Moral Relativism
Legionnaired
Join Date: 2002-04-30 Member: 552Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-04-30 Member: 552Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Morals without God?</div> I'd like to pose two questions:
It is possible to have a sufficient moral code, based off secular/ humanisitc orgins?
And, is that code anything more than arbitrary laws to do what is best at the time?
My thoughts and thesis later.
It is possible to have a sufficient moral code, based off secular/ humanisitc orgins?
And, is that code anything more than arbitrary laws to do what is best at the time?
My thoughts and thesis later.
Comments
My thoughts will be edited into this post later on.
[edit]Here it goes:
I'm a little confused by the title of the thread; seeing the questions posed, we are clearly discussing the viability of non-religious morallic codes, and some of the most prominent of them, including heavyweights such as Kant, assumed morale <i>not</i> to be relativistic.
Anyway...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is possible to have a sufficient moral code, based off secular/ humanisitc orgins?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we assume that any moral code has to be founded on some higher ground, traditionally a deity and the divine justice that springs from it, it is not very difficult to abstract this necessity into an area where a 'personification' of the origin of a moral code is not necessary. The deity can be replaced by, for the sake of an example, the human society, while divine justice could be replaced by this societies needs both in regard to its bigger framework and its individual member.
A philosophy strictly aimed to satisfy these needs, developed by sufficiently intelligent people, will produce a moral code fit for this human society. A sufficiently righteous person adopting it will find it sufficient to lead a life not contradicting itself.
Thus, yes, I do believe that humanistic or otherwise secular considerations can be and are grounds to a sufficient moral code, most notably in the philosophies of the enlightenment, but also in more recent developments such as existencialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, is that code anything more than arbitrary laws to do what is best at the time?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My pervious example cited a very real grounds for such a code: The needs of a society and its members. These two points, to one of either really any issue of life can be assigned to, appear to be sufficiently 'objective' to state that such a code does not have to be arbitrary.
[/edit]
My thoughts will be edited into this post later on. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright then. My bad. However, this thread has been done before: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45688' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=45688</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since atheism and humanism dictates that humanity simply came about as a result of time multiplied by chance, there can be no greater value attached to humanity or human life, and thus legal or ethical attempts at protecting human life are unfounded, and thus, meaningless and arbitrary.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, humanism does not dictate the random occurence of human life. There are both agnostic and deistic humanistic philosophies, both of which assume the existence of a creator entity.
Second, even assuming the existence of a completely atheistic philosophy that denies the existence of a creator, the origin of human life does not necessarily have to be the only grounds on which to base its worth, an idea any American should be aware of through the American Dream. If one is to assume the notion of the human as an emergent system of completely random origin, one can still attach a value to the result of this emergence. The place of a divine origin can be taken by human emotion, conciousness, or society.
Thus, there <i>can</i> be a higher value to human life in atheistic or humanistic philosophies.
This is a faulty thesis. I am non-religious and I believe that humanity is the result of chance, a step on the evolutionary path. Where does it follow that I therefore put no value in human life?
1) I am a self-aware, thinking creature.
2) So, I assume, are (most <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) other members of my species.
3) I value my own life.
4) They must, therefore, value theirs as well.
Humans are social creatures, and our innate impulses protect that society. One does not have to be God-fearing to recognize and respect others' right to life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... yeah, the Declaration of Independence names a Creator, but they were a religious people. I'm not, but try this on: my mom created me. She taught me right from wrong, and I seem to have turned out OK. Man - Religion = still socially responsible.
On "moral relativism": This is one of the first things covered in any college philosophy course. It's so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look bad, but yet it has pervaded common thought. To some extent, the US justice system is based on parts of it and the Greatest Happiness Principle, also called hedonism (also fairly flawed).
The gist of the whole issue: There is an absolute truth in <i>morals</i>, but it's still pretty much impossible to decide what that truth is. There are still issues that are relative (death celebrations/mourning, and countless others), but those aren't moral issues.
