Moral Relativism

AsterOids · February 2004

"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? "

The morals, marine01, the morals...

That little voice in my head called "my conscience" and that human feeling called empathy.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 25 2004, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </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.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
When I apply my criteria to the world around, I do it based on the belief that my criteria is the same of an all powerful rule making God. An all powerful rule making God has right to apply his criteria to who ever he wants. So in effect I see my criteria as not mine by God's. Now I may have screwed up his criteria and warped it into something that I feel more comfortable, which is why I have to constantly refer back to the morallic framework (Bible) that I have been given to try and keep me on the right track.

But you are taking your criteria created and implemented by you as a human being and are assuming the right to apply it to others. When I apply my criteria to others, I'm actually trying to figure out what my God would do in that situation, a God that has every right to apply his criteria.

In short - I believe I have the right to apply my criteria to others because my criteria are those of a God. <b>I do not believe that I have the right to apply my criteria to others simply because I chose them myself.</b>

I understand fully when you say "We are both simply selecting our own criteria and applying it - what we are doing is identical." However, I question your right to do so, given that you claim no higher authority for your criteria other than yourself. No human has the right to take his own personally created criteria and stick it one someone else.

God's existance is <b>not</b> something I derive from the fact that the world exists, although it certainly helps reinforce things in my mind. God's existance is something I believe in based upon personal experience with him. When people try and argue with religious people, try and disprove their God, its a complete waste of time in most cases. No matter what fact and evidence people throw at you, you know this God, you communicate with this God, sometimes you can even feel his presence. Its like trying to tell a man his wife is dead. You show him video's, you give him eye witnesses, you describe it in intimate detail, you hand him his wife's suicide note, you show dna tests of her carcase splattered all over the ground. And he replies "That's great guys, but I just talked to her 30 seconds ago, you aint gonna get me believing she's dead".

Probably our biggest point of difference is that you treat God as an abstract figure in my mind. I treat God as an existing reality.

God's significance is not something I assign simply to make my world make sense.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BeAst,Feb 26 2004, 01:58 AM] You are still failing, or unwilling to see the distinction between immoral and non-religious.

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. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
To ammend what I said - the statement should have read like this "Stalin followed atheism to one conclusion".

Beast, why should Stalin apply Coil's maxim? Stalin is going to apply Stalin's maxim. Stalin's maxim states that as humans have no more significance than animals, why shouldnt he kill them if it doesnt make him feel guilty and he has no fear of retribution?

Now Stalin did PRECISELY the same thing as Coil. He created his own morals, and he lived them out. Which one of you has to right to say he was wrong? Sure, you can judge him out of your own morallic system, but yours has no greater and no lesser worth or value or correctness than his.

With an atheistic belief, there is an end of the line, and its the same thing for everyone. Nothingness. With religious belief, there is an end of the line, but what you gets depends upon your actions in life.

So here it is, summed up, the basic problem with personally assigned morals based on the atheistic belief that there is no judgement/afterlife:

<b>"If I perform this deed, if this deed is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after performing this deed, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for this deed, then why shouldnt I?"</b>

Religion has an answer to that one. I'd be highly surprised if there is an atheist answer.

EDIT

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The morals, marine01, the morals...

That little voice in my head called "my conscience" and that human feeling called empathy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I feel that also answers your question asteroid. I am living out my morals. My conscience sees no problem with it, my empathy doesnt bother me. I am a pychopath. Why shouldnt I kill millions of people?

AsterOids · February 2004

but what about my post marine01, not all christians are like Hitler, and not all atheist are like Stalin...

You seem to be saying that atheists dont care about killing people because they arent scared of hell. If that was the case, Canada would be one big messy, blood soaked, mass murderin country. But its not.

How does beleiving in god make one a good person? Osama Bin Laden? Hello?

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 26 2004, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> but what about my post marine01, not all christians are like Hitler, and not all atheist are like Stalin...

You seem to be saying that atheists dont care about killing people because they arent scared of hell. If that was the case, Canada would be one big messy, blood soaked, mass murderin country. But its not.

How does beleiving in god make one a good person? Osama Bin Laden? Hello? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Believing in God does not make one a good person. Believing in no God does not automatically make you evil. What it does do is leave you without an answer to my question

"If I perform this deed, if this deed is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after performing this deed, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for this deed, then why shouldnt I?"

Assume the deed is murder. Why shouldn't I murder?

I'm not saying that atheists dont care about killing people because they arent afraid of hell - but I am saying that they lack a decent moral arguement as to why they shouldnt kill people. Some people i.e. Stalin accept that their is no decent reason NOT to kill people given his personal beliefs, and then act upon it.

Given that his personal belief's are every bit as valid as yours, you therefore have no right to claim he's doing the wrong thing. I believe that at their core, athiestic morals are a moral free for all. Millions of personally formulated morals, each as valid as the next. The only way they can work in society is the idea that might makes right. If your moral belief's happen to differ with societies, then with their superior might they will force you to conform or suffer punishment.

AsterOids · February 2004

" "If I perform this deed, if this deed is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after performing this deed, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for this deed, then why shouldnt I?"

Assume the deed is murder. Why shouldn't I murder?

I'm not saying that atheists dont care about killing people because they arent afraid of hell - but I am saying that they lack a decent moral arguement as to why they shouldnt kill people."

Not really... Let me explain it to you from my atheist point of view. Why dont i kill people? Because of empathy, because i know that if i thrust a knife into their chest, im going to make them suffer, and make suffer the people who love that person, and i dont want that. I dont need no scripture to tell me its wrong, i just know it...

