Beyond Good and Evil: This should be obvious now.
This video saddens me in so many ways.
Humanity has been able to survive, and even thrive and become the dominant species on the planet, despite possessing numerous physical disadvantages when compared to much of the animal kingdom. We are not the fastest, largest, stealthiest, strongest, pointiest; nor the best at swimming, nor do we even have an innate ability to fly. Alone in the wilderness we are little more than a walking snack for a much more physically gifted beast. However, although many predators use numbers to their advantage, their capacity for cooperation and innovation pale in comparison to the human. We are among the few animals to get over our fear of fire, to create tools, communicate abstract concepts, collect and pass on our knowledge, and to go from adapting to nature, to adapting nature to suit us. The staggering effect of our unique place in the animal kingdom should by now be self-evident.
One point I draw from this is a moral one. If it was our ability to cooperate, to empathize, and to concern ourselves with the well-being of our fellow tribesmen that had got us so far, then nothing further than the continuation of natural selection is needed to explain why humanity places such a high value on morals. It served us well to keep our numbers up and be mutually-interested in each other's well-being when the landscape was dominated by predatory beasts and the constant threat of starvation. And, because those among our ancestors who had these traits went on to survive and breed more often than those that did not, so we are helpless but to have them also. When you consider the necessity of empathy and cooperation for a species only strong because of numbers and creativity, it's very easy to understand why the default moral position for the average person is not an uncooperative selfishness or an anti-social mania.
Empathy is one reason for a person to help another; the innate dislike of seeing another in pain, for instance, because we know what pain feels like and make their concerns our own. We also help each other because it strengthens social bonds; and someone we've helped may help us in the future -- or not, maybe it's just good to be seen as someone who helps people. That the bond between parent and child can be explained in psychological and biological terms -- that taking care of offspring is a powerful instinct that helps ensure the survival of genetic material -- might sound odd doesn't suggest that it's not real, or that knowing this will somehow cheapen it or make it stop. When the alternative is that persons unknown penned a scroll that said an all-encompassing being promised him an unending pat on the ass for his troubles, the biological answer suddenly seems that much more reliable.
A harmful, and I'd guess intended, effect of the non-sequitur of crediting human nature to external sources -- that is, everything but the most base and unpleasant aspects -- is that it ravages the perception of the species, portraying us as aimless, lost, arbitrary: things we are certainly not. But where a benevolent thought, however practical or reasonable, intrudes upon the theist's self-loathing, he has already decided it could not have originated in himself, even if it makes perfect sense for it to have. He has a parasite on his psyche -- the external concept of "good and evil," which should never have been resurrected once refuted so eloquently by Nietzsche in "Beyond Good and Evil."
When questioning the basis of morals, it must be understood that humanity is not a blank slate. Religion has broken into our very being and is trying to sell us back to ourselves piece by piece.
- magilum's blog
- Login to post comments
@Merakon What is the scope
@Merakon
What is the scope of 'impact'? How far into the future do you look when considering the morality of an action? Do you take into account indirect, secondary effects?
To me trying to determine morality would be like trying to determine the paths of every single ball in a game of billiards -- they interact far too much to make any reasonable prediction.
As pointed out in another thread, you're confusing morality with omniscience. One can only act on available data; whether they knowingly act to the benefit or detriment of others (and in that, themselves), in the most probable foreseeable scenario, according to their "conscience," determines whether it's right or wrong. If they're normal, they'll do the thing that benefits their society, and themselves, as best they can. If you want to throw a sociopath into the fray, they're obeying a sensibility that feels no obligation to society, so they're outside of the general "morality." Yes, what is generally called "morality" is real, but it is naturally explainable. If you want to argue semantics, by all means.
Also you say our view of how behaviour impacts society. Does that mean morality is a function of awareness? are the stupid exempt from morality?
Easy way to check: are you writing from your cell?
I know the one your talking about. Too bad like creationists, they start with a conclusion and make it fit what has been observed. Very biased I thought.
If you know, then elaborate.
Yes, im thinking of morality as oughts. Saying morality is altruism is just stating your opinion of what we ought to do. A theist would state different, morality is following their gods word. Both unsubstantiated.
