|
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 |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Now, tell me this. When did you last commit a felony? Nice try, undercover police officer.
which punishments really keep them in line: the inexorable judgments of a supposedly omniscient God, or the relatively ineffectual actions of the police? I think you're underestimating the impact that their beliefs have on themselves. Some of these people are quite crazy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All action is selfish. No. I'm not going to visit my dying grandma tonight for any reason that benefits me at all. I'm doing it for her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How would you feel if you didn't spend any time with her? Better. I don't like seeing her like this and I wouldn't feel bad for not seeing her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I have gone to sit with people who were dying. They were unconscious and so did not even know that I was there. I certainly did not enjoy witnessing their death but something compelled me to be there. Well if she was unconscious then I wouldn't be going. I go because she is awake and alert and recognises me and smiles. I'd rather just go home and play video games, but she deserves to be happy.
The term 'motivation' refers to what causes a desire. A desire to do a thing is selfish by definition. I suppose I can't really say that an internally consistent concept that you have defined into existence is "wrong", but I see no good reason to view the world this way. The selfish act would be going home a playing video games.Going and visiting her is not selfish. To say that they're both selfish is retarded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 35:
You are treating her the way that you would like to be treated. You have a sense of reciprocity even if it is subconscious. Great... now its subconscious? I disagree that all action is selfish, with an example if a selfless action, and your saying that really there must at least be a subconsous selfishness in there.
It isn't my definition. It is the definition.
quote: Well, you could have a willingness sans desire.
You may wish to think that you are doing things out of the goodness of your heart but I maintain that it is all geared toward self gratification. Right, cause you know my subconscious motivation must be desired. I'm not buyin' it.
They are both selfish acts and the one that you actually choose to do is the most selfish. I know that this clashes with the colloquial use of the word but that is not my fault. I am not changing any definitions I am just pointing out what actually falls into the category. I just think its stupid to eliminate the 'selfless' description from the act on the opposite side of a dichotomy against something that is plainly selfish. The colloquial sense is better employed and there's no benefit to reimagining it under a lense of everything being selfish.
You are motivated by your desires and nothing else. If you disagree with this perhaps you could identify some other motivation that does not rely on the satisfaction of your desires. When you're simply willing to do something that you don't desire to and if you had unmotivated actions. From Message 47:
The up side of realizing that we are all just a bunch of pooh flinging monkeys motivated by our own selfish desires is that we can then realize that we are all part of the same tribe. Apes. And there's lots of tribes that I am not a part of, even though you can zoom out far enough to lump us all into one. I don't find that particularly realistic, but I guess its good to have ideals.
We can begin to truly appreciate the nature and benefit of kindness. We can truly forgive people who have trespassed against us. We can fully appreciate the quality of mercy. We can fully appreciate that there but for the grace of god, go I. So to speak. Heh, riiight. All hail the true way. I've heard that one before. You may wish to think that all my actions are selfish, but I maintain that I can act from selflessness.
It is all selfish. Which sounds bad but actually works pretty well. I'll grant you your internal consistancy, but I'm not convinced there's a benefit to adopting your description. Don't give me that true and full appreciation crap, I'd rather get into the underlying biology or psychology behind it. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Great... now its subconscious?
Say that you are at the art gallery and you see a piece of abstract art that you like. I ask you why you like it and you say "I don't know, I just like it." No, I get what you're saying. I'm just disappointed that when you were unable to point to the selfishness of my action, you resorted to: "Oh, well it must be in there somewhere (subconsciously)"
Well, you could have a willingness sans desire. I am using desire in the sense that it is the thing that you most want to do out of your available options. Like when you decide to take some awful tasting medicine instead of remaining sick. I know. You've claimed that motivation requires desire but the definition you posted allows for motivation to be a willingness without desire.
The colloquial sense is better employed and there's no benefit to reimagining it under a lense of everything being selfish. The benefit comes from the understanding that being kind is beneficial to the person who is being kind. They taught me that being kind can make you feel better in kindergarten. I'm disputing that I am unable to act without selfishness.
If it is the correct perspective then the benefit comes from having the correct perspective. You could say that about everything you're trying to convince me of.
When you're simply willing to do something that you don't desire to and if you had unmotivated actions. If you are willing to do something then you have made a calculation and decided that the action is the most preferred. You might say 'I wish that I didn't have to do this' but in the end you decide that it is the most beneficial course of action. A conscious calculation? Not necessarily. An unconscious one? Who knows? But I can decide the most preferred action and then do something else. I know when I'm acting selfishly. And I know when I'm not. I still don't see any reason to consider the times when I'm not as being selfish too.
Unmotivated action like the unmotivated decay of an alpha particle? Nonsense. No, like flinching, or blinking. Or, when you go to take your car to the store, but your distracted by something you're thinking about, and then you realize that you're half-way to work instead of the store. What motivated those actions?