Moral relativism is normally just seen when you want to be right, rather than persue the actual truth. It is extremely convincing despite being so horribly wrong.
edit: I think the discrepancy between Coil's last post and Nem0's post on humanism is that atheism/otherwise non-theistic beliefs are mostly compatible with basic humanism. There's a basic form of humanism (secular?) that, +/- some spiritualism, is exactly what Coil describes. Those basic beliefs are probably closest to the absolute moral truth than the versions elaborated on by religions.
Looking back to Athens, Plato, who said that "the human is measure of all things", still acknowledged the gods.
Generally, I'd argue that trying to bring all different humanistic, even more secular, philosophies down to a common denominator would be as ambitious as trying to find the connection between all religions.
Once you have got over that obstacle (or gone around it) you come to the next problem: what is moral(ly good)? It is the age of dilemma of relativism (evertybody has a different pov that needs to be taken into account) vs absolutisim (an action is either always morally right or always morally wrong). Most religions are based on absolutism, for Christianity, there are the 10 commandments and other laws and teachings. Absolutisim may seem extreme, but consider the alternative. A 21 yr old man can get away with raping and murdering a 5 yr old girl and her 3 yr old sister because he was never told that it was wrong. That is relativism at is centre. Because you were not brought u correctly, you cannot be help responsible for your actions. At all. Everybody lives a morally right life, in thier own eyes, but is that the right way? A moral code where anything goes is not a moral code at all. It is a recipie for disaster.
In short, no, you cannot have a sufficient moral code, based off secular/ humanisitc orgins, as humanity is flawed, so anything it produces will be equally flawed, if not moreso .
A 'sufficient' moral code can for example be defined as one a person can live a life by without of necessarily coming into contradictions. Seeing this, your argumentation is closing in on derailing this topic, which I hope will not happen because nobody has so far tackled my points <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Thus, there can be a higher value to human life in atheistic or humanistic philosophies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say that humanity can assign it's own value to itself is like saying you can throw a dart at a blank wall, and call wherever it hits the bullseye; it's arbitrary, it's meaningless, and there is nothing to back the statement but the statement itself. It's a reflexive argument, "This spot at which we have arrived is important because we have arrived at this spot." A regular Cartesian-circle.
All I am trying to prove is that humanity needs a diety to make logical sense of itself.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." - Voltaire
This, of course, addresses the greater purpose of humanity, but morals are a short leap from that. Without a greater purpose to protect, morality becomes useless. Even contradicting one's self through actions is not inherantly bad if it does not get in the way of our greater purpose.
Anyway, Coil presented a very good 'practical' example of what you call "reflexive argument". The ethic he derives from his cultural and biological heritage and the realization of every other humans similiar situation will be enough to bring him soundly through his life <i>and</i> offers him a very good greater aim: Carrying this heritage on and extending and improving on it, while at the same time trying to help others doing the same. I can not see how this isn't sufficient.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To say that humanity can assign it's own value to itself is like saying you can throw a dart at a blank wall, and call wherever it hits the bullseye; it's arbitrary, it's meaningless, and there is nothing to back the statement but the statement itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Similiar, I could doubt any divine existence as being, all said and done, backed by nothing but the believers statement of her/his belief.
Every philosophy - both religious and secular - is based on a premise, and each and every premise is based on a decision of faith. Trying to 'call that bluff' and disprove one based on another one makes little sense.
If someone decides that humanity is his or her philosophical frame, this does not seem more arbitrary than us two (keep in mind that I'm an agnostic with heavy christian leanings), basing our philosophies on a deity, whichs existence can not even be proven, a problem Coil does not have.
In this sense, <i>every</i> moral code is based on an arbitrary decision. This decision can however be falsified or verified by applying it to ones behaviour and seeing in how far a moral code based on it can prevail, similiar to the way we can decide whether the solution of a mathematical equation is valid by running it through and checking for faulty sums.