(what i need is to learn how to quote lol)

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 26 2004, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> " "If I perform this deed, if this deed is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after performing this deed, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for this deed, then why shouldnt I?"

Assume the deed is murder. Why shouldn't I murder?

I'm not saying that atheists dont care about killing people because they arent afraid of hell - but I am saying that they lack a decent moral arguement as to why they shouldnt kill people."

Not really... Let me explain it to you from my atheist point of view. Why dont i kill people? Because of empathy, because i know that if i thrust a knife into their chest, im going to make them suffer, and make suffer the people who love that person, and i dont want that. I dont need no scripture to tell me its wrong, i just know it...

(i need to learn how to quote lol)  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I'm sorry sir, but to quote Judges all over the world: "Please, answer the question".

You didnt answer the question, all you did was explain to me your personal morals. Whats the answer Asteroid?

"If I kill this man, if killing this man is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after killing this man, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for killing him, then why shouldnt I?"

So what's your answer. Pretend I am the above psychopath.

AsterOids · February 2004

"If I kill this man, if killing this man is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after killing this man, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for killing him, then why shouldnt I?"

Ok, if murder is acceptable to an atheist psychopath, he will do it, and he wont see a reason why he shouldnt do it.

Im not sure i see a question in that, youre just stating the obvious

BTW in my last post before this one, i was replying to your "I'm not saying that atheists dont care about killing people because they arent afraid of hell - but I am saying that they lack a decent moral arguement as to why they shouldnt kill people." claim, not your question on atheist psychopaths.

I was explaining to you why i am not lacking a decent moral argument, my decent moral argument is that i dont wanna make people suffer. If i understand you correctly, your argument is that the religious guy wont kill because of fear of god, not morals, and that somehow this makes him/her on the moral highground if you compare him/her with an atheist.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 26 2004, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If I kill this man, if killing this man is morally acceptable TO ME, if I will not feel guilty after killing this man, if I will not be caught in this lifetime and held accountable for killing him, then why shouldnt I?"

Ok, if murder is acceptable to an atheist psychopath, he will do it, and he wont see a reason why he shouldnt do it.

Im not sure i see a question in that, youre just stating the obvious </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I'm not saying WILL he do it, I'm asking you why he shouldnt, given that he believes what he's stating. And the answer is - there is absolutely not reason why he shouldnt.

The only point you can criticise his morals is from your own personal morals. However, he can do exactly the same, and turn around and criticise yours from his moral viewpoint.

So tell me who is actually correct in this scenario? Your belief's have the exact same validity as his, so who are you to criticise his? Doesn't it bother you that the morals of a murderer are every bit as good as yours?

AsterOids · February 2004

If the guy is a walking dead, a predatory emotional black hole, you are right, there is absolutely no reason in his mind why he shouldnt off you, because hes dead inside and empathy is a goner.

"The only point you can criticise his morals is from your own personal morals. However, he can do exactly the same, and turn around and criticise yours from his moral viewpoint."

Yeah, but what are you, the christian, gonna say to him? take out the ten commandements and make him see the light?

You are basically saying that morals dont exist, that one set of beleifs can be countered by another set of beleifs, kind of like saying that someone can claim that the earth is round, and another guy can come and say no, the earth is flat and they just counter each other out.

I just cant explain why if i see a child seconds away from being hit by a bus, im going to lunge at him grab his hand and yank him out of the street. I just feel its wrong to not do anything in this situation. Someone can think that i am wrong, and that children have the right to wander off in the street and be hit by buses, and try to stop me. Then i am going to punch him in the face, watch him drop on his behind, and save the child. He can sue me.

Wheeee · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 25 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If the guy is a walking dead, a predatory emotional black hole, you are right, there is absolutely no reason in his mind why he shouldnt off you, because hes dead inside and empathy is a goner.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
So does this mean you don't support the punishment of criminals (by government)?

moultano · 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'>God's existance is <b>not</b> something I derive from the fact that the world exists, although it certainly helps reinforce things in my mind. God's existance is something I believe in based upon personal experience with him. When people try and argue with religious people, try and disprove their God, its a complete waste of time in most cases. No matter what fact and evidence people throw at you, you know this God, you communicate with this God, sometimes you can even feel his presence. Its like trying to tell a man his wife is dead. You show him video's, you give him eye witnesses, you describe it in intimate detail, you hand him his wife's suicide note, you show dna tests of her carcase splattered all over the ground. And he replies "That's great guys, but I just talked to her 30 seconds ago, you aint gonna get me believing she's dead".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I still contend that my original statement is correct. Your experiences are part of your view of the world. When you feel the presence of a god, it is part of your world, and it does not make sense unless a god exists who is causing you to feel this presence or experience this communication. Therefore, you believe in god because it is necessary for your experiences of the world to make sense.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When I apply my criteria to the world around, I do it based on the belief that my criteria is the same of an all powerful rule making God. An all powerful rule making God has right to apply his criteria to who ever he wants. So in effect I see my criteria as not mine by God's. Now I may have screwed up his criteria and warped it into something that I feel more comfortable, which is why I have to constantly refer back to the morallic framework (Bible) that I have been given to try and keep me on the right track.

But you are taking your criteria created and implemented by you as a human being and are assuming the right to apply it to others. When I apply my criteria to others, I'm actually trying to figure out what my God would do in that situation, a God that has every right to apply his criteria.

