vast vast vast infinity of the universe. We tend to ignore the universe and expand our locale to become the universe to make us seem more important, it's more comfortable that way. Everyone does it, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

This is not to say, however, that the individual is not important to the individual. As coil said, if you value yourself then that is all you need.

On that line of thought, if you value yourself, you then open the way to valuing others, for social alliances and shared resources etc.

The most successful life forms are not necessarily the most competetive. We are competetive to a point. We can work together as individuals, but not as nations. If we were more competetive, we would be technically backward and constantly killing and spearing each other. If we were overly cooperative, we would also be technologically backward, and likely be annhilated by a more competetive species.

Though mankind is flawed, he is not so flawed as to do the worst thing in any and all situations. Consider freeways as an example. It shows incredible trust, trust that the guy next to you wont smash into you on purpose to create as much havok as possible. We can no sooner assume the worst in man then we can assume the good.

Teufel_Eldritch · February 2004

I dont believe in God but I do have morals. Some ppl say that I have no morals, but that isnt true. Its just that many of my morals are so different from the morals of the status quo it only <i>appears</i> I have no morals. A stranger in a strange land am I.

tbZBeAst · February 2004

I think that the mere fact that its called morality, and not "a religious code of conduct" should answer the question neatly enough. Without a code thats separate from the concept of religion, why attach a word to it?

from dict.org

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Moral \Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner,
custom, habit, way of life, conduct.]
1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those
intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue
and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such
intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to
the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings
in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so
far as they are properly subject to rules.

Keep at the least within the compass of moral
actions, which have in them vice or virtue.
--****.

Mankind is broken loose from moral bands. --Dryden.

She had wandered without rule or guidance in a moral
wilderness. --Hawthorne.

2. Conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity
with such rules; virtuous; just; as, a moral man. Used
sometimes in distinction from religious; as, a moral
rather than a religious life.

The wiser and more moral part of mankind. --Sir M.
Hale.

3. Capable of right and wrong action or of being governed by
a sense of right; subject to the law of duty.

A moral agent is a being capable of those actions
that have a moral quality, and which can properly be
denominated good or evil in a moral sense. --J.
Edwards.

4. Acting upon or through one's moral nature or sense of
right, or suited to act in such a manner; as, a moral
arguments; moral considerations. Sometimes opposed to
material and physical; as, moral pressure or support.

5. Supported by reason or probability; practically
sufficient; -- opposed to legal or demonstrable; as, a
moral evidence; a moral certainty.

6. Serving to teach or convey a moral; as, a moral lesson;
moral tales.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sorry thats a bit long, but it fails to mention religion at all. It does mention the concept of doing <i>right</i> and here we come again to Coil's maxim. I like it, and it works for me because it can be universalised. Everyone can apply the concept and it will still work. It neatly sidesteps what particular religions define as justifiable - which means that they can't be logically universalised (something like unbelievers should be cleansed, as an extreme example).

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Those two statements are logically equivalent. For me its, "I have faith that my ideas are right." for you it's "I have faith that my ideas are right. And my idea is that there are laws given by a deity that are right and can be applied to others".

No matter what your philosophy, the rationale for following it, at its core, is that you believe it is correct. That is the same whether you believe in a deity or not. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I understand the rationale for following it completely, we are agreed there. My not so well presented point was that I consider selecting your own moral system the inferior alternative given that they are without question the product of a flawed creature. You know this because you made them yourself.

With divine morals, its possible you got conned by a similarily flawed man who invented these morals and pretended they were God given, but its also possible that the morals given are perfect/a divinely inspired framework at least. I consider the possibility of devine morals better than definately flawed ones. At least with the divine you have a chance of perfection. Again - 51:49

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is why I said that a choosen morallic basis has to be tested against the real world. It's easily explainable why personal property - the result of personal effort - should remain in the owners possession unless (s)he recieves something of comparable value in return. Throw this through Kants categoric imperative and you get a society full of people respecting each others property and trying to treat each other fairly.
If the thieves 'moral code', however, was to be made basis of everyones actions, we would very soon see quite a few rather big parts of civilization crumbling away.