I feel it has been proven acceptably well that assumptions other than a sense-giving creator can lead to feasibly applicable moral codes; the underlying premise is thus 'rationalized' by the result.
Does this mean that atheism can present humanity with a sense beyond itself? Not necessarily, but it means that an atheistic moral is not inferior to a religious one.
[edit]Condensed and rewritten to be a little less confusing. Hey, I said "a little", don't expect miracles <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/edit]
It isnt sufficient when coil has his DVD player flogged by the man next door. What now gives coil the right to criticise that man for stealing his DVD player - his morals. What now gives coil the right to restitution - well thats an entirely different matter. Who is he to take his morals (you cant steal my stuff) and apply it to another person. What gives him that right?
Is your own opinion sufficient, in which case the theif could claim his morals compell him to take other peoples stuff, and he has just as strong an arguement as coil.
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.
From what you typed (and I'll admit I had a hard time following it), it seems that the only reason religious morals are given the same standing of atheistic morals is that they both rely on the same sort of faith. I'd like to thing religious morals have the edge on atheistic morals.
Atheistic morals are based around something we already know is flawed - us. They are also highly variable, different from person to person. Religious morals are based around something that is supposed to be perfect. Unfortunately said perfection wont come down and prove himself, so there is faith in that regard.
But I'd question which is a more intelligent investment of faith. "I have faith that my own ideas are right" or "I have faith that these idea's supposedly given by a deity are right and can be applied to others". Atheistic morals lack the ability to be applied to others, and are based around the thinking of a obviously flawed being. Religious morals have the slight edge on atheistic in that they can be applied to others - but are also not necissarily based on a flawed being. They may or may not be, but the jury is still out on that.
The way I see it religious morals:atheistic = 51:49
A 'sufficient' moral code can for example be defined as one a person can live a life by without of necessarily coming into contradictions. Seeing this, your argumentation is closing in on derailing this topic, which I hope will not happen because nobody has so far tackled my points <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
good point.
but what if the only sufficient moral code is a perfect one?
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.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It isnt sufficient when coil has his DVD player flogged by the man next door. What now gives coil the right to criticise that man for stealing his DVD player - his morals. What now gives coil the right to restitution - well thats an entirely different matter. Who is he to take his morals (you cant steal my stuff) and apply it to another person. What gives him that right?
Is your own opinion sufficient, in which case the theif could claim his morals compell him to take other peoples stuff, and he has just as strong an arguement as coil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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?
As I said, morallic relativism and secular moral are not connected. Kant even went so far as to postulate an absolute moral independent from <i>any</i> influence, divine, human, cultural, or societal.
Even more 'relativistic' secular morals can make assumptions about others as I demonstrated on the DVD example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From what you typed (and I'll admit I had a hard time following it), it seems that the only reason religious morals are given the same standing of atheistic morals is that they both rely on the same sort of faith. I'd like to thing religious morals have the edge on atheistic morals.
Atheistic morals are based around something we already know is flawed - us. They are also highly variable, different from person to person. Religious morals are based around something that is supposed to be perfect. Unfortunately said perfection wont come down and prove himself, so there is faith in that regard.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but what if the only sufficient moral code is a perfect one?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A perfect moral code would be one that'd be instantly and happily adopted by all members of a society, and which would be both easy and universal enough to be applied and followed in any situation. I'd argue that no phiolosophy - whether religious or secular - has been able to present us with <i>that</i> so far.
I'm curious what you are going to answer to Moultanos and my points, but until then: Good night <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My question to you is this: in such a system, how would you define "fairness"? Who would arbitrate that a definition of fairness, if people somehow managed to agree to one, would be a correct one? Without a higher authority providing a moral framework I don't see how it is necessarily "easily explainable" why the result of someone's personal effort should remain in the owner's possession. Using that argument, is a burglar entitled to keep spoils if he puts sufficient effort into the burgling operation?