In short - I believe I have the right to apply my criteria to others because my criteria are those of a God. <b>I do not believe that I have the right to apply my criteria to others simply because I chose them myself.</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I believe that my criteria are universalizable. You believe that your criteria are given by god and are thus universalizable. For both of us the justification of using our own criteria to judge others is the belief that the criteria are correct and applicable to everyone. The fact that the criteria are universalizable is a premise in a humanistic system. God's existence is a premise in a religious system. Both systems need a premise to justify using our criteria to judge others. In both systems, we create this premise because our experience doesn't make sense without it.

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'>I still contend that my original statement is correct. Your experiences are part of your view of the world. When you feel the presence of a god, it is part of your world, and it does not make sense unless a god exists who is causing you to feel this presence or experience this communication. Therefore, you believe in god because it is necessary for your experiences of the world to make sense. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But that applies to everything you experience, and I mean everything. I believe in my sister, because it is necessary for my experience of the world to make sense. I believe in a person with the NS.org forum alias moultano in order for my experiences right now to make sense. I also believe in this chair etc etc. Maybe I've gotten confused and lost sight of the original statement of yours, but I dont see how this supports either of 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 believe that my criteria are universalizable. You believe that your criteria are given by god and are thus universalizable. For both of us the justification of using our own criteria to judge others is the belief that the criteria are correct and applicable to everyone. The fact that the criteria are universalizable is a premise in a humanistic system. God's existence is a premise in a religious system. Both systems need a premise to justify using our criteria to judge others. In both systems, we create this premise because our experience doesn't make sense without it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why is your criteria universalizable? Simply because you believe it to be so? The fact that my criteria is given by God is what gives me the right to universalize it, not merely because I believe its correct. What gives you that right?

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 26 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If the guy is a walking dead, a predatory emotional black hole, you are right, there is absolutely no reason in his mind why he shouldnt off you, because hes dead inside and empathy is a goner.

"The only point you can criticise his morals is from your own personal morals. However, he can do exactly the same, and turn around and criticise yours from his moral viewpoint."

Yeah, but what are you, the christian, gonna say to him? take out the ten commandements and make him see the light?

You are basically saying that morals dont exist, that one set of beleifs can be countered by another set of beleifs, kind of like saying that someone can claim that the earth is round, and another guy can come and say no, the earth is flat and they just counter each other out.

I just cant explain why if i see a child seconds away from being hit by a bus, im going to lunge at him grab his hand and yank him out of the street. I just feel its wrong to not do anything in this situation. Someone can think that i am wrong, and that children have the right to wander off in the street and be hit by buses, and try to stop me. Then i am going to punch him in the face, watch him drop on his behind, and save the child. He can sue me.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
As a Christian I have the ability to believe my morals are superior to his. I claim that my morals are those given by a God that has applied them universally to the human race, not just me.

To answer the pyschopath's question - you will be punished with eternal suffering if you do so by God, there will be no escaping justice, you will be held accountable. It definately wont stop the man, but it does provide a reason for him not to do something despite seemingly no consequences in this life.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You are basically saying that morals dont exist, that one set of beleifs can be countered by another set of beleifs, kind of like saying that someone can claim that the earth is round, and another guy can come and say no, the earth is flat and they just counter each other out. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In the atheistic moral free for all, you dont counter other belief's, but you cannot claim yours to be superior, nor do you have any right to force them on anyone else. No one has the moral high ground.

moultano · 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'>But that applies to everything you experience, and I mean everything. I believe in my sister, because it is necessary for my experience of the world to make sense. I believe in a person with the NS.org forum alias moultano in order for my experiences right now to make sense. I also believe in this chair etc etc. Maybe I've gotten confused and lost sight of the original statement of yours, but I dont see how this supports either of us.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
My original point was that for both of us, we derive our premises from what we see to be necessary for the world to make sense. It was just creating another similarity between the basis of our respective beliefs.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Why is your criteria universalizable? Simply because you believe it to be so? The fact that my criteria is given by God is what gives me the right to universalize it, not merely because I believe its correct. What gives you that right?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think we can agree that whatever criteria are 'correct' can be universalized. The trouble then is determining that the criteria are correct. You determine that your criteria are correct because your premise that god exists and gave you these criteria implies it. I believe my criteria are correct because they are similarly derived from the premises of the system, whatever they may be. It is an implicit premise of any system that the premises are correct, and thus anything derived from them logically is also correct. This is a little more difficult for me to argue because I am trying to make this as generic as possible. I am trying to defend every possible humanistic philosphy. As such I don't have a library of premises to build statements with. However, it is possible to prove within any reasonable humanistic system that the
criteria for judgement are universalizable.
In Kant's ethical system for instance, the basic premise is that those things are ethical which can be logically wished to be universal law. From which it follows directly that the judgements are universalizable. The fact that they are universalizable is the premise itself.

When you have premises in a system you cannot debate the merits of the premises within the system. They are just assumed to be true. You can only debate the premises by stepping outside of the system. This is the distinction that I worry I was glossing over before. When I say that I'm chosing the premises of the system that is occuring outside the logic of the system. Within the system the only rational choice of system is the system itself because you are then assuming necessarily that the axioms of the system are true.
As an example, it would be meaningless to try to justify that god doesn't exist within the logical system of christianity. God's existence is an axiom.

FilthyLarry · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 21 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 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. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I certainly believe it is possible; but any religion that basically states that we're flawed and therefore can't come up with anything decent produces followers that will never agree with that idea.

The code would not be completely arbitrary, but it would and must change. Why ? Because it's a changing world out there.

coil · February 2004

The flaw in your argument, Marine, is that no human exists in a vacuum. We are all part of society, and therefore we cannot each hold our own morals independent of everyone else. You're trying to paint non-religious morality as this sort of "free for all" (to use your words), but it's just not accurate. Of <i>course</i> a system won't work if each person has his own system. We as a society must agree on a single moral ruleset, one that gives us the maximum freedom and the necessary security.