No divine lawmaker is required for this example.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So you would take your moral code and enforce it upon the theif? What gives you the right to do so? Who are you to tell that man he's wrong and must be punished? Again, if he claims he did the right thing by his own morals, then you will beg to differ. You will explain clearly and logically to him why your morals are superior. He still disagrees - so you will then be faced with two choices. Either exact restitution from him by force, or do nothing.

If you choose force, then might simply makes right. You are assuming the right to force your morals upon another being. If you do nothing, then your morals are only useful for you as a person, not as a community. Hardly moral law.

Please dont get me wrong here - I really like Kant's imperative. Its pretty much the Golden Rule from the Bible (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), so I think its great. But when you remove the divine law maker from the equation, you simply have no right to take your morals and force them upon others. No right what so ever. And thats where it all falls down.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'd argue that an atheistic moral is inferior to a religious one. The religious morals offer a higher authority, a divine lawmaker, and a (for the average situation) pretty clear line of right and wrong. It also allows the ability to judge the actions not only of yourselves but of other people, in both past and present.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And in how far are these qualities (save for the divine lawmaker, which is by definition exclusive to the religious moral of the specific person) by definition exclusive to religious morals?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Pretty much the same answer to what I typed above. You make judgements now based on your best reasoning and personal morals. People in the past made judgements based on their best reasoning and personal morals. They generally did what was acceptable at the time - yet some things they did would seem abhorent to the modern wo/man. People in the future may look back at us as savage barbarians with an entirely different moral code. Morals are now, it would seem, defined by the times. As such it doesnt seem fair to judge those previous for doing exactly what we are doing now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You make a rather bold assumption by implying that religious moral is not variable from person to person. To take the maybe most hierarchical and thus stringent bigger religious body on the planet, the Catcholic Church, even it is not devoid of constant and deep-going dissent between individual interpretations of the 'common' religious moral. From all my talks with both religious and secular people of various confessions and philosophies, I have not had the impression of either group being more particularized than the other.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You're right. I made that bold assumption because I keep getting "religious morals" confused with Marine's morals, being a religious rep here. Religious morals are still up to interpretation, but that interpretation is based around a framework usually presented in the form of written doctrine. Regardless of variable morals amongst religious types, the framework is assumed to be the direct communication of a perfect being who knows what is best for us.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm curious what you are going to answer to Moultanos and my points, but until then: Good night <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wonder no more. Here's hoping I didnt miss anything major - my fingers do the thinking and my brain rough editting.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 23 2004, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> There are two types of significance, intrinsic and extrinsic. Religious philosophies give human kind extrinsic significance, and reserve intrinsic significance for god. Humanistic philosophies stop the recurrance one step earlier and attribute intrinsic significance to humans. There is nothing different logically between the two, except possibly that humanistic philosophies solve the problem more elegantly.

If I ask you why humans are significant, you will say that this is because god is significant. If I ask you why god is significant, you will likely reply that it is inherent within god that he is significant.

If you ask me why humans are significant I will reply that it is inherent within humans that they are significant.

So long as you think of significance only in the extrinsic sense, none of our arguments are going to seem logical to you. It is however just as valid to ask why god is significant as it is to ask why human life is significant. Both answers require the concept of intrinsic significance (ie, the necessary premises I described before). </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I guess my question would then be why do humans have intrinsic significance? Why? Are you just randomly applying significance now? Can I grant cabbage the same intrinsic significance?

If you ask me why God has intrinsic significance, I could say "He is the creator and sustainer the universe, of all life, without him nothing exists". As he himself said, I am the Alpha and Omega (the beginning and the end). In other words, I am everything. I'd say that lends him some significance. We dont just pick up a significance label and slap it on him for no reason at all.

Of course, thats just our personal belief, and you obviously have a different personal belief, both of which you hold to be equally as valid. Its possible that my personal criteria for intrinsic significance is just a level above yours i.e. gaining that title is a little harder.