Also, a large part of your argument is based on the question of whether the moral code will benefit society. If this is so, why should we not embrace some sort of social engineering project? GATTACA comes to mind. I'm curious to see if you find that to be something you would encourage. Kant's categoric imperative isn't beyond criticism, in any case. It doesn't provide for any sort of universal moral code, only the actions of individuals, and is extremely vague to boot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but what if the only sufficient moral code is a perfect one?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A perfect moral code would be one that'd be instantly and happily adopted by all members of a society, and which would be both easy and universal enough to be applied and followed in any situation. I'd argue that no phiolosophy - whether religious or secular - has been able to present us with <i>that</i> so far.
I'm curious what you are going to answer to Moultanos and my points, but until then: Good night <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So are you saying that a perfect moral code doesn't exist? And for that matter, do you think that it's possible for human minds to discover it, if it did?
addendum: gee Nem0, i just realized: your description of a 'perfect morality' seems to fit 'might makes right' fairly well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*edit* bad me! bad! grammar is my friend!
That's very true. It's very possible for one to be an Atheist and still be ethnocentric. On the other hand, it's also possible for one to follow a religious moral code and also follow moral relativism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why couldn't society be the higher authority? I think it's fairly safe to say that most secular moral codes state that murder is wrong. However, the rationale behind the code is different. Rather than state killing is wrong because of divine decree, a secular code might state that murder is disruptive of society to the point where it should be punishable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This, of course, addresses the greater purpose of humanity, but morals are a short leap from that. Without a greater purpose to protect, morality becomes useless. Even contradicting one's self through actions is not inherantly bad if it does not get in the way of our greater purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This assumes that a divine being is necessary for a "greater purpose". I, as a follower of a secular moral code, could easily state that the advancement of society and Humans is the greater purpose that should be strived for instead of pleasing a being of which there's no evidence. We know humanity and society exist, however as Marine pointed out, a diety is conspicuously absent.
I'd argue that a secular moral code is superior for precisely the same reason you think it's inferior. A divine system of absolutism doesn't change with humanity. 500 years ago, it was perfectly accpetable to marry your 15 year old daughter off to a 40 year old man to cement a business deal. Today, a 40 year old getting married to a 15 year old would offend the "moral sensibilities" of most people, let alone using her as collateral on business deals. Both that and morality changed. Now look at killing others. It was disruptive to society 3,000 years ago and it's still disruptive today, hence it remains immoral.
Murder is abhorred.
Rape is abhorred.
Stealing is viewed as wrong (unless you were stealing bread for your starving family, then it is justified stealing. Still wrong, but understandable).
Paedophilia is abhorred.
Violence is generally abhorred.
Does anyone see a pattern here?
Anti-social behavior (in this context, considered as behaviour which harms others) is in general, considered to be unacceptable. It is a commonality of all religions. Most of everything else is mythos, standards etc that are not common (such as Muslim women covering their hair, not common to all religions, therefore it is a cultural inclusion).
Social behaviour is older then religion itself (in an evolutionary context of the world). Being a social creature is hardwired into the brain (with few exceptions). Because of this, a simple rule system is devised, that of not killing, raping and commiting acts of violence against others of your species. Those that break these rules are generally punished or shunned from society. They are ostracised.
And for the **** (<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) that will no doubt point out the violence in todays society, that is thousands of years of desensitisation at work. Still, we abhor murders and rapists.
Consider this.
If god does exist, and he indeed did create man in his image, then is man not itself an extension of god? And cannot man create a system by which he can act morally without divine influence?
The number of cultures without contact from then Holy Land (Israel) that formed their own religion and formed a remarkably similar moral code cannot be denied.
Our basic instinct allows us to form these basic rules to form a stable society. It is our instinct that forms the core of our moral code.
Finally, if God exists and did create man, I think God would at least in his wisdom give man the brains to form a moral code without his influence.
Consider this.