Could this be achieved without religion? Certainly. Is it easier with religion? Perhaps. Religion was a way to unify the unlearned during the Dark Ages, in some ways a bogeyman to scare them into behaving and fulfilling their role in society ("thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt face eternal damnation"). I'm not saying that's all that religion is, but it has definitely served as a unifying force, both positively (love thy neighbor) and negatively (or go to hell).

What about a moral code without religion? Sure. In some ways, the laws of the US are that secular moral code. They certainly draw their roots from religion, as those who first wrote them were of course religious men, but they encompass people of every background, every theological persuasion, etc, and for the most part we all agree with them. Some fundamental ones would clearly exist in any society, secular or no (e.g. no murder, private property, etc).

As such, it's not much of a stretch to theorize that a society could come to a mutually beneficial moral code without the need for religion to back it up. The only flaw in a secular moral code is the lack of a unifying element - be it good vibes (yay god, yay heaven, love everyone) or threats (or off to hell with you). Any moral code is only effective if everyone agrees to abide by it.

Marine0I · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 26 2004, 03:59 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'>
Why is your criteria universalizable? Simply because you believe it to be so? The fact that my criteria is given by God is what gives me the right to universalize it, not merely because I believe its correct. What gives you that right?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think we can agree that whatever criteria are 'correct' can be universalized. The trouble then is determining that the criteria are correct. You determine that your criteria are correct because your premise that god exists and gave you these criteria implies it. I believe my criteria are correct because they are similarly derived from the premises of the system, whatever they may be. It is an implicit premise of any system that the premises are correct, and thus anything derived from them logically is also correct. This is a little more difficult for me to argue because I am trying to make this as generic as possible. I am trying to defend every possible humanistic philosphy. As such I don't have a library of premises to build statements with. However, it is possible to prove within any reasonable humanistic system that the
criteria for judgement are universalizable.
In Kant's ethical system for instance, the basic premise is that those things are ethical which can be logically wished to be universal law. From which it follows directly that the judgements are universalizable. The fact that they are universalizable is the premise itself.

When you have premises in a system you cannot debate the merits of the premises within the system. They are just assumed to be true. You can only debate the premises by stepping outside of the system. This is the distinction that I worry I was glossing over before. When I say that I'm chosing the premises of the system that is occuring outside the logic of the system. Within the system the only rational choice of system is the system itself because you are then assuming necessarily that the axioms of the system are true.
As an example, it would be meaningless to try to justify that god doesn't exist within the logical system of christianity. God's existence is an axiom. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I challenge the ability of any humanistic moral to be correct and universalised. Who gets to decide if its correct? Does society get to decide? In that case, might makes right, and so does circumstance and time.

Correctness is not granted simply because your premise gives it too you - especially when you invent said preference. My God may or may not be invented, but your premise is invented without question. You are inventing systems and beliefs and declaring them true as part of the definition. Now you may try and turn that around and say "thats exactly what you are doing" - but that denies the actual existance of my God out of hand. You are claiming that my God is nothing more than your idea - a creation of a human mind. And I wont ever accept that.

I feel like we are going in circles moultano, and in my experience that comes about when either one or both parties finds an opposing claim or arguement that they will refuse to accept....

Now all I have to decide is precisely where.

I think we critically agree on the ability of humans to create their own theories and force them upon others, given that they know their theory has no backing higher than themselves.

Coil - I dont feel that's a flaw in my arguement, merely a part of it. Once you take a humanistic moral system and enforce it in society, you are declaring your moral system superior to anyone within your society who disagrees. In other words, might makes right. That is not a decent backbone for a moral system.

moultano · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 26 2004, 01:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Correctness is not granted simply because your premise gives it too you - especially when you invent said preference. My God may or may not be invented, but your premise is invented without question. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
How is there any difference? You believe that god exists because your experience leads you to believe it, I believe my philosophy is correct because my experience leads me to believe it. Neither of us have any better basis for correctness than that.

I believe that the tenets of my philosophy are necessary facts of the way humans interact. When someone acts out of line with these tenets, they are acting against facts of human existence. I believe that human life is significant, and I believe that some things necessarily follow from that. The axioms of my belief are only as 'invented' as relativity was when einstein discovered it. When you determine those things that are necessarily true in order for the world around you to make sense, you are not arbitrarily inventing things. It is more akin to discovering them. Reality needs no authority to enforce itself, and as such neither do my beliefs need a higher power to justify their application. Facts are universal. The fact that two people disagree doesn't mean that it is impossible to choose between them and that anything goes. It means that one of them is wrong.

I have been speaking too long in this meta frame when I should have been speaking more personally. I hope that last paragraph helped to explain the mindset better. The premises of a humanistic philosophy are as much facts to its followers as the existence of god is to you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once you take a humanistic moral system and enforce it in society, you are declaring your moral system superior to anyone within your society who disagrees. In other words, might makes right. That is not a decent backbone for a moral system.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Stating that in a disagreement one of the people is wrong is not akin to might makes right. It is just acknowledging a fact of reality.

Edit: Incidentally, this has been I think a really good debate. Cheers to everyone involved <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

coil · February 2004

Some simple examples of moultano's and my assertion that religion is not needed to create a workable moral code:

1) a society in which murder is "good" will eventually wipe itself out.
2) a society in which promiscuity is promoted will produce more mouths than it can feed and will not be able to adequately raise its children, resulting in eventual collapse.
3) assuming a person is comfortable when he feels his material life is safe, a society in which thievery is "bad" will be more successful than one in which it is "good."