Believing what you (probably) believe, you can whip up your own criteria for intrinsic significance, apply it to humans and have them pass with flying colours, and see that as every bit as valid as the religious types. But again you are inventing your own - which leaves me with the ability to reformulate the criteria as I see fit and apply it to whatever the hell I like. Suddenly everything is inherently significant. I'm no more significant than that inherently significant rock over there.

I have a feeling I missed something you are going to point out in your next post <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

moultano · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 24 2004, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I guess my question would then be why do humans have intrinsic significance? Why? Are you just randomly applying significance now? Can I grant cabbage the same intrinsic significance?

If you ask me why God has intrinsic significance, I could say "He is the creator and sustainer the universe, of all life, without him nothing exists". As he himself said, I am the Alpha and Omega (the beginning and the end). In other words, I am everything. I'd say that lends him some significance. We dont just pick up a significance label and slap it on him for no reason at all.

Of course, thats just our personal belief, and you obviously have a different personal belief, both of which you hold to be equally as valid. Its possible that my personal criteria for intrinsic significance is just a level above yours i.e. gaining that title is a little harder.

Believing what you (probably) believe, you can whip up your own criteria for intrinsic significance, apply it to humans and have them pass with flying colours, and see that as every bit as valid as the religious types. But again you are inventing your own - which leaves me with the ability to reformulate the criteria as I see fit and apply it to whatever the hell I like. Suddenly everything is inherently significant. I'm no more significant than that inherently significant rock over there.

I have a feeling I missed something you are going to point out in your next post <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Here's one possible formulation:
1: I believe that I am significant
2: I seek to treat others as I would like to be treated
Therefore: I must believe that others are significant

(of course then you get into a chicken and egg with the golden rule and signifcance, but that's tangential at the moment.)

There are also a ton of other qualities that a person could use to distinguish humanity from everything else. We are intelligent, logical, creative, capable of belief and wonder, and many other things. Any of these or some subset of them would work as criteria. Alternately, you could just base it on the fact that humans are like me, and I believe I am significant. However, the rationalizations don't really matter until you reach a point where you need to discover whether to extend significance to non human entities. It would be sufficient for the time being to define significance in this sense as meaning "possessing the important qualities of a human" and leaving it at that. All of this is tangential though.

The underlying reason why I believe that humans are inherently significant is that it allows me to make sense of the world. I posit that it is the same for you. The fundamental reason that you believe god is significant is that without that belief the world wouldn't make sense. (Either that, or your concept of the word 'significance' requires there to be a god in order for anything to have signficance, and the people around you must have significance in order for the world to make sense.)

I don't believe that a rock or a cabbage is inherently significant because the world doesn't make much sense when I do.

Logically there isn't much difference between creating criteria for significance and choosing someone else's criteria for significance (particularly when the definition of significance comes supposedly from the entitity that is to be described as significant.) Saying that I could choose any formulation and apply it as I chose is equivalent to me telling you that you could choose any religion and apply it as you choose. Both statements are true, but don't have anything to say about the philosophies in question.

Ayn Rand wrote once (and Ill see if I can get this right) "When an assumption is neccessary to function in the world, it is no longer an assumption, and it is no longer arbitrary. It becomes a premise."
(something like that. The exact wording doesn't really matter since she's not that great of a writer anyways <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> )

Marine0I · February 2004

But you are still significant based around a criteria that you made up yourself and applied to yourself. As such it is impossible for it to become a universal, as determining significance still varies from person to person, with no one actually being able to claim that they are right. These are fine for the individual, but useless for the collective.

Significance is now described as "The individuals judgement on what has inherent worth". It is an abstract - impossible to pin down. That makes no sense to me.