There is no ought, there is only do. Even thinking "ought" is to act consistently with human morality. A theist feels threatened by atheism because he attributes natural behavior to something external, so it seems predicated on that something existing. It doesn't exist, but the behavior does. You can place human behavior in any philosophical context, and it will still do as genes and society dictate within certain parameters. Of course morals don't exist by diktat, but what are called morals -- and considered by many things in themselves, which was the point I was addressing -- are indisputable.
You dont get alot of what I say.
Because you argue single line assertions and ad homs, neither providing research nor even elaborating on why you think what you do. I hope you're in high school, cos that's how you sound.
You are defining morality as a preferred group dynamic and mode of behavior as a group survival strategy. Im talking about right and wrong.
I'm arguing that biological imperatives are indistinguishable from knowing right and wrong because the latter concepts are defined by us.
Genes saving genes is natural selection not morality.
I wasn't referring to natural selection, and my example was clear. Behavior we call moral is largely in the service of genes.
It is an animal conditioned to act in a certain way. Its all in the chemisty.
Composition fallacy.
I have to ask, why do you think collaboration has anything to do with morality? Social behavior is a biological phenomenon. Dont start with a conclusion and apply it retrospectively. You are starting with a conclusion and applying it to what you observe, just like a theist >.<
You've been arguing the same thing in several threads, resorting to the same, "You don't know what x is" attacks and convoluted causality arguments, so let's not be coy about pre-fab conclusions here.
The only ultimate judge of actions is natural selection, notions of good, evil, right, wrong, moral, immoral, are just baseless rubbish, just like the gods of the theists.
I borrowed from the theist's language to argue the point that people will be largely the same without religion from a "moral" standpoint. I put in a video for reference and everything.
- Login to post comments
Merakon wrote: Im still
Im still quite young, give me a break.
Well there's yer problem.
- Login to post comments
morality
If they're normal, they'll do the thing that benefits their society, and themselves, as best they can.
You've gone from talking about moral "good" and "evil", to conditional "good" and "bad". Of course some things are beneficial to our contined personal existence. I'm not denying that kind of "good", I am denying the kind of "good" that says "action X is moral", as in good/evil. Concern about the efficacy of one action over another is fundamentally different than the issue of morality.
If you want to throw a sociopath into the fray, they're obeying a sensibility that feels no obligation to society, so they're outside of the general "morality."
A sociopath isnt "evil" or "immoral", just genetically incompatible with the rest of the population.
Yes, what is generally called "morality" is real, but it is naturally explainable. If you want to argue semantics, by all means.
That whole response was just a strawman. That isn't morality. The "morality" you are thinking of is biological and environmental programming.
Easy way to check: are you writing from your cell?
Crime is one of the few natural methods of clearing out the weak and making room for the strong. It is natural selection in action.
Gotta give you credit for the subtle ad hom though.
There is no ought, there is only do. Even thinking "ought" is to act consistently with human morality. A theist feels threatened by atheism because he attributes natural behavior to something external, so it seems predicated on that something existing. It doesn't exist, but the behavior does. You can place human behavior in any philosophical context, and it will still do as genes and society dictate within certain parameters. Of course morals don't exist by diktat, but what are called morals -- and considered by many things in themselves, which was the point I was addressing -- are indisputable.
I only semi-understand this so I wont try to respond to it at the moment
Because you argue single line assertions and ad homs, neither providing research nor even elaborating on why you think what you do. I hope you're in high school, cos that's how you sound.
Ad homs? If you are refering to the creationist comment that was more of an analogy. And research? You claim there is morality, that is, right/wrong good/evil but say nothing of how it is an embedded structure within the universe with any inherent truth value. Maybe I do sound like i'm in highschool, atleast I can differentiate between morality and biological imperatives.
I'm arguing that biological imperatives are indistinguishable from knowing right and wrong because the latter concepts are defined by us.
You think biological imperitives line up with any of the 1000's of moral codes? I dont see how biological imperatives line up with christian morals or atheistic morals. Infact moral codes repress human instinctual impulses in the name of some unrealizable other worldy ideal. It is a stress imposed on individuals to live what others call a good life which is nothing more than a construction that demands all people to be consummated under.
I wasn't referring to natural selection, and my example was clear. Behavior we call moral is largely in the service of genes.
Composition fallacy.
Whats the name of the fallacy that takes an uncaring, indifferent universe and fabricates from it some verifiable platform on which to say one action is more moral than another. And it is all in the chemisty, if you can elaborate more please do.