If god does exist, and he indeed did create man in his image, then is man not itself an extension of god? And cannot man create a system by which he can act morally without divine influence?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is exactly the kind of thinking that the Bible says caused the fall of man; That man can be his own God, and doesn't need to follow God's guidance for his life. God endowed man with the ability to be creative, but not to the point where he can invent his way out of his need to know God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, if God exists and did create man, I think God would at least in his wisdom give man the brains to form a moral code without his influence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you just said, is that God would give man the ability to replace God if he was at all intellegent.
That is, in effect, saying that if God has any brains at all, he should have created us as Gods. Again, Exactly the same kind of stuff you'll find in Genesis 3, leading to the fall.
<!--QuoteBegin-Genesis 3+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Genesis 3)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man's great sin was wanting to be God.
But we digress.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does anyone see a pattern here?
Anti-social behavior (in this context, considered as behaviour which harms others) is in general, considered to be unacceptable. It is a commonality of all religions. Most of everything else is mythos, standards etc that are not common (such as Muslim women covering their hair, not common to all religions, therefore it is a cultural inclusion).
Social behaviour is older then religion itself (in an evolutionary context of the world). Being a social creature is hardwired into the brain (with few exceptions). Because of this, a simple rule system is devised, that of not killing, raping and commiting acts of violence against others of your species. Those that break these rules are generally punished or shunned from society. They are ostracised.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I do see a pattern there. However, assuming the existance of a perfect, omnipotent creator, is it not possible that he hard-coded in humanity a basic desire to want to follow his laws, and fulfill the purpose that He created humanity for?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd argue that a secular moral code is superior for precisely the same reason you think it's inferior. A divine system of absolutism doesn't change with humanity. 500 years ago, it was perfectly accpetable to marry your 15 year old daughter off to a 40 year old man to cement a business deal. Today, a 40 year old getting married to a 15 year old would offend the "moral sensibilities" of most people, let alone using her as collateral on business deals. Both that and morality changed. Now look at killing others. It was disruptive to society 3,000 years ago and it's still disruptive today, hence it remains immoral.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what is right is simply what works at the time?
In that case, it's just an arbitrary ruling that doesn't hold water for longer than it's effective. If you live your life like this, you will contradict yourself, and contradiction certainly doesn't strengthen an argument, nor does it provide a solid base for dealing with any situation. Far from a perfect way to live life.
Murder is abhorred.
Rape is abhorred.
Stealing is viewed as wrong (unless you were stealing bread for your starving family, then it is justified stealing. Still wrong, but understandable).
Paedophilia is abhorred.
Violence is generally abhorred.
Does anyone see a pattern here? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you should use fewer infinitives... in many cases, especially with popular religions, the definitions were 'wiggled' to suit the times. Such as you wouldn't consider a 12-year-old for a wife, would you? Of course, that would be paedophilia, wouldn't it.
Common christian practice, for quite a long time.
Killing is abhorred? Have you /read/ the Old Testament? Ever gone through any books following Bane? Thor? It's glorified in many religions, just not the mainstream 'one'.
Stealing /is/ wrong, according to the prevalent US religions. According to most of the books involved, punishment can go between having to give back twice what you stole, to being impaled on a spear through the heart for three days. Even if it's to feed your starving family.
Violence abhorred? Children can be put to DEATH by their parents if they don't obey. So Sayeth The Lord.
In short, just as you can take a dart and throw it at a wall and call the point it hits a bullseye... you can do the same and call that point 'God'. As far as we know, most of the writings are arbitrary. Those who believe them tend to ignore the conflicting bits, or brush off those who argue them as 'not understanding'.
Personally, with the majority of the religions out there, I'd sooner believe that some jerk got the idea to start a religion specifically to make people act as he wanted, than that some whacked nut-job of a Creator would toss someone a book and say 'read it, believe it, I'm outta here'.
Personally, I have my own religious beliefs. However, unlike many, they are open to interpretation and adaptation... and don't insist that no changes have been made, specifically to win converts. *cough cough*
Anti-social behavior (in this context, considered as behaviour which harms others) is in general, considered to be unacceptable. It is a commonality of all religions. Most of everything else is mythos, standards etc that are not common (such as Muslim women covering their hair, not common to all religions, therefore it is a cultural inclusion).