What if you have an individual whose world does make sense when he grants cabbage inherent significance? What then - are you wrong and he's right? You both made your own criteria, you both have beings/objects passing with flying colours. What makes yours superior?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The underlying reason why I believe that humans are inherently significant is that it allows me to make sense of the world. I posit that it is the same for you. The fundamental reason that you believe god is significant is that without that belief the world wouldn't make sense. (Either that, or your concept of the word 'significance' requires there to be a god in order for anything to have signficance, and the people around you must have significance in order for the world to make sense.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Let me put it this way. I believe that without humans, humans wouldnt exist. Without God, humans, life, earth, the solar system and the universe wouldnt exist. That in itself gives God greater significance than humans. The only reason I hold to a God is not only that the world wouldnt make sense, I believe the world wouldnt exist.

moultano · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 24 2004, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But you are still significant based around a criteria that you made up yourself and applied to yourself. As such it is impossible for it to become a universal, as determining significance still varies from person to person, with no one actually being able to claim that they are right. These are fine for the individual, but useless for the collective.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
That is equivalent to saying you are significant based around a criteria that you chose yourself and applied to yourself. The only difference is that you chose it, and I created it. It's functionally the same.

It is perfectly valid for me to apply my criteria I've chosen to the world around me. Who else's criteria should I apply? You do it all the time. When you make judgements you are using your own criteria, though you believe they mirror the criteria of a higher source. In the moment of using them they are the criteria you have chosen, and are thus "your" criteria. Both of us are allowed to judge others within the framework of our systems, because the axioms of our systems allow it. When a person chooses the axioms of a humanistic philosophy, they believe them to be no less a fact of the world than religions believe the existence of god to be.

There is an important distinction here that I am letting get muddied a bit. When I talk about the fundamental reasons for believing in a philosophy, I am speaking in a sort of meta logic outside of the framework for any given system. When I say that we choose philosophies based on what makes sense, I am not talking about justifications within the system. Within the system these axioms (such as the existence of god or the significance of man) are treated as facts. In order to compare different systems you must talk outside of them about the motivations that lead people to choose them. That is how I can say that you and I choose our philosophies from the same basis, namely, that they make sense to us.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Let me put it this way. I believe that without humans, humans wouldnt exist. Without God, humans, life, earth, the solar system and the universe wouldnt exist. That in itself gives God greater significance than humans. The only reason I hold to a God is not only that the world wouldnt make sense, I believe the world wouldnt exist.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Let me frame that slightly differently. I think we can agree that the existence of the world is a more obvious fact than the existence of god. God's existence is something you derive from the fact that the world exists, because for you it allows the existence of the world to make sense. For you god also needs to have certain properties in order for it to make sense that he created the universe. Therefore, for you, the significance of god is necessary for the existence of the world to make sense.

AsterOids · February 2004

I will only say this:

I am an atheist, if i see my nephew caught in a house in flames, and i dont KNOW that its suicide to go in, because the house will cave in after 5 seconds i am inside, i will risk my life to save his.

On the other hand, plenty of religious folks have done horrific torture to other people because they didnt wanna hear about Jesus. Inquisition anyone? Massacre of natives in America by spaniards in the 16th century?

Religious people have done really courageous things, self-sacrificing themselves for the greater good, like that priest in El salvador who was shot for talking in favor of poor people, Oscar Romero.

Then again, i cant think on the top of my head of an atheist who commited horrible things, but theyre out there, i dont doubt it.

Beleiving in god or not does not make you good or not, what you say does not make you good or not, your actions do.

the_johnjacob · February 2004

hoorah to taht asteroids, couldn't've said it better myself

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then again, i cant think on the top of my head of an atheist who commited horrible things, but theyre out there, i dont doubt it.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Dude, how long have you got?

Hitler: responsible for the massacre of millions of <b>religous</b> jews, justified by the theory of evolution.

The British riding across america slaughtering all the Native Americans, completely unjustified.

Stalin, and his communism in Russia being responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own people.

[edit:]

More recently: George Bush and the war or Iraq: thousands of innocent Iraqis died in bombing, justification unknown.

Shall I go on?

I think I have made my point.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 25 2004, 11:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then again, i cant think on the top of my head of an atheist who commited horrible things, but theyre out there, i dont doubt it.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Dude, how long have you got?

Hitler: responsible for the massacre of millions of <b>religous</b> jews, justified by the theory of evolution.

The British riding across america slaughtering all the Native Americans, completely unjustified.

Stalin, and his communism in Russia being responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own people.

[edit:]

More recently: George Bush and the war or Iraq: thousands of innocent Iraqis died in bombing, justification unknown.