Our morals are reached through logical analysis of the world and of our situation in society. We have observed that following our morals improves our lives and the lives of those around us, so we surmise that our morals are effective - "good."

(moultano, apologies if I mis-represented you)

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Feb 26 2004, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think we can agree that whatever criteria are 'correct' can be universalized. The trouble then is determining that the criteria are correct.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The problem with universalizability is that it is not always appropriate. Sure, things like 'do not murder' are easily univerversalised, but what about 'let other people go in front of you in a queue'? It is good, and a nice thing to do, but it cannot be universalised because then nobody will get anywere in a queue, as we will all be letting everybody else go first.

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'>How is there any difference? You believe that god exists because your experience leads you to believe it, I believe my philosophy is correct because my experience leads me to believe it. Neither of us have any better basis for correctness than that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My edit probably backs this up a little better. Bear in mind I made this edit just after you started typing, and not after you pressed submit <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Correctness is not granted simply because your premise gives it too you - especially when you invent said preference. My God may or may not be invented, but your premise is invented without question. You are inventing systems and beliefs and declaring them true as part of the definition. Now you may try and turn that around and say "thats exactly what you are doing" - but that denies the actual existance of my God out of hand. You are claiming that my God is nothing more than your idea - a creation of a human mind. And I wont ever accept that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe that the tenets of my philosophy are necessary facts of the way humans interact. When someone acts out of line with these tenets, they are acting against facts of human existence. I believe that human life is significant, and I believe that some things necessarily follow from that. The axioms of my belief are only as 'invented' as relativity was when einstein discovered it. When you determine those things that are necessarily true in order for the world around you to make sense, you are not arbitrarily inventing things. It is more akin to discovering them. Reality needs no authority to enforce itself, and as such neither do my beliefs need a higher power to justify their application. Facts are universal. The fact that two people disagree doesn't mean that it is impossible to choose between them and that anything goes. It means that one of them is wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That, sir, is one HELL of a statement to make. My moral system, invented by me and certified by my own mind, is not a theory. My belief is fact, and as such is based upon what I believe to be facts. These moral theories I have decided are truth are actually universal law, and not created by me, but discovered. They have existed from the beginning of human existance, and have now been unearthed by yours truely. The fact that what I believe is 100% correct also gives me the right to impose my belief upon other people. I've never met such supreme confidence in a self generated theory ever.

That claim can be made by every man and his dog. Simply take your own morals, declare it pre-existant and universally applicable, base it upon what facts make sense to you, and wham, you have a theory every bit as valid as yours. The catch is that it disagree's with yours. What now? Whose right now?

Facts change all the time. Four hundred years ago science knew that the earth was flat, and that turned out to be false. A little cartoon I read in a creationist magazine demonstrated it very cleary to me. It had two men talking to each other, on a creationist and one an evolutionist. The evolutionist was holding a book named "Science facts, 2000 edition", and saying "Evolution is no mere theory, its based on nothing but hard, solid facts, the facts dont lie!" In the next frame another man comes along and says "Hang on, your using Last years facts, these are the new facts" and gives him a book called "Science Facts, 2001 edition". The evolutionist says thankyou, turns back to the creationist and says "As I was saying, the facts dont lie, the facts are consistant..." Basically, facts are not universal, they change from year to year and as new things are discovered.

Declaring your beliefs to be reality doesnt make them so. Basing your beliefs off changing "facts" that you have decided makes sense to you personally in no way automatically validates your beliefs.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The fact that two people disagree doesn't mean that it is impossible to choose between them and that anything goes. It means that one of them is wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And which one is wrong? The other guy of course. But he thinks your wrong too. Both people have ideas that are BOTH equally as valid. So in terms of society and law, who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? Whoever has the most power. Might maketh right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Stating that in a disagreement one of the people is wrong is not akin to might makes right. It is just acknowledging a fact of reality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You have no right to assume your morals are right and his are wrong. His morals and your morals carry equal weight, having both been created by humans. So when he does something that disagrees with societies morals, it goes to punish him. He pulls them up short and asks "Who are you to force your morallic code upon me?" Society replies "See those 10 policemen standing near you, they happen to agree with us, so you will be punished". Who is right is now determined by who has power.

Thats the lowest common denominator in atheistic morals applied to society. If you get a man who replies to all your answers with "Thats what you believe, but not what I believe" then the last word is "We dont give a sod what you believe, you do as we say because we are more powerful than you".

<b>The real backbone of atheistic morals in terms of society is majority decision and the power to enforce them on those who disagree</b>

tbZBeAst · 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'>

The problem with universalizability is that it is not always appropriate. Sure, things like 'do not murder' are easily univerversalised, but what about 'let other people go in front of you in a queue'? It is good, and a nice thing to do, but it cannot be universalised because then nobody will get anywere in a queue, as we will all be letting everybody else go first.

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

and so it falls down because it cannot be universalised.....

Something like "Let someone else in front of you in a queue, if you offer first, and they accept" which can be universalised, is "good" for an abitrary value of "good" <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> etc.

Marine0I · February 2004

My real problem here people is that I have yet to hear one decent arguement as to why your moral code is superior to the man next to you who disagrees, and what gives you the right to impose your self created moral belief upon him.

Now you may very well have answered this somewhere along the line in this thread, but if so I've missed it. So, to refocus - please explain to me why I should treat yours above someone with a completely different moral code.