Social behaviour is older then religion itself (in an evolutionary context of the world). Being a social creature is hardwired into the brain (with few exceptions). Because of this, a simple rule system is devised, that of not killing, raping and commiting acts of violence against others of your species. Those that break these rules are generally punished or shunned from society. They are ostracised.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I do see a pattern there. However, assuming the existance of a perfect, omnipotent creator, is it not possible that he hard-coded in humanity a basic desire to want to follow his laws, and fulfill the purpose that He created humanity for? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we assume this to be true, then wouldn't any well-thought out secular moral follow His rules, as well, thus rendering them as sufficient as a religious moral code?
--
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+ Feb 22 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 22 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My question to you is this: in such a system, how would you define "fairness"? Who would arbitrate that a definition of fairness, if people somehow managed to agree to one, would be a correct one? Without a higher authority providing a moral framework I don't see how it is necessarily "easily explainable" why the result of someone's personal effort should remain in the owner's possession. Using that argument, is a burglar entitled to keep spoils if he puts sufficient effort into the burgling operation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You miss the point of my definition: No matter how much effort the burglar invests into stealing something, the former owners effort is not repaied in any way.
Why is it "'easily explainable' why the result of someone's personal effort should remain in the owner's possession"? Because a system that assumes the integral value of the human being will acknowledge the value of each individuals actions.
There are very refined secular definitions of fairness, one of my favorites, ironically, laid out by the Founding Fathers and their fellow naturalists: They postulate the existence of a number of basic inalienable human rights. Conversely, any intercourse respecting every participants such rights is fair.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, a large part of your argument is based on the question of whether the moral code will benefit society. If this is so, why should we not embrace some sort of social engineering project? GATTACA comes to mind. I'm curious to see if you find that to be something you would encourage. Kant's categoric imperative isn't beyond criticism, in any case.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you only adress half of my argument. I always mentioned <i>two</i> necessities: Human society <i>and</i> its individual member.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kant's categoric imperative isn't beyond criticism, in any case. It doesn't provide for any sort of universal moral code, only the actions of individuals, and is extremely vague to boot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't make the categoric imperative basis of an universal moral code, I simply used it in an example of the practical application of a secular basis of a moral. Really Wheee, I'd appreciate if you stopped leaping for every point of mine you think you can refute and instead considered the whole of my argumentation first.
By the way, you shot yourself in the foot here because the categoric imperative is the secular equivalent of the Golden Rule. Is that also "extremely vague to boot"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So are you saying that a perfect moral code doesn't exist? And for that matter, do you think that it's possible for human minds to discover it, if it did?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I state that it has not been found yet. Any further discussion of this would require more space than I think this topics frame can offer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->addendum: gee Nem0, i just realized: your description of a 'perfect morality' seems to fit 'might makes right' fairly well<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to the mightless. I guess they wouldn't 'happily adopt' it, as numerous historic movements, including the American revolutionaries, prove.
--
Cronos, Leg, Tal, I'd appreciate if this didn't succumb to religion bashing and counter-bashing.
Suppose God was evil, and you didn't know. (How would you know?) This would consequentially make any moral code based on laws given my god to also be evil assuming he was true to character.
Assuming that god is good is just as much of an arbitrary assumption as assuming that man has inherent worth. It's just one logical step removed. Neither is at all arbitrary within their respective framework. If you believe in a god as a moral authority its hard to make much sense of the world supposing that god is evil. In exactly the same way its difficult to make sense of the world supposing that man does not have inherent worth. These are not mere assumptions, these are <b>premises</b>. We believe them because it is impossible to function without them.