You've been arguing the same thing in several threads, resorting to the same, "You don't know what x is" attacks and convoluted causality arguments, so let's not be coy about pre-fab conclusions here.
You're applying morality to biological phenonemon. Ofcourse im going to say "You don't know what x is" if you have no clue what x is. Sigh.
I borrowed from the theist's language to argue the point that people will be largely the same without religion from a "moral" standpoint. I put in a video for reference and everything.
They will largely be the same for the same reasons that ants, bees, lions are largely the same from a "moral" standpoint. hint: it has nothing to do morality.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
- Login to post comments
@Merakon Originally I
@Merakon
Originally I thought you were arguing semantics, but it turns out you've got my whole premise friggin' inverted. My arguments have remained consistent, as has your misapprehension of them. Re-read, take a course in English, and re-read again.
- Login to post comments
The chappie in the video
The chappie in the video seems to be suggesting that we lie to our kids because it will be good for them? If we lie to them and tell them that there is a God then it will make them better people. Unfortunatly the statistics simply do not back this up. The prison stats are well known. You are far less likely to be in prison if one is an atheist this indicates to me that theism really has little effect on morality. Also if we look at the most atheist countries in the world we would surely expect to see moral decay, crime and general shittynes instead we have the scandenavian countries, Japan, and western Europe which have the highest standards of living in world and low crime (lower than pious America). Lieing to our kids about a sky pixie clearly has no positive effect on morality in fact the statistics would indicate that in it actually has a negative impact on overall morality.
- Login to post comments
sigh
Your premise involves applying morality to instinct, emotional conditioning and social indoctrination. Morality is what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, yet you state a few times that there is no ought just "is", which is an amoralist view. Your molding the definition of morals to make it fit how you want.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
- Login to post comments
Merakon wrote: Your
Your premise involves applying morality to instinct, emotional conditioning and social indoctrination. Morality is what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, yet you state a few times that there is no ought just "is", which is an amoralist view. Your molding the definition of morals to make it fit how you want.
(Heavy Fucking Sigh)
I'm not applying or molding anything. Our empathy and social behavior are what have always constituted "morals." You said there is no ought just is, but we invented ought, so it is an is. We feel things ought to be so because our biology dictates it. When our sense of tribal identity was much smaller we were more racist, and now it is less so because it has become more natural for people to identify, and empathize, with people of other "races" and cultures. The human "ought" asserted itself to alter the concept of morality.
(Fuck... why do I get all the toddler Nihilists?)
- Login to post comments
evil religion wrote: The
The chappie in the video seems to be suggesting that we lie to our kids because it will be good for them? If we lie to them and tell them that there is a God then it will make them better people. Unfortunatly the statistics simply do not back this up. The prison stats are well known. You are far less likely to be in prison if one is an atheist this indicates to me that theism really has little effect on morality. Also if we look at the most atheist countries in the world we would surely expect to see moral decay, crime and general shittynes instead we have the scandenavian countries, Japan, and western Europe which have the highest standards of living in world and low crime (lower than pious America). Lieing to our kids about a sky pixie clearly has no positive effect on morality in fact the statistics would indicate that in it actually has a negative impact on overall morality.
Do you have an update on the prison stats? This issue has come up before:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/5584
The OP of that thread decided against using the stats in argument. The three links I provided there were from the creator of a video about theism and morality that's been promoted here before. I strongly suspect there is little to no correlation between religious belief and moral behavior when compared to atheism, and I tend to distrust the irrationality fundamental to religion just on principle, as it tends to distort, and even invert, moral behavior.
- Login to post comments
You've gone from talking
I agree with the last two posts, but I already typed all this shit out, so I'm not just going to throw it away. Here goes:
You've gone from talking about moral "good" and "evil", to conditional "good" and "bad". Of course some things are beneficial to our contined personal existence. I'm not denying that kind of "good", I am denying the kind of "good" that says "action X is moral", as in good/evil. Concern about the efficacy of one action over another is fundamentally different than the issue of morality.
What makes you think there is a difference between the words "good" and "moral"? I think your beef here is simply a matter of word choice. It's hard for me to tell though because I sometimes have no clue what you're talking about. See bolded text. I know what all of these words mean, but you've managed to string them together into some puzzling and alien configuration that completely throws me off.
A sociopath isnt "evil" or "immoral", just genetically incompatible with the rest of the population.
"Incompatible with the rest of the population". Yes. Exactly. According to the idea that biology and society determine morality, he would be immoral. However, I'm wondering how you think his being a sociopath is genetic?
That whole response was just a strawman. That isn't morality. The "morality" you are thinking of is biological and environmental programming.
I'm pretty sure that was not a straw man. Also, I think you meant "societal conditioning" instead of "environmental programming". You can't just keep nay-saying other definitions of morality without giving a clear alternative. Otherwise, you're not arguing. You're just contradicting. For a quick (and hilarious) lesson on the difference, please see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Crime isn't an issue of this pie-in-the-sky morality. It's a problem of material conditions which we arrange society around, some of them are inseparable.
Crime is one of the few natural methods of clearing out the weak and making room for the strong. It is natural selection in action.
Again, I direct your attention to the bolded words. What does that even mean? I absolutely cannot make sense of that sentence. Sorry.
How is crime a way of clearing out the weak and making room for the strong? If a serial killer brutally murders, say, fourteen people before being convicted and thrown into jail, how does that fit into the model you just proposed? Somehow this apparently stronger criminal is thrown in jail and that means that the jail is "making room for the strong and clearing out the week". What?!
Here's what jails do. You see, when people break laws that are considered very serious by society, they are thrown in jail. The reason for that is so that they can no longer do the things that are considered harmful to society.
Also, who is proposing the so-called "pie-in-the-sky" morality? Is it you? Where did that come from?
Gotta give you credit for the subtle ad hom though.
Gotta love those Philosophy buzz words!
I only semi-understand this so I wont try to respond to it at the moment
Gotta love that irony.
You claim there is morality, that is, right/wrong good/evil but say nothing of how it is an embedded structure within the universe with any inherent truth value. Maybe I do sound like i'm in highschool, atleast I can differentiate between morality and biological imperatives.
Who said that morality was a biological imperative? It exists to assist biology, but it is not imperative to biology. It exists to assist soceity, but it is not imperative to society (though that would be a really short-lived society, to say the least).
You think biological imperitives line up with any of the 1000's of moral codes? I dont see how biological imperatives line up with christian morals or atheistic morals. Infact moral codes repress human instinctual impulses in the name of some unrealizable other worldy ideal. It is a stress imposed on individuals to live what others call a good life which is nothing more than a construction that demands all people to be consummated under.
True. There are some moral codes that are not helpful to biology. This especially includes codes found within religion. For example, Christianity tells us not to lust or to masturbate, yet those are biologically healthy (or at least normal) things. Religion is an institution though, and so we can credit those kinds of morals to the society to which the religion belongs. However, this is to say nothing of whether these so-called "morals" are actually inherently "right" or "wrong" since there are some who believe religion is bullshit (i.e. almost everyone here) and would not recognize "don't masturbate ever!" as a serious moral.
If you want to start debating whether or not specific things are moral or not, and how we can determine that, then we can take that path.
However, as far as I can tell, morals are still the product of biology and/or society.
Occams razor, get rid of that moral bit. Saying that an action is moral if it helps spread genetic material is just outright wrong (conditionally wrong, or incorrect, since I know you have trouble with definitions).
On what grounds are you calling on Occam's Razor? I'm starting to suspect that you just sprinkle on buzz words to establish some kind of authority. I really don't see how OR applies.
And it isn't necessarily "outright wrong". Let's propose a more human example. If I'm a policeman walking down an alley and I see someone being beaten senseless by some thug, and if it's in my power to stop it, and if I do stop it by knocking the thug unconscious, then we've got some kind of morality at work here.
Under normal circumstances, it would not be moral to knock someone else unconscious because we recognize that as inconsiderate of someone else's health. In this circumstance, it becomes moral to knock someone unconscious because, in doing so, I am saving the health of another person (human empathy) while eliminating a threat to society. Hence, morality relative to biology and society.
Whats the name of the fallacy that takes an uncaring, indifferent universe and fabricates from it some verifiable platform on which to say one action is more moral than another. And it is all in the chemisty, if you can elaborate more please do.
Okay, first of all, THAT was more like a straw man. You took everything that was said and crunched it all down into a single conveniently shitty-sounding sentence that was easy for you to scoff at. Also, it's when you say things like this that it sounds like you're presupposing that morality is something immaterial. But you can't just say that and then walk away. What proof do you have?