EDIT

While reviewing the thread to see if I really had missed the answer to this rather vital problem, (and I am now convinced that I havent missed it) I came apon another statement that I disagree with.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Logically there isn't much difference between creating criteria for significance and choosing someone else's criteria for significance</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again this is based upon the assumption that my God does not exist and as such cannot have given me a correct criteria for significance. If my God in fact exists, then he gets to set criteria for significance, and its entirely possible he gave it to me. Only by assuming he never existed in the first place can you come to the conclusion that selecting your own and creating your own are always functionally the same thing.

AsterOids · February 2004

"It definately wont stop the man, but it does provide a reason for him not to do something despite seemingly no consequences in this life."

No it does not, we are talking about an atheist psychopath, if hes atheist, and a psychopath, it does not provide him with a reason not to do it, because he doesnt beleive he will burn in hell for eternity, so why should he care?

"As a Christian I have the ability to believe my morals are superior to his. I claim that my morals are those given by a God that has applied them universally to the human race, not just me."

But its only that, a beleif, just like my beleifs of what is wrong and right. You can CLAIM that your morals are given by god, but i dont BELEIVE it. There is so much wrong that has been done in the name of Jesus or Allah or religion, i dont think that religious folks can be trusted with their "superior morals". Now i am not saying that religious people cant be good, theres alot of them, but i can also name you a bunch of other people who killed, robbed and pillage in the name of god. Christopher Colombus is one. So claiming to be gods instrument does not make your action more or less moral than someone elses, the action itself define if it is moral or not.

And, to pre-empt your next argument, who is the judge of if that action is moral or not? us atheists with our free for all morals? I guess we should leave that to you religious folks to whom god speaks, right?

To take my earlier example, i understand that when i stab a man in the chest, he will suffer and maybe die, and the people who love him will suffer as well. You can ask, "what makes your set of morals better than someone who thinks stabbing people in the chest is good for humanity?" , but im thinking that most people instictively understand why it is wrong. You dont have to talk to a 4 year old child who sees his father bleeding to death on the floor that god thinks stabbing people in the chest is wrong, instictively, his little heart will go "NO!!!!! DADDY!!!!! YOURE SUFFERING!!! IT HURTS ME!!!! IM SAD!!!! PAIN!!!!"

In the end, its all about beleifs. You beleive that because you think that your morals were given by god, they are superior to mine, and i think that the action itself makes it moral or not, and that we humans have to judge it. And yeah, the judge can be (religious) Hitler, or Mother Theresa, (atheists) Stalin, or Noam Chomsky. Were just gonna have to sort it out ourselves.

moultano · 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'>That, sir, is one HELL of a statement to make. My moral system, invented by me and certified by my own mind, is not a theory. My belief is fact, and as such is based upon what I believe to be facts. These moral theories I have decided are truth are actually universal law, and not created by me, but discovered. They have existed from the beginning of human existance, and have now been unearthed by yours truely. The fact that what I believe is 100% correct also gives me the right to impose my belief upon other people. I've never met such supreme confidence in a self generated theory ever.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This amount of confidence may not be found in any given person. In fact I think it a bit irresponsible to have absolute confidence in any given belief system. Within the system however, the premises are absolute. That is what I was trying to get across. Just because I can take a step back and look at things objectively doesn't mean things are as wishy washy within the logic of the system itself. As an example, within the religion Christianity there is no doubt that god exists. However, any individual christian, being dynamic and uncertain, may periodically question that. When they do that, they are taking a step outside the system as I have described.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
That claim can be made by every man and his dog. Simply take your own morals, declare it pre-existant and universally applicable, base it upon what facts make sense to you, and wham, you have a theory every bit as valid as yours. The catch is that it disagree's with yours. What now? Whose right now?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I could equivalently say that about every religion. How would you go about debating the merits of your religion with a hindu?

I've mentioned before that various philosophies cannot be compared within the system. You must take a step outside the system and start analyzing premises.

Within any logical system however, that which agrees with the system is right absolutely.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Basically, facts are not universal, they change from year to year and as new things are discovered.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Facts are universal. Knowledge of them might not be. Any statment that can have a truth value has a truth value whether we can accurately determine it or not. The fact that our knowledge changes is the reason the study of ethics has evolved since Aristotle.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Basing your beliefs off changing "facts" that you have decided makes sense to you personally in no way automatically validates your beliefs.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
As far as I'm concerned they do. What other criteria can a person possibly use to judge something other than that it makes sense to them? When you rigorously derive something logically from the world around you, you must accept it as fact. Otherwise there can be no facts, because every fact is derived in this manner.

Let me reframe this. Suppose you didn't believe that god exists, but you still held the same moral code. You would, however, in your eyes no longer have the right to apply it to others. Therefore, like any other system, your right to apply the code to others is derived from your premise, god's existence.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And which one is wrong? The other guy of course. But he thinks your wrong too. Both people have ideas that are BOTH equally as valid.

You have no right to assume your morals are right and his are wrong. His morals and your morals carry equal weight, having both been created by humans.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That is the status of every humanistic philosophy within the system of christianity. Take a step back outside of your premises. Every philosophy will disagree with every other, as every religion disagrees with every other. Within each one, the premises imply that every other is wrong.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So in terms of society and law, who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? Whoever has the most power. Might maketh right.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Do you consider democracy just a glorified mob rule? There <i>are</i> ways of making decisions other than violence.

The nice thing about the US government for instance, is that we've codified everything we agree on, and generally leave eachother alone for the rest.

Count_Zeno · February 2004

There is no in-principle reason to think that you can't have a fully secular acount of ethics. In fact, there are several well worn attempts at this: Utilitatianism, social contract theory, Kantianism, virtue theory, etc. There are limitations to these theories, but they demonstrate the principle of the thing. It may seem odd, but divine command theory doesn't actually have many supporters amongst theologians and philosophers of religion.