I do think this is a clear advantage of atheistic morality. It is purely based on that which we know and can know, and that which we choose to believe, knowing that it is a choice. It leaves the assumptions bare and in full view to be examined with the knowledge that they are assumptions. Religion takes these assumptions, that are still just assumptions, and hides them behind an appeal to authority. While neither is necessarily worse logically, the atheistic moral is more honest about its basis.
Suppose God was evil, and you didn't know. (How would you know?) This would consequentially make any moral code based on laws given my god to also be evil assuming he was true to character.
Assuming that god is good is just as much of an arbitrary assumption as assuming that man has inherent worth. It's just one logical step removed. Neither is at all arbitrary within their respective framework. If you believe in a god as a moral authority its hard to make much sense of the world supposing that god is evil. In exactly the same way its difficult to make sense of the world supposing that man does not have inherent worth. These are not mere assumptions, these are <b>premises</b>. We believe them because it is impossible to function without them.
I do think this is a clear advantage of atheistic morality. It is purely based on that which we know and can know, and that which we choose to believe, knowing that it is a choice. It leaves the assumptions bare and in full view to be examined with the knowledge that they are assumptions. Religion takes these assumptions, that are still just assumptions, and hides them behind an appeal to authority. While neither is necessarily worse logically, the atheistic moral is more honest about its basis. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dammit I cant answer properly as I only get 10 seconds behind the keyboard at a time :/ My response is coming Nem
Moultano - you do realise that its impossible for God to be evil right? If you accept the existance of an all powerful God who created the Universe - then he sets the rules. If he decides that its okay to rape women - then it IS okay. It is impossible for God to be "evil", as he defines what is good and evil. Everything he does is good and right because he makes the rules.
You dont assume God is good. Either he is good, or he doesnt exist.
There's so much more I want to say - but I g2g.
I'm going to go play some NS, but, before I do, I just want to make a few points.
1) Religion allows there to be a line to follow where there is none in athestic thought.
Answer: True, but does that alone make the religious line any better than the athestic ones? No, it just states there is a line that religion draws.
Its also important to renember something very critical about religion and philosophy when discussing these things:
Religion wants you to beleive in order to understand.
Philosophy requires you to understand something before you beleive in it.
Anyone with any shred of logic in them sees the problem with the religious approach to morals, blind beleif. Not to mention, in order to beleive in something you HAVE to understand it.
If I were to walk up to you and say "The sky just turned green, don't look up, just take my word for it" would you say "Oh, well, I won't bother asking for an explination of why it mangaged to turn green in any way, I'll just beleive in what your saying"? No, or at least I'd hope you'd say you wouldn't beleive in that.
2) For those of you that don't study philosophy, the only absolute peice of information that is out there (not affected by time or space) is "Cogito ergo sum". "I think, therefore I am" a statement by Descartes, who proved that:
2a) How do I know my senses aren't being manipulated (IE, my brain is hooked into something like the matrix) and I can trust what I'm sensing?
2b) How do I know that all the knowledge in my head up to this point wasn't put there 2 seconds ago by some evil demon type creature, and that all the knowledge in my head already is false (because the evil demon put it there).
So, Descartes comes to the conclusion, that the one he knows is that, if he is questioning and thinking about his own knowledge, or thinking at ALL, someone, or something, has to be doing the thinking. Hense the statement "I think, therefore I am"
So, and decision your going to make is GOING to be based on uncertainty, but more specificly, the uncertainty we agree that we share (IE, we beleive a square has 4 sides, we've come to agree on that (even though we can't put it past the evil demon argument, but its something we agree is true insofar as everyone has experienced a square to having 4 sides)). Btw, some may try to bring in the 'one brain' argument, but thats a whole other story...
3) Morals are created for the purpose of people living together with the maximum amount of freedoms, while still maintaining peace. Meaning, morals are the minimum needed to sustain society (at LEAST).