When you appreciate that the cave dwelling luddite is the same creature as you who has had different inputs it makes it harder to drop a bomb on his head I'm not buying it. People already know this and it doesn't stop them. This "we're all one big tribe" stuff doesn't really work.
I am surprised by the resistance to this idea. I expected something like 'Well obviously we are motivated by our desires." So what driver do you assign to acts of kindness? I don't assign a general driver to acts of kindness. I think people do them for different reasons. Some of them being selfish and some of them not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But I can decide the most preferred action and then do something else. No you can't. Yes, I can.
Whatever you do in the end was the most preferred action. Except when it isn't.
Unless you are mad or have a tumour or something and even then it is the most preferred action as generated by a fucked up brain. Wait. Are you now admitting that its possible? Just that there'd be something wrong with me?
I am saying that at the root of all of your actions is some perceived benefit to yourself. That's just not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the there is no absolute standard, then there is no moral standrd at all. You can call it morals, right or wrong, but that wont make it morality in actuality The point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard. Logic will not allow it I don't get why not.
From a purely logical standpoint an attempt to define morals without an absolute standard is nothing short of silliness and idiocy But why?
If you think you can demonstrate it otherwise, give it a shot. All I need to do is simply disagree with what you have called or discribed as morality to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, you are spinning your wheels Spinning wheels or not, a relative morality can still be moral. We just have to employ our empathy and determine for ourselves what we would be comfortable doing or not. Its not an absolute morality, but its still a morality and its still moral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Except for an infinite wisdom, in an infinite existence, everything else would be subject to question, speculation and someone elses view. Sure, but that doesn't eliminate morality. How would it?
But there is an even better reason. If there is no eternal infinite God, then the only choice is, Matter in motion. As hard as you try to view it otherwise, there is no standard If matter in motion or survival of the fittest is the answer, then by all rights I should be trying to overthrow or kill you and take everything you have. But you haven't explained *WHY* this is the case. You've just repeated it. You shouldn't try to do those things to me because they're wrong, regardless of whether or not God exist.
Or atleast if I did I wouldnt be right or wrong Why not?
Now watch, if you dont believe God exists and you disagree with my conclusion who cares right, because neither of us is right or wrong No, a lot of people care. People don't like having those things done to them so you shouldn't.
Logic, reality, M in Motion, subjectivity, simply wont allow you to have a right or a wrong, or a morality Why not?
Call it what you want I shall call it: morality.
You are not bringing logic and reality to its true form. Think about it. Your trying to define a morality from a purely human perspective Not trying... doing. I am defining morality from a human perspective. You say I can't but I don't understand why not.
The basket of tasty murdered chicken does not share you "Morality" And there might be a case for the immoraily of eating chicken. But it'll be there even if god doesn't exist. That's why I don't see why not having a god means we can't have that.
Take logic where it needs to go, to its basics, defined it by reality and conclusions that can be tested no further than reality will allow What do you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Hey T12C,
Don't be afraid of that Enter key! Check it out:
quote: Better, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, it looks much better. I tend to try and cram a lot of information into one paragraph. I have always written this way...my girlfriend hates editing my papers. Lol. Your welcome.
As for what Dawn is stating...I am still at a loss for which God's morality we are supposed to be following? Who is the objective rule giver? I don't think it matters to them. They're content on just demonizing the godless. Further, if you're granting a god, then that god could enact an aboslute morality by fiat and it wouldn't matter if you or I could identify what that standard is. It would still be there. There's other arguments I've seen on this topc that go: even if you don't believe in God, he's still necessary for morality to exist. So even the fact that atheist can behave rightly doesn't matter.
Dawn, by continuing to repeat the same idea, without adding any clarification I see no reason to adjust my viewpoint from: With God: No Objective morals (No idea whose god we should follow) Just because they're not objective to us doesn't mean that they're not objective at all. If God demands that blue hats are immoral, then it is what it is whether we know it or not.
Without God: Objectivity in morals because it is simply defined upon a scale of suffering and alleviating suffering. This religious argument is that that's not really a true morality (because its not absolute). It goes that just because you can deem something immoral doesn't make it so and nothing short of God can make that happen.
Dawn: Perhaps you could clarify which God, how we know it is that God, and who has the correct interpretation of that God's words? Without these clarifiers, I see zero reason to accept your thought about morality being non-existent without God... As per the above, it doesn't really matter which god it is.
...P.S.-Why is it always religious people who say without God, I could just kill whoever I want because of survival of the fittest The argument doesn't really work if you don't believe in God.