Divine command theory seems, on the surface, like an intuitive and plausible account of the relationship between god and morality, but few people have found it satisfying. The reason is summed up in one of Plato's arguments. Plato pointed out that "what god commands is morally right" can be interpreted in two ways: (A) God commands us not to murder because it is wrong to murder, or (B) It is wrong to murder because god commands us not to. The former choice makes god not the foundation of ethics after all, and the latter makes right and wrong a matter of divine whim. If god had decided to approve of murder, it would be morally correct to murder people. The upshot is that even theology tends to emphasize the former interpretation, leaving the question of what makes something right and wrong in place.

The answer to the question of what makes something right or wrong is the domain of ethical theory. Aristotle tried to answer by focusing on the question of what it means to be a good person just as one might ask what makes for a good hammer. Utilitarians have focused on the intrinsic value of happiness/pleasure. For Kant it was human reason.

Just to focus on one brief example, Kant thought that all ethical rules could be justified using a single priniciple he called the Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim which you can will to be a universal law. This is, in many ways, a fancy version of the golden rule, but it doesn't suffer from some of the limitations that the golden rule has -- people with odd desires seem to be required to do strange or immoral actions. For Kant, murder was immoral because nobody could consistently will that every rational agent behave that way. It was, at its base an irrational action.

It is that latter point that is the reason I bring this up. The justification for the Categorical Imperative wasn't located in the divine, even though Kant was a religious man, it was located in the kind of beings we are. Because I have practical reason, I am capable of asking not only what I <i>wish</i> to do, but what I <i>should</i> do. If I act in a certain way, I am effectively endorsing that action as an acceptable way for people like me to behave. But this ethical question -- what ought I to do? -- is the same for every being with practical reason. So, by acting a certain way, I say that every being with practical reason is justified in acting this way. If I reflect on this and discover that it is not possible for everyone to act this way, or that I can't genuinely will that they do, I know that I am considering doing something wrong.

Given the limitations of divine command theory, and the possibility that we can justify a distinction between right and wrong in something other than divine will, I don't see any problem with saying that a secular ethics is possible and discoverable by human reason. Ethics without god is no worse off than ethics with god. God commands us to do what is right because he is good, and he knows what is right because he is wise. The only real contributions that god can make are communicating the nature of right and wrong to us, and enforcing the rules. God certainly provides <i>motivation</i> to do what is right since there is a system of rewards and punishments. But the fact that atheists allow that, as a human being, I am free to kill people without divine retribution is not the same as saying that by killing people I do nothing immoral.

Perhaps the big question is whether it is possible to get people to behave ethically even if there is no judgement day. Many of us believe that rational people can see why an action is right or wrong, and that this itself provides the motivation to act accordingly. I act morally because I can see the alternative. Kant, for example, held that if you act immorally you have essentially given your approval for others to treat you in a like manner, something that most rationally self-interested beings will wish to avoid.

Oh well, just a few points. Hopefully this wasn't too much of a non-sequitur in this thread. Interesting discussion.

Cheers
Z

B33F · February 2004

I think you should consider the possibility of societal evolution. Say you have a few societies, all starting at the same point in time. Some of them favor murder, some favor random violence, some favor mass oppression, and some favor morals similar to our own(murder, violence, theft, etc. are bad). Over a few years, some of these societies will likely collapse. Certain moral systems inherently contribute to the instability of a society. The societies that survive, therefore, have the "best" moral systems. I think these stable societies would likely favor morals like ours, whether they had religion or not. The result, then, is that most of the people who are left have "good" morals, without having these morals forced on them.

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'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
That claim can be made by every man and his dog. Simply take your own morals, declare it pre-existant and universally applicable, base it upon what facts make sense to you, and wham, you have a theory every bit as valid as yours. The catch is that it disagree's with yours. What now? Whose right now?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I could equivalently say that about every religion. How would you go about debating the merits of your religion with a hindu?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You stand as the final authority behind your morals, as you created them. You stand next to men who hold the exact same authority to create morals, and whose morals carry exactly the same weight. You then move to put your morals on him. When you do so, you have to provide a reason as to why your morals are superior or more correct than his in order to provide you with a justification.

Now when I move to compare my religion to a hindu, both of us do not believe as a rule that the other's final authority (God/s) actually exist. The real question when we ask "Who provides the greater moral framework" is actually "Does your God/s exist, or does mine?". Irrespective of that, it is up to our God to justify his morals, as he created them, not me, the mere follower.

The creator of the morals has the obligation to justify why their morals are superior to someone elses. Since neither of us can prove the others god/s doesnt exist, then we have to agree to disagree. However, both of us are still going to assume that they have the right to impose their belief on the other. Thats when the knives come out <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />.

Your situation is worse. You stand next to men whose existance your are forced to accept in order for your experience of the world to make sense. You are now obliged to provide us with a reason for why your morals are superior to his and as such allows you to force yours on him. You probably believe that men are born equals, and as such wont be claiming "I was born superior to this man". Nor will you be claiming that your opinion carries more weight because its backed by the facts. You based your morals off the facts that made sense to you in i.e in your opinion, he based his morals off the facts that made sense to him i.e in his opinion. To claim your opinion carries more weight because its backed by the facts is in actuallity to claim your opinion carries more weight because its your opinion <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

</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'>Basing your beliefs off changing "facts" that you have decided makes sense to you personally in no way automatically validates your beliefs.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
As far as I'm concerned they do. What other criteria can a person possibly use to judge something other than that it makes sense to them? When you rigorously derive something logically from the world around you, you must accept it as fact. Otherwise there can be no facts, because every fact is derived in this manner.