I prefer to take a bit of a kantian aproach to this and say that if your going to make a moral, it has to be UNIVERSALIZED. meaning, if it is ok for you to do something to person A, it is ok for person A to do that exact same thing to you (and you have no right to complain about it). HOWEVER, do note that everything has a moral weight. IE, if you know someone is going to kill your friend, who you know is innocent (for some reason), and they ask you where your friend is, you SHOULD lie to them because it is the LESSER of the two evils (saving innocent lives is more important than lying, because without saving innocent lives there would be no one to worry about lying anyway because everyone would be dead (eventualy to people killing each other for random and unfounded reaosns), and we agree everyone being dead is a WORSE off situation).
So, yes, I beleive you CAN establish a moral code, without god, based (at least) on the bare minimum for a society to be stable (instead of establishing a moral code based on random (not to mention BLIND) faith). Beyond what is aboslutely nessecary for that society to continue (IE, the core beleifs everyone can agree on), you have preferences which are up to the individual (and no, abortion is NOT a prefernce, because aborting a child, that doesn't YET have a brain is not killing. Because we concider BRAIN DEAD people legaly dead, so if a fetus does not yet have conciousness, it is NOT LEGALY ALIVE, and therefore abortion isn't wrong as long as the fetus does not have conscious thought). However, abortion is a whole other issue, just thought I'd chip a little off the top of the iceberg on that one lol.
Anyway, I will probably update this later after I have put even more thought into it. Renember, it is ALWAYS nessecary to continue to question your convictions, otherwise you wouldn't have a REASON to beleive in them (because you would be beleiving in them simply because you came to a conclusion a long time ago and want to stick with it). ALWAYS QUESTION YOURSELF! The moment you stop questioning your beleifs is the moment they become blind faith. Please, feel free to prove me wrong if you beleive you have a logical (keyword being logical) proof otherwise, because it will help me get closer to the truth. I only wrote what I did to try to see if there was a way I was wrong (and in the process help anyone here see where they were right, or wrong).
Time for some NS <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
From a religious standpoint, god created man, layed down a couple of rules and thats that.
Big question here. Why? Why would a perfect god create an imperfect being that he KNEW would betray him?
There is only one reason that I can think of.
God wants fellow creators. By making us imperfect, he ascribes to us the will and drive to achieve something more, to better ourselves as individuals and as a race.
Of what use is a mindless worshipper? Of what use is blind belief? Faith may move mountains, but a creator can create them.
As inelegant as that is, it seems true.
God created Man with a much broader scope and vision then anyone here can possibly imagine. God has no use for a mindless slave, rather, he has a use, a motive, perhaps a vested interest, in seeing fellow creators come into the fold.
How else do you explain art? Civilisation? Music? All these things we create. Just as we create, we destroy as well. We know it is easier to destroy then to create, but we dont destroy everything.
There is an instinctual drive to be civilised, to have this basic and core moral code, there are of course exceptions to the rule, yet part of the common drive to be civilised is to ostracise them.
Is this hard-coding an effect of evolution? Or is it by divine influence and creation? It has yet to be disproven that god does not work through evolution.
From a more atheistic standpoint, man was nothing better then an animal. Yet, over the millenia, he has raised himself above the animals, developed intelligence, tools, the opposable thumb, a brain and ultimately Reason.
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?
People ultimately act upon reason. You eat because you are hungry. You breathe because of an instinct that tells you to breathe. You kiss because you love.
No act undertaken by a person that can think and reason is done without reason.
For example, I have to leave this message unfinished beacause if I dont grab lunch now, I wont make it to work on time, or if I do, I will be hungry and unproductive. Either way, I risk losing my job and my only source of income which in turn threatens my survival, hence this message ends here for a good reason, and will continue at a later time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In theory. That's basically what Locke did, if I recall correctly.
That goes right back to the point in the thread. Are those morals anything more than just hot air, if there is no significant reason for them being there in the first place? If societies stability is the only reason that they exist, what makes them inherantly better or worse than another code that serves the same purpose?
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?
Cronos, Tal, I'm starting a few apologetic threads to explain some of the things you've brought up, I want to keep this thread focused as much on ethics as possible.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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?