Being forced to be a moral person by a Big Brother type character would seem to make a far worse human than someone who simply wants to help alleviate some suffering in the world for the benefit of the world. That's just some hippy bullshit. There's been a few people I've wanted to kill. But it wasn't god that stopped me, it was the prospect of prison. Put you in a different time and culture, and I'm sure you'd fold right into the mould like everyone else. The cowboy in the wild west wasn't a worse human than the (luckily capable) passifist lefty of today. Gawsh they're so smug I kid, I kid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It does is if you remove yourself from trying to find standards only in and from a human perspective. I am a human, though. Everything is from my perspective and I can't change that.
Which means that you would have to show that the animal kingdom would have to share your so-called standards. Why? Why can't I derive morality from a relative one?
Lets assume you were instantly transported to the Aztecs and Incas time period. How would you convince them that there behavior was immoral and yours Moral? I don't think I could, but I would still have my morality. But, how would you convince them? By saying that "God said so". You think that'd work or you think you'd be eating spear?
How do you establish that your so-called Morality is superior to or right or wrong. We talk about it and form a consensus.
Pure reson and reality, without God, an infinitely wise God, does not allow you a standard of morality, even if you choose to call it that Why not?
Surely you are not so simple that you cannot understand, that simply calling something doesnt make it right in or wrong. But you're doing the same thing. You're just adding a "God says that" in there. I say that some thing is moral. You say that God says that some thing is moral. But you simply saying that doesn't make it right or wrong by your own standard so how is your's any better? Too, you're not establishing that what you say that god says is abosulte morality acutally is. You're just assuming that it is by assuming that it comes from God. Your's is no more absolute than mine by establishment.
For it to be morality it has to be either right or wrong. Defining right or wrong, from only within the human perspective makes your so-called morality silly at best I don't care if you think its silly, its a morality nonetheless. And I still don't have an answer for you for why it cannot be one.
You first have to demonstrate that yours is the only standard by which to judge what murder is, before you take the cows life for your consumption. If you cannot do this, then your so-called morality is nothing more than molecules in motion, even if you call it morality But that's what morality is, and you cannot demonstrate that it isn't. For you to simply declare that it isn't doesn't make it not one.
Now watch, let me ask you a simple question, then you answer it as a part of the debate process. If I disagree with you that you have an actual morality, that which actually describes what is right or wrong, how will you establish that either or both of us, is either right or wrong Having a morality doesn't require that. The prisoner might not agree that he should be in jail, but there he sits.
You cant even get past this hurdle, to even address the qurestion of wether it is right or wrong to murder I've already answered why its wrong. We don't want to be murdered. We have empathy. We make murder immoral. Its that simple. Why is that not a morality?
You cant proceed in discussion about morality, as if you have delt with the basic problem as to how you arrive at a standard of right and wrong. Logic and reality doesnt allow that luxury Why not? A relative morality is still a morality even though you don't like it because it isn't absolute.
So CS, deciding to call it morality, doesnt make it morality And you deciding to call it not-a-morality, doesn't make it not one. So why isn't it one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But that's what morality is, and you cannot demonstrate that it isn't. For you to simply declare that it isn't doesn't make it not one. If a guy decides he wants human flesh instead of animal flesh for consumption and survival, why is that murder? I think I get what you're saying, but lets be clear. It is "murder" because that is a legal term with a well defined definition; the unlawful killing of a person. I think what you're getting at has to do with it being "wrong", not murder. Now, I could imagine a scenerio where a guy would want human flesh "for consumption and survival" and it wouldn't necessarily be "murder", so I can still exemplify the relativity of morality in either situation. For proactivity, I present the situation outlined in the movie Alive <--clicky
quote: By "desperate measures" they mean "consuming human flesh".
Because you decided it was murder? You cant be the STANDARD where both species are equal in physical attributes. Its not absolute. We all get that. What I don't get is why we can't have it as a morality. And this is the point that I'm still wating for you to support. You keep making arguments about how a relative morality isn't absolute, but you never have justified your position that a morality that isn't absolute cannot be counted as a morality. If you have, then I've missed it, and you'll provide me with a link. But I contend that you havn't.
"Morality" decided and based upon ones own perspective is neither rational or reasonable Irrelevant. That may be true, but its still remains as a morallity. I have no reason from you why I shouldn't consider it one.
Conversely it makes no sense to say a lion killing a child is not murder, yet we do not call it murder, which is a moral principal, correct Minor disagreement here: If a dog, or lion, attacks a child then we will put it down. An animal harming a child is, in fact, a kind of 'immorality' from a human perspective.
The point is what makes it "moral" in one instance and not immoral in another ? When you can establish that logically, then you will understand I've been with you from the first post: this morality I'm describing is not absolute and it is relative. But this is that part you haven't addressed yet: IT IS STILL A MORALITY. You keep asserting that it isn't, but your only argument for that is its lack of being absolute. I don't understand why you cannot accept that a relative morality, as opposed to an absolute one, is still a morality. Your only reason has been entirely circular: because it isn't absolute. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks for the reply, Dawn.