At this point, someone might call on Occam's Razor, which doesn't necessarily say that the best explanation has to be simple. It simply says that it makes the fewest assumptions. If you're assuming that morality is an immaterial thing, you're going to need to back that up.
You're applying morality to biological phenonemon. Ofcourse im going to say "You don't know what x is" if you have no clue what x is. Sigh.
Again, you can't just shout "WRONG!" and walk away. That's not an argument, that's just contradiction. Why can't we define morality in terms of biology? What is the more sensible alternative?
They will largely be the same for the same reasons that ants, bees, lions are largely the same from a "moral" standpoint. hint: it has nothing to do morality.
I'm not sure what you're saying there, but context tells me I'm probably going to disagree with it.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
- Login to post comments
Thanks
I really respect what I think is good human morality. I try to set a good example for others too.
Did you know that dolphins have been trained by the US military, at one point,to kill people???
- Login to post comments
Rationality
Belief or disbelief in God neither proves nor disproves rationality.
Some people will argue with whatever you say as long as you say things.
Some atheists get a thrill out of effectively arguing their point to x-tians and , so,become addicted to arguement itself.
- Login to post comments
More on rationality...
"rationality" is a reletive word also. Explaining rationality to someone who is irrational doesn't usually make them become rational.
Some people might not have any morals, but I try to ease suffering in others just for the sake of easing their suffering. I don't think that is because of natural selection, but upbringing. That is something that I consider in the realm of "morality".(and rationality)
- Login to post comments
The video...
The person in the video appears to be a moron.
I assume he thinks we should lie to our children.
If you lied to your children and told them Jesus was "lord", pretty soon all the muslims would get pissed off because your kids would tell them their life was full of shit and meaningless... and where would we be then?!?!
Don't lie to your children.
- Login to post comments
Bump for the response from
Bump for the response from guess who. Forget PM, the only dead thread is a locked thread. You know who you are: grab your little baby nuts and defend your insipid bullshit.
- Login to post comments
here you go...
Our empathy and social behavior are what have always constituted "morals." You said there is no ought just is, but we invented ought, so it is an is.
Precivilized man like any other animal was amoral and that was the "Is" and when civilization came to be by instituting manipulative ways of exploiting others by creating morality that became the first "ought" for all other constructed "oughts" that came after it.
If you look hard enough you will find that morality is the prime mover for technology,politics, economics and even invention itself which is one of the reasons why I think most of man's activity artificial since I consider morality to be a insane construct.
Morality was the first "ought" to be conceived amongst a cosmos that just "Is" that is uncaring about humans amoral and unhuman.
We feel things ought to be so because our biology dictates it.
Impossible.
Biology is the extension of our genes and they simply are not powerful enough to encode ideals or forms of creativity.
Read the book by John Locke called, " On human understanding."
When our sense of tribal identity was much smaller we were more racist, and now it is less so because it has become more natural for people to identify, and empathize, with people of other "races" and cultures. The human "ought" asserted itself to alter the concept of morality.
Empathy is a product of guilt and guilt itself is a social construct.
Multiculturalism claims to have moral superiority for a constructed ideal of a greater good by calling any racial sentiments inhumane.
The problem with that is that there doesn't exist any humane activity beyond which man creates not to mention that by a amoralist position right and wrong doesn't exist therefore the entire foundation lays completely baseless or unsubstantiated.
(Fuck... why do I get all the toddler Nihilists?)
Poor poor you. We done now?
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
- Login to post comments
@Merakon Precivilized
@Merakon
Precivilized man like any other animal was amoral
Argument from assertion. Also, it depends on what you mean by "amoral." Also, you're wrong about animals. You dismissed my previous source without reason, even before I posted it.
and that was the "Is" and when civilization came to be by instituting manipulative ways of exploiting others by creating morality that became the first "ought" for all other constructed "oughts" that came after it.
Morality doesn't equal civilization. I'm talking basic principles (basic like "don't shit where you eat" ) that societies almost universally obey (more convoluted ideology notwithstanding). Recall that the original argument was against the Christian fear that the loss of a "god" results in amorality. Your argument makes the same fatal assumption: that man is an absolute blank slate with no inborn priorities resembling what we call "morality." You also assume that the formation of societies, and basic, let's say laws, to distinguish them from the morals I'm talking about, are somehow unnatural to humanity. Before you accuse me of changing my argument, I'm actually rephrasing the same argument again and again for your Randian pigeon brain. I'm repeating it over and over in different ways, in the vain hope you'll see past your self-imposed ideological brainwashing.
If you look hard enough you will find that morality is the prime mover for technology,politics, economics and even invention itself which is one of the reasons why I think most of man's activity artificial since I consider morality to be a insane construct.
LOL. "Prime mover." Th-th-that's all folks. Ayn has skull fucked you with her steel dildo of objectivism. You think man's activity is "artificial?" What exactly separates something "naturally" contrived by man, from something "artificially" contrived by man: man's nature is to contrive, and all such things are artificial by definition. Earlier, you advocated a return to primitivism... as you type on your Dell. I guess you are providing one natural product of man -- steaming piles of shit.
Morality was the first "ought" to be conceived amongst a cosmos that just "Is" that is uncaring about humans amoral and unhuman.
Composition fucking fallacy, ass wipe. Morality, even as I define it, is only relative to man's own priorities. You can legitimately argue that altruism is an illusion born of self-interest, but it's too common to deny as a recurring pattern in human society. You can argue intent and degrees, but you cannot make man a blank slate because he's in "an uncaring universe." If I stub my toe, I can't ignore the pain because, "the universe doesn't care about it." I can't blame you, though, for relating to, say, a lifeless gas giant.
Biology is the extension of our genes and they simply are not powerful enough to encode ideals or forms of creativity.
When you write shit like this it just tells me you've learned all these brand new ideas, and yet you have no clue what you're talking about.
Read the book by John Locke called, " On human understanding."
Maybe I will, but not right now. Rebut in your own words, not by ISBN.
Empathy is a product of guilt and guilt itself is a social construct.
Oh, Ayn, if only I could get my hands around that ropy neck of yours. Oh well, she's dead, and she can watch her romantic "Charlie's Angels" reruns in hell. Shit, I don't believe in hell. Whatever. Oh, right, back to your inane comment: sociopaths are missing the capacity for empathy. It can't be taught to them, and they feel no obligation to their fellow human. Normal people feel empathy. You can't appeal to the guilt of a sociopath. In your view, we should all be so "free."
Multiculturalism claims to have moral superiority for a constructed ideal of a greater good by calling any racial sentiments inhumane.
It's basic tribal morality being extended in light of updated views of racial distinctions. As we learn that races are less of a division than previously thought, we're able to use our reasoning to direct our simple moral urges to include people we'd previously dehumanized (and saw as beneath our consideration). We have a basic inclination, and we have an ability to build upon it in light of new views. Just like how we have basic curiosity and creativity, but aren't condemned to start from scratch and learn only what each life allows. I don't view society as an illegitimate construct, but an expression of our nature. The evidence is, well, overwhelming. Recall again, my post was in response to the idea that morals could vanish without belief in "god." Our ability to tweak our basic morality can occur with faulty data, but people will still believe passionately they're doing the right thing. Perverted morality is still an expression of morality. You asked what I meant before about what cooperation meant to morality. Primitive man, weak and unremarkable in the animal kingdom, learned that if you don't cooperate, you don't eat (then you die). If your hunting party dies, you don't eat, and you die. The ones who learned to get along (because they weren't loners, and had some degree of social instinct) lived, and now we have an innate urge to get along and not let our party members die. It ain't complicated, and it ain't superstition.
The problem with that is that there doesn't exist any humane activity beyond which man creates not to mention that by a amoralist position right and wrong doesn't exist therefore the entire foundation lays completely baseless or unsubstantiated.
Yuck. Man, your writing sucks balls. I've got a book recommendation for you, too: "Style Towards Clarity and Grace." Moving on. You classify any human motive you (in a laughably theoretical sense, mind you) don't approve of artificial and illegitimate, without presenting a reason to do so. You equate the motives of man to those of an unconscious, non-living thing, offering no reason to do so.
Poor poor you. We done now?
I've got an idea. Why don't you create your own thread or blog explaining all your wonderful Ayn Rand/tabula rasa/primitivist flatulence, and enlighten us poor suckers? I know I've been waiting for a pubeless dungeon master to tell me how the world works.
- Login to post comments
Humans
I agree with your theological viewpoint but dissagree with what you think about humans.
Humanity is well on its way to destroying the planet for all life. It is well aware of this and isn't changing its habits because of selfishness.
How caring is that?
One of the hardest
One of the hardest realizations for me when I deprogrammed myself from theism was coming fully to grips with the fact that human morality only extends to humans, and that this is simply a product of evolution, not because of any inherent special-ness of the species.
Human morality is ultimately flawed, whether it's religious or not. The only course of action I can think of that would be moral with regard to all life would be for humans to voluntarily sterilize themselves until there was enough reduction of the population for us to exist without destroying the environment or driving species to extinction.
Want to see what odds Las Vegas would put on that happening?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
good n evil
Saying morality is a product of evolution is like saying saints, gods, and mythological stories of sorcery are a product of evolution.
Anything without a foundation or any truth value is ultimately flawed
Overpopulation is an often overlooked problem for the continued survival of the species, global warming seems to be the popular problem to our continued survival (although its a direct result of overpopulation anyway, if you assume its man made and not a cycle.). We need another war or something.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
Quote: Saying morality is a
I have said that before. It's kind of a "duh" statement. Evolution is the process that made us what we are. What we are is a species that tends toward religious belief. Therefore, religion is a product of evolution. It's almost a tautology.
You missed my point a little, but it's ok. I honestly don't feel like writing it all out right now because I'm hungry. Maybe I'll do a book page later.
Global warming is the crisis de jeur, but it's not the only way we are destroying everything. In the seas off Japan, the aquatic ecosystem is so fucked up by overfishing that jellyfish are taking over and it's getting hard to find fish that aren't contaminated with jellyfish stingers.
Even without global warming, the destruction of the rainforest is wiping out millions of species.
Everything is tied together, and everything is tied to overpopulation. Overpopulation is caused by all sorts of factors, including modern medicine and including our virulent opposition to abortion and birth control, and our insane preaching of stupid sexual practices to third world countries.
This is why, speaking of tied together, I'm tied up and cauterized in that special happy place. I will not be contributing to overpopulation. At least you can't call me a hypocrite.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
@Almboden, This is only
@Almboden,This is only based on personal observation and speculation: Most of the people I meet are moral to each other. They act within a fairly consistent pattern of ethnical behavior. So how can a person who would go out of their way to visit a friend in the hospital can sleep at night knowing that AIDS infections in parts of Africa are skyrocketing, that factories we outsource to in SE Asia are contaminating the ground water, and so on? If you're like me, you wonder why your sense of outrage isn't scaled to the enormity of such problems; it's not even on par with the emotions I have for fairly trivial injustices that are right in front of me. But isn't it so that the human brain doesn't operate at such scales? We are a tribal, not global animal, and as much as we want to, and as much as we do care, we can't conceive of something like the thousands of lives lost six years ago this day. I think our emotional priorities aren't always practical; that our technological advancements have outpaced out ability to emotionally comprehend their impact.
@Hambydammit It's a product
@HambydammitIt's a product of our evolving morals that we see the current moral zeitgeist as flawed. What we agree with we call "right," and a quick look at almost any old literature will confirm this. It sounds frighteningly relativistic, but I would compare it again to evolution. Our moral character changes with each generation, but it's less likely for it to drastically change in the average person. We're shaped by biology and experiences, and now we struggle to make ourselves moral in a foreign context where our actions have global implications.
morality
I guess that if man can justify blowing up the world we can then call that an evolutionary development because man said it was okay.
Religion is a product of imagination. All there exists is nature and evolution yet we can also see there is a human imagination which does not conform to nature at all standing alone as a isolated anomaly.
I generally do miss the point, im still quite young, give me a break.
I think humans going back to a more primitive state would be the only solution, living in symbiosis with nature, not like a cancer eating away at it.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
@Merakon I guess that if
@MerakonI guess that if man can justify blowing up the world we can then call that an evolutionary development because man said it was okay.
If you're looking for moral absolutes, you're not going to find them; that's true even if you're a believer. What we call alright is alright because we are wired or raised to consider it alright. Things that the majority of people agree on -- the wrongness of murder, theft, child rape, etc. -- seem to work on hard wired biological averages. There are variations between cultures, and perversions of ideology that can invert the whole model, but what it is not is arbitrary. If humanity had gotten as far as it had by routinely committing genocide -- that is, if evolution favored mass murderers -- few of us would be able to comprehend a problem in it. That