Shall I go on?

I think I have made my point. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I dont think I would have chosen Bush, Hitler or the British as examples. All of them claimed religious affiliation.

However, Stalin and Lenin were both feverent atheists, and both are counted among the great butchers of history. The millions of people killed under Stalin simply boggles the mind.

Chairman Mao, another evil man responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths with atheistic beliefs. Pol Pot was another I believe.

Stalin followed atheism to its natural conclusion. If there is no God, then what does it matter if I kill 100, a thousand, a million. If there is no accountability, then why the hell not.

Always interesting to compare the religious massacre body count against the atheistic body count. You ask about religious blood baths and all most people can come up with is suicide bombers, the inquisition and the crusades. You then compare that to the atheistic body count and suddenly you get people looking quite surprised....

Moultano - I'll reply to yah in the morning.

AsterOids · February 2004

"Stalin followed atheism to its natural conclusion."

Atheisms natural conclusion is the mass slaughter of innocents? Can you explain that a bit for me i dont see why this sentence makes sense.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 26 2004, 01:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> "Stalin followed atheism to its natural conclusion."

Atheisms natural conclusion is the mass slaughter of innocents? Can you explain that a bit for me i dont see why this sentence makes sense. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Atheisms natural conclusion is that because there is no God, there is no accountability. You cannot be punished for your wrong doings on Earth, as you will die and become nothing. I can slaughter innocents until the day I die and I will suffer the exact same fate as a man who spends his live looking after sick children.

Human life is worthless and expendable to those in power, assuming justice never catches up to them. Stalin had every reason to believe justice never would (and it never did), and as such saw no reason why he shouldnt slaughter people.

According to atheists, Stalin did the deed and got away scot free. Stalin viewed people according to evolutionairy theory i.e. people are no more important than animals, but merely further along on the evolutionairy chain. I kill animals and feel no remorse, so why should I feel bad when humans die.

So I'd ask you the question - why shouldnt I kill other human beings if I wont pay for it when I die? Whats stopping me from doing it if I can get away with it?

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 25 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I dont think I would have chosen Bush, Hitler or the British as examples. All of them claimed religious affiliation.

However, Stalin and Lenin were both feverent atheists, and both are counted among the great butchers of history. The millions of people killed under Stalin simply boggles the mind.

Chairman Mao, another evil man responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths with atheistic beliefs. Pol Pot was another I believe.

Stalin followed atheism to its natural conclusion. If there is no God, then what does it matter if I kill 100, a thousand, a million. If there is no accountability, then why the hell not.

Always interesting to compare the religious massacre body count against the atheistic body count. You ask about religious blood baths and all most people can come up with is suicide bombers, the inquisition and the crusades. You then compare that to the atheistic body count and suddenly you get people looking quite surprised....

Moultano - I'll reply to yah in the morning. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Good point, although claiming religious affiliation does not mean you aren't an atheist.

@AsterOids

He did explain it. <span style='color:white'>I don't appreciate this kind of talk in here.</span>

Atheists believe there is no God. After death, there is nothing, so there is no accountability. You can kill lots of people, then kill ouyself and get away with it. Stalin, being the ruler of his country was virtually above the law, therefore he didnt have to kill himself to get away with it. He could have done whatever he wanted, and because he will never be help accountable (athiest) he can get away with it. Therefore, why does it matter that he kills millions of people? They aren't going to be punished, they will just cease to exist, and he will not be help accountable for his actions. Athiesm's natural conclusion: There is nothing and no-one to hold me accountable, so why the hell not?

tbZBeAst · February 2004

You are still failing, or unwilling to see the distinction between immoral and non-religious.

Simply: Just because a person doesn't believe in "God", doesn't mean they are <i>automatically</i> immoral (see my dictionary definitions previously). In the same way that not all believers behave morally. We have seen distinctions between morality and a religious way of life, we have seen Coil's model for a moral code, we have even seen examples of moral non religious types, and immoral religious types.