In an effort to establish an actual morailty, youve failed to establish, as you have suggested, that it is right in the frist place. Well hold on... I'm not really establishing anything. You've claimed that morality cannot exist without god and I'm questioning if and how that's true. My position on the above is that I do not have to establish that it is right in the first place in order to establish an actual morality. A morality could be arbitrary, and many have been in the past and even are today. They don't stop existing because you've asserted that they can't exist without establishing what's right in the first place.
Example, when a lion, when in what we call anger shreads another animal apart, even though he is devastating the poor creature, we dont call that murder. But murder, actual murder, murder as immorality, or right or wrong, doesn t actually exist, as a part of reality. We call it murder within our species, because we have decided that is how we should operate. That's right, and our morality literally is 'what we have decided is how we should operate'. Some people just like to say that God told them to decide it.
Your right its not absolute, or anything else in reality, without God There is simply no way to establish right or wrong, without an absolute standard That's fine. And here we are still having our morality, as per the above, all relative and arbitrary.
First I pointed out that its not my responsibility to do that, its yours If you don't want to support your assertions then you're allowed to do that.
Secondly, I demonstrated that right and wrong are not actual things, in a purely physical existence I don't have a problem with that. We can still develop a relative morality without absolutely determining what is right and wrong.
Thirdly I pointed out that with finite beings, disagreement and different thinking patterns on the same topic, sharp disagreeemnt, demonstate that morality is not possible No, not that it isn't possible, but that it isn't absolute. All it has to be is relative and that point doesn't matter. Too, even with your position that God is required because it does have to be absolute, we still have disagreement and different thinking patterns on the same topic, so if that wipes out my morality then it wipes out yours as well.
Fourthly I showed that you cant have a standard of murder, that is called murer for your species, then not apply the same thing to another life form You showed that? Where? I see you've asserted it, but you don't really support it. But even so, you're still wrong: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human by a human. So there you go, that is a standard of murder that we can have that applies to our species and no other.
Fifthly i demonstrated that there not actually anything such as right and wrong, without God I don't have a problem accepting that one because a relative morality doesn't depend on actualizing right and wrong. All we have to do is come up with a consensus on what we want to decide is called right and what is called wrong, and then we impliment that as our morality. People are free to disagree with it and it still sits there as our morality.
Sixthly, i demonstrated that, morality cannot be established from a persons, or persons perspective, but that it had to be established from the perspective of reality No, I haven't seen where you've demonstrated that. And its plainly wrong. Morality is a human construct. It requires humans to exist. It can only be established from a persons perspective. Even with your position of it having to stem from God, it still takes a man to write it down and say that it came from god and that's going to be coming from his perspective.
By making this statement you demonstrate that without a doubt that you dont understand that right and wrong cannot be established by one species or another The moment you decide that an animal killing a human is immoral, then decide that its ok to ring the chickens neck for your consumption, you throw your "morality" into nonesense Why?
No its not. Simply because you decided it is a morality, doesnt make it that in reality. Dont yopu see the iorny here. Im disagreeing with you and neither of us is right or wrong, because, your so-called morality is just matter in motion What you need to make it morality indeed, is a decision making process, where there can be no information gathered to make a better decision, or a decision that would alter the known (decided upon) decision, given the amout of information available. IE God That simply is not what a morality is.
Your just matter in motion without God. Your "morality" is no different that a tree accidently falling on someone and killing them Trees don't have conscious intent. If I accidentally fall on someone and kill them like a tree then that wouldn't be immoral. But if I consciously decide to fall on them and kill them then it would be immoral.
I dont need to establish the existence of God to know you dont actually have morality No, but as anyone can plainly see: godless people still have moralities. Your assertion falls flat on its face. And even if we allow it further: Some people say God says its immoral to eat shellfish, some people say God says its immoral to eat pork, some people say God says its immoral to eat beef. Even if we grant that God exists and is required for morality, in practice MORALITY IS STILL RELATIVE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I just ran across this Scientific American article: Scientists Probe Human Natureand Discover We are Good, after All
quote: I'll post some relevant material from the news article. First off:
quote: They don't seem to agree with your stance on all action being motivated and thus stemming from desire. I like that dual mechanism.
quote: They also contrast selfishness with cooperation rather than just deeming all behavior as selfish.
quote: quote: Now, here's where your stuff comes in:
quote: So you could define all actions as selfish if you wanted to, but its unecessary and unhelpful, imho.
quote: quote: So yeah, we don't have to consider all action as selfish. Here is the abstract from the Nature article quote: So, I don't think your idea that considering all action as selfish is some path to truth. Evolutionary Psycology studies don't seem to view it that way either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024