Let me reframe this. Suppose you didn't believe that god exists, but you still held the same moral code. You would, however, in your eyes no longer have the right to apply it to others. Therefore, like any other system, your right to apply the code to others is derived from your premise, god's existence.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

By validates, I mean makes your theory valid to others or universally applicable. When I rigorously derive something logically from the world around me I must accept it as fact, but that doesnt automatically mean my fact is universally correct. What if my logic was flawed? Then what I percieve to be a fact isnt actually a fact at all.

I dont believe the right is derived or a by-product of the premise. The right IS the premise. The right is God's existance, not derived from his existance. "Derived" makes it sound like its generated in the middle of the dotted line connecting me and my premise, as if the fact that I'm making that line, that connection, is actually whats giving me the right. I thought that perhaps that was actually the exact same thing you where trying to say, so I re-worded your quote to suit.

</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 reframe this. Suppose you didn't believe that god exists, but you still held the same moral code. You would, however, in your eyes no longer have the right to apply it to others. Therefore, like any other system, your right to apply the code to others is actually your premise, god's existence.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

When I reword it like that, it sounds like its just making statements, not arguement, which is why I think I've misunderstood you again. However, it does appear you are claiming that the right to apply the code to others isnt actually coming from my God, its coming from my beliefs. If thats what you are saying, then again I dont agree. Again, as a priori for this to work, my God is disallowed existance in anything but a theory or belief in my head. He's not allowed to be real. You are claiming that this proves premises get to assign the right to universalise.

And that is claiming that all is required to gain the right to universalise a moral code is a premise/belief. We really dont have to go over that one again to realise its logically invalid.

</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'>
And which one is wrong? The other guy of course. But he thinks your wrong too. Both people have ideas that are BOTH equally as valid.

You have no right to assume your morals are right and his are wrong. His morals and your morals carry equal weight, having both been created by humans.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>That is the status of every humanistic philosophy within the system of christianity. Take a step back outside of your premises. Every philosophy will disagree with every other, as every religion disagrees with every other. Within each one, the premises imply that every other is wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So I step into the shoes of an atheist. Do atheists believe that they have the right to assume their morals superior simply because they think they are right? Do atheists believe that individually created morals are NOT equaly weighted because they are invented by two people with the exact same premise (What I believe is right) but with different beliefs? Please explain to me how I am supposed to view this.

</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'>So in terms of society and law, who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? Whoever has the most power. Might maketh right.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Do you consider democracy just a glorified mob rule? There <i>are</i> ways of making decisions other than violence.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

YES! How does that quote go. "Democracy is the recurring suspicion that more than half the population is right more than half the time". Democracy is majority rules. Having the majority support = power to do things. The majority decide on a moral code, turn it into law, and then use their power as a majority to force it upon those who disagree. I'd be honestly interested in hearing how this actually isnt the case.

The bottom line with law courts is this - the majority have judged your actions based on their moral code, found you to have done the wrong thing by their moral code, and as such have chosen to punish you. The fact that you have a different moral code is irrelevant, because they have the power to force theirs on you. Please, tell me I'm wrong and thats actually not the bottom line of Law.

When you are faced with the question "Who are you to force your moral beliefs on me" and the only real reason is "I'm the man with majority support" then might = right.

moultano · 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'>Nor will you be claiming that your opinion carries more weight because its backed by the facts. You based your morals off the facts that made sense to you in i.e in your opinion, he based his morals off the facts that made sense to him i.e in his opinion. To claim your opinion carries more weight because its backed by the facts is in actuallity to claim your opinion carries more weight because its your opinion</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Some opinions are correct. Some are incorrect. That is a property of anything with a truth value. When I disagree with a person about the premises of our philosophy, we can relate to the other what caused us to think the way we do, and then investigate which of the two is correctly derived from the facts. That's what a debate is.
You and the hindu wouldn't have to agree to disagree unless you believe eachother to be so beyond the reach of logic that it isn't worth it. You could each relate what leads you to believe in your respective god(s), and debate which is the more logically sound.

The premise of a humanistic philosophy is most certainly not "what I believe is right." That would be absolutely absurd. However, "If I have rigorously derived something from the facts around me, the only way to function in the world is to believe that it is correct until new information presents itself," is a pretty reasonable premise of life in general irrespective of any philosophy. I would think that you follow it too.
I think the holdup here is that you aren't seeing the premises of a humanistic philosophy as being as important to it as the existence of god is to a religion.

If a moral is correct, it should be universally applied. In any religion or philosophy, the correctness of the premises determines the correctness of the moral.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I dont believe the right is derived or a by-product of the premise. The right IS the premise. The right is God's existance, not derived from his existance. "Derived" makes it sound like its generated in the middle of the dotted line connecting me and my premise, as if the fact that I'm making that line, that connection, is actually whats giving me the right. I thought that perhaps that was actually the exact same thing you where trying to say, so I re-worded your quote to suit.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What difference does it make? My point is that if you are incorrect about the existence of god, then you have been applying your morals incorrectly. If god, in fact, does not exist, then you have no right to apply them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The majority decide on a moral code, turn it into law, and then use their power as a majority to force it upon those who disagree. I'd be honestly interested in hearing how this actually isnt the case.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The majority doesn't decide on a moral code. The proper function of law is not to legislate morality, but to protect rights. The majority takes the rights that they believe they have and makes laws to prevent them from being infringed. This is very different than foisting a moral code on the populace. Preventing the latter is the reasoning behind seperation of church and state. (This is getting tangential however.)

Moral Relativism

Comments