|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A personal morality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Sure. Then what does it matter whether there is or is not an absolute standard for morality? In fact, as far as I can see, you would be in a bigger quandry if there were an absolute standard since this absolute standard might compel you to do something that your inner voice is trying to tell you is wrong. -
quote: Well, that is what you are claiming, isn't it? That if there were no absolute standard, then you would quit listening to this inner voice of yours? At least, that is how I have been intepreting the quandry you have been presenting since the OP. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6154 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
Well, that is what you are claiming, isn't it? That if there were no absolute standard, then you would quit listening to this inner voice of yours? At least, that is how I have been intepreting the quandry you have been presenting since the OP.
Yes seems so. So, I've been believing in a subjective morality all along? But is that the same as relative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But knowing morality is subjective I'm never really doing anything morally "wrong", so I should just ignore that voice inside me ? Didn't we cover this? Subjective morality doesn't mean that nothing's right or wrong. It just means that you can't establish objective, universal guidelines about what will always be right and what will always be wrong, because there's always situations where the right thing to do is erroneously labeled "wrong" by your code. There's no reason for you to "ignore" any voices if you don't want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Ugh. I really don't want to play semantic games. If I did, I would have invited Rob to join in. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
By the way, I think that I am going to reask a question that I asked before.
Namely, you seem worried that if morality were subjective you would stop listening to you inner conscience and behave in a way that you would feel is immoral. But what about the implications of an absolute standard of morality? Why aren't you worried about the conflicts between your inner conscience and this absolute standard, that you might have to choose between behaving in a way that is absolutely immoral or behaving in a way that you feel is immoral? If you truly are worried about violating your inner conscience, I would think that you would be relieved if morality were subjective. Edited by Chiroptera, : added subtitle Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
jar writes: Can you give me an example of something that you can do which would effect GOD? Well, I don’t think that I can really effect GOD, but I think that some of the things I do can effect Him within me. You know, the whole “my body is a temple” thingy. So, something like drunkenness could have an effect on god, through me, but I don’t think that little ol’ me is really having much of an effect on GOD. Still though, my conscience tells me that heavy intoxication is hurting god too. So if we take god out of the picture, there is one less reason for me to avoid drunkenness, and I think it would happen more often and I would be more immoral. Assuming that drunkenness is immoral. Other things that could effect god: idolatry and blasphemy. But doing those as an atheist wouldn’t really make me more immoral. Some other people responded with replies that echo the previous line. The things that are immoral only because of their effects on god should no longer be immoral if you’re an atheist. In order for the immorality to increase after becoming atheist, the acts would have to effect more than just god. I also have to admit that the threat of punishment persuades me to avoid punishable behaviors. Removing god as one of the sources of punishment will lead to me behaving more immorally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm sorry but what you posted seems totally contradictory and just play with words.
You say:
Well, I don’t think that I can really effect GOD, but I think that some of the things I do can effect Him within me. You know, the whole “my body is a temple” thingy. Sure I've heard those words before, but have you thought about what they mean?
So, something like drunkenness could have an effect on god, through me, but I don’t think that little ol’ me is really having much of an effect on GOD. Still though, my conscience tells me that heavy intoxication is hurting god too. How is it hurting God? You say in the same paragraph that you can not affect God and that you are affecting God.
Some other people responded with replies that echo the previous line. The things that are immoral only because of their effects on god should no longer be immoral if you’re an atheist. What can you do that will effect God?
I also have to admit that the threat of punishment persuades me to avoid punishable behaviors. Removing god as one of the sources of punishment will lead to me behaving more immorally. It seems that the heart of the argument from the theists like yourself is that you believe you are incapable of responsible behavior unless such behavior is coerced. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So if we take god out of the picture, there is one less reason for me to avoid drunkenness, and I think it would happen more often and I would be more immoral. Assuming that drunkenness is immoral. What you seem to be saying is... you don't so much make any kind of affect/change on God as you do affect/change your relationship with God. Sort of like... you let him down, kind of thing. As in, you could have done better, you know you can do better, and God is disapointed in you in some sort of way? Would that be a correct assessment? I agree with jar that God remains unaffected, however, that's not the point I want to talk about. I want to talk about this part:
So if we take god out of the picture, there is one less reason for me to avoid drunkenness I don't think that's accurate. I mean, I've taken God out of the picture, and there is no "one less reason for me". I've just replaced God in this way. That is, I don't worry about my relationship with God, yet I worry about my relationship with those I love, those I respect, and how I think about myself. I would also contend that this transfer from God to people is a larger reason than God alone. That is, if I go against a relationship with God, I feel guilty, and bad, all internally. Yet if I go against a relationship with myself or those I love/respect, I feel the same intense level of guilt and internal badness along with having to interact with those people externally. I will have to go to their house and discuss the issues with them and other peers. I will have to deal with seeing them and interacting with them on an everyday, physical basis. I understand that there are those who believe they act with God on an everyday, physical basis. Yet I can bring you over to meet my friends and family to show their physicality. Obviously this level of objective, physical interaction does not exist with God. Basically... can you identify some sort of relationship/feeling/thing with God that you think you have that I do not have with myself, my loved ones, and those I respect? If you can identify that "extra thing" you have with God, then you have identified the "one less moral reason" you would have without God. If you cannot identify it, then without God you lose nothing. ...Sorry, that last sentence is loaded I mean, you lose nothing when we're talking in this God-is-needed-for-morality sense. Obviously there are other things God provides for certain people that I'm not talking about right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm sorry but what you posted seems totally contradictory and just play with words Yeah, it probably is.