Certainly, religion CAN formulate a template for a moral way of life. Arguing that because Atheism sees no judgement at its conclusion gave Stalin the motivation/permission to commit genocide is ridiculous. Apply Coil's maxim. Stalin should not have had people killed, because he himself would not like to have been killed. He may have been an atheist, he may have even been following his own particular moral code, but what he did was, by the standards of the maxim, not applicable universally, and therefore immoral.

moultano · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 25 2004, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Stalin followed atheism to its natural conclusion. If there is no God, then what does it matter if I kill 100, a thousand, a million. If there is no accountability, then why the hell not.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Are you honestly contending that the only possible motivation for someone to act morally is the fear of punishment after death?

There is no one natural conclusion to atheism. There are as many different atheistic morals as there are religions. For a few examples, go look up utilitarianism and objectivism, compare and contrast. Almost all of the study of ethics functions quite well without the concept of a deity.

coil · February 2004

Personally, I don't need the threat of punishment after I die to make me be a good person.

For every atheist "butcher" you can name, there is a religious zealot who perpetrated just as many heinous acts because he was so above the unwashed masses that he (believed he) was actually doing God's work with each act. Religion and atheism can both be taken to horrific extremes, so there's no use finger-pointing.

However, as both are capable of extremes, so are both capable of good, just solutions. The simple fact is that religion has often served in history as a means of communicating a moral code to people who might not otherwise be inclined to follow it. In a way, morality *without* religion could be considered a step -up- because it doesn't require the external threat of punishment to achieve the same result.

Personally, I'm all about simplicity... there is most likely a basic set of "rules" from which one could construct a universal moral code. In fact, I could even argue that the Golden Rule is sufficient for the basis of said code.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the justification for any religion's moral code is usually "because <appropriate higher power> decrees it." The justification for a secular moral code is, in my opinion, much more logical: "because by following this code of conduct, you will support and strengthen the society of which you are a part."

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

While there are plenty of "good" athiests out there, helping old ladies across the street and everything, they are just humans. As a part of the race of humans, everybody is equal. The argument follows that if everybody is equal(ly human), what gives one person the right to say "my way is right, your way is wrong"? #You may say that if it helps people, it is right, and if it hurts people, it is wrong, but when do you stop helipng people and start hurting people? Is a father smacking his child doing right or wrong? He is hurting the child, yet he is also helping it. Or is he?

Things are only "good" because we have been brought up to think they are. What if you brought up a child to think that stealing, lying and hurting people was right? When that child grew up, who could tell him that he is wrong? Surely his way of thinking is just as justified as your way: its the way he was brought up. He thinks that by stealing he is helping people, so that makes it morally right.

If something is wrong, it doesnt matter how many people think it is right, it is still wrong. You could get hundreds of people saying 1 + 1 = 3. You could get the entire population of the earth saying 1 + 1 = 3, it wouldn't matter, it would still be wrong.

moultano · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 25 2004, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> While there are plenty of "good" athiests out there, helping old ladies across the street and everything, they are just humans. As a part of the race of humans, everybody is equal. The argument follows that if everybody is equal(ly human), what gives one person the right to say "my way is right, your way is wrong"? #You may say that if it helps people, it is right, and if it hurts people, it is wrong, but when do you stop helipng people and start hurting people? Is a father smacking his child doing right or wrong? He is hurting the child, yet he is also helping it. Or is he?

Things are only "good" because we have been brought up to think they are. What if you brought up a child to think that stealing, lying and hurting people was right? When that child grew up, who could tell him that he is wrong? Surely his way of thinking is just as justified as your way: its the way he was brought up. He thinks that by stealing he is helping people, so that makes it morally right.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I answered that earlier, I think you might have missed that exchange between marine01 and I which I think progressed the debate quite a bit.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It is perfectly valid for me to apply my criteria I've chosen to the world around me. Who else's criteria should I apply? You do it all the time. When you make judgements you are using your own criteria, though you believe they mirror the criteria of a higher source. In the moment of using them they are the criteria you have chosen, and are thus "your" criteria. Both of us are allowed to judge others within the framework of our systems, because the axioms of our systems allow it. When a person chooses the axioms of a humanistic philosophy, they believe them to be no less a fact of the world than religions believe the existence of god to be.

There is an important distinction here that I am letting get muddied a bit. When I talk about the fundamental reasons for believing in a philosophy, I am speaking in a sort of meta logic outside of the framework for any given system. When I say that we choose philosophies based on what makes sense, I am not talking about justifications within the system. Within the system these axioms (such as the existence of god or the significance of man) are treated as facts. In order to compare different systems you must talk outside of them about the motivations that lead people to choose them. That is how I can say that you and I choose our philosophies from the same basis, namely, that they make sense to us.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

coil · February 2004

Of course "good" and "right" are subjective. They're subjective regardless of your belief structure, religious or not. That fact changes nothing about my position... in fact, it's irrelevant because it's an assumption in the creation of *any* moral code.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Things are only "good" because we have been brought up to think they are.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Then I guess we'd better raise our kids well.

And for anyone planning to bring up God as arbiter of good and evil, again I point you to history. The Church has started some wars, supported others, killed in the name of God, and more. Today, religious zealots blow themselves up doing their god's will. "Good" has never been a more subjective term than it is right now. Things perfectly acceptable in ancient times may be abhorrent to us today, and vice versa - a quick romp through <a href='http://www.ebible.org/bible/ASV/Lev.htm' target='_blank'>Leviticus</a> will show anyone that.

Perhaps there is a God, and he *does* know what is truly right and truly wrong. But frankly, we're not talking about God in this thread; we are talking about religion. What is religion? It is the physical, mortal, earthly *institution* that presents itself as a sort of interface between a believer and God himself. It is a collection of humans making subjective, human decisions on good and evil.

At the root of it, the presence or absence of a God really has no bearing on the creation of any moral code.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 25 2004, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I answered that earlier, I think you might have missed that exchange between marine01 and I which I think progressed the debate quite a bit.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It is perfectly valid for me to apply my criteria I've chosen to the world around me. Who else's criteria should I apply? You do it all the time. When you make judgements you are using your own criteria, though you believe they mirror the criteria of a higher source. In the moment of using them they are the criteria you have chosen, and are thus "your" criteria. Both of us are allowed to judge others within the framework of our systems, because the axioms of our systems allow it. When a person chooses the axioms of a humanistic philosophy, they believe them to be no less a fact of the world than religions believe the existence of god to be.

There is an important distinction here that I am letting get muddied a bit. When I talk about the fundamental reasons for believing in a philosophy, I am speaking in a sort of meta logic outside of the framework for any given system. When I say that we choose philosophies based on what makes sense, I am not talking about justifications within the system. Within the system these axioms (such as the existence of god or the significance of man) are treated as facts. In order to compare different systems you must talk outside of them about the motivations that lead people to choose them. That is how I can say that you and I choose our philosophies from the same basis, namely, that they make sense to us.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
yes, you are right, i did miss that.

You can apply you rmoral criteria all you like, but do you have the right to judge others and enforce punishment on them if they do not conform to your criteria? If yes, why? Thier moral code is just as valid as yours, it makes sense to them, so why should you try to stop them? If no, then who does? Appointed people? When you get down the the facts, they too are human, and so thier moral code is just a flawed as everybody elses. Appointed people following a set of codes written down by another appointed groupd of people? You still get down to the same problem: Humanity.

@Coil:

Yes, Good and right are subjective. But where does that leave us?

Yes, the church did a lot of terrible things in God's name. But doing things in God's name is different from doing his will. Humanity is flawed, so anything it does or anything that comes from it will be equally flawed, religion included. I am not trying to make excuses for religion, that would be pointless. I am just pointing out that you cannot blame God for what people do in His name. You cannot blame the church or religion, you can only blame humanity.

However, as you said earlier:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Religion and atheism can both be taken to horrific extremes, so there's no use finger-pointing.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So lets just let that one drop shall we?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>At the root of it, the presence or absence of a God really has no bearing on the creation of any moral code. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

People can create any moral code they want, but what gives them the right to say who is right or wrong, all things being equal?

Moral Relativism

Comments