You say in the same paragraph that you can not affect God and that you are affecting God. The difference is between god and GOD. I don't think that I can really effect the almighty GOD, but that my actions have an affect on god, as he is in me. I'll leave it at that. I don't care to get down to the gnat's ass with it.
It seems that the heart of the argument from the theists like yourself is that you believe you are incapable of responsible behavior unless such behavior is coerced. Yeah, basically. But I wouldn't say incapable, its more like umwilling. Take god out of this world and.... fuck it, let's party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
can you identify some sort of relationship/feeling/thing with God that you think you have that I do not have with myself, my loved ones, and those I respect? No, not really.
If you cannot identify it, then without God you lose nothing Its not so much about losing something. Its about gaining. I'd gain the freedom to do all the bad things that I would enjoy doing without the threat of punishment. I could just go hog wild, and I just might.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
It seems that the heart of the argument from the theists like yourself is that you believe you are incapable of responsible behavior unless such behavior is coerced. quote: If you really, truly believe that the only reason you wouldn't behave immorally and hurt other people is through fear of punishment from God, then that is a truly frightening thought. It means that you are basically amoral at heart, without a conscience. That makes you pretty much a sociopath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Its not so much about losing something. Its about gaining. I'd gain the freedom to do all the bad things that I would enjoy doing without the threat of punishment. I could just go hog wild, and I just might. Gaining the freedom without the threat of punishment. I started to think about how my "threat of punishment" comes from what I fear my loved ones would think of me, or possibly even stop interacting with me. However, this fear of punishment is very low on the why-I-do-good-things meter when compared to the "because it's the right thing to do" motive. But then I thought that you may mean the threat of eternal punishment. And, I must admit, that there is no threat of eternal punishment from any of my loved ones. However, if this fear is high on anyone's why-they-do-good-things meter, I would argue that they have deeper problems to worry about. That is, if you don't have any positive reason to do good things, and you are only afraid of a threat of punishment... I would argue that you're really not a very good person to begin with. To me, a fear of punishment is a very immature, and low-level motive for doing good things. I would also point out that I (personally now, likely not representative of any other atheists) do have a very minor threat of eternal punishment. Not so much of God judging. But more of a possibility of something judging. I mean, I don't really believe in anything being there, but the fact that no one's ever come back from being dead to describe and show us what really happens adds a certain amount of "anything's possible". So I do have a very minor threat of eternal punishment, but I would say it's incredibly low on my why-I-do-good-things meter. Perhaps even the very bottom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you really, truly believe that the only reason you wouldn't behave immorally and hurt other people is through fear of punishment from God, then that is a truly frightening thought. The fear of punishment from God is not the only reason I wouldn't behave immorally and hurt other people. But, it is one of the reasons. If you remove God, then I have one less reason to NOT behave immorally and would be more inclined to do so.
It means that you are basically amoral at heart, without a conscience. That makes you pretty much a sociopath.
Well, then its a good thing I believe in God, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If you remove God, then I have one less reason to NOT behave immorally and would be more inclined to do so. That doesn't make any sense. If your other reasons are sufficient, then they don't get less sufficient just because one reason has been removed. If you're wearing a belt and suspenders, then your pants don't fall down just because you take the belt off. The suspenders are still there to hold your pants up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
However, this fear of punishment is very low on the why-I-do-good-things meter when compared to the "because it's the right thing to do" motive. "Because its the right thing to do" is not the largest reason for why I do good things. Its in there, but a little extra incentive helps in getting the right thing done. Its easy for someone to say they do the right thing only because its the right thing when they ain't doin' shit. Or when they're deluding themselves because they can't admit they do the right things for selfish reasons. I suppose people will say that that makes me a bad person. Without God, so what? Fuck 'em. Survival of the fittest. Might makes right. What are you do with the "bad people"? (<--- that)
However, if this fear is high on anyone's why-they-do-good-things meter, I would argue that they have deeper problems to worry about. These "deeper problems" really have little effect on my day-to-day life. I'm not that worried about them.
That is, if you don't have any positive reason to do good things, and you are only afraid of a threat of punishment... I would argue that you're really not a very good person to begin with. Believe me, to begin with, I am not a very good person. But in the end, after it all, I find that I am a good person, thank God.
To me, a fear of punishment is a very immature, and low-level motive for doing good things. Tell me, have you ever held a management position? Ever tried to get employees to be good workers without a fear of punishment? Positive reinforcement can work a little, but when it comes down to it, sometimes you gotta bust out the whip
but the fact that no one's ever come back from being dead to describe and show us what really happens adds a certain amount of "anything's possible".So I do have a very minor threat of eternal punishment, but I would say it's incredibly low on my why-I-do-good-things meter. Perhaps even the very bottom. That's good for you. If it makes you all warm inside to do the right thing just because it is the right thing, then more power to you. One could also argue, though, that you're doing the right thing NOT because it is the right thing but because it makes you feel good. Perhaps a selfish reason. But what if you just don't care? Or what if you don't feel anything extra from doing the right thing? The threat of punishment should put you on the straight and narrow, no? I don't know why I'm feeling so hostile today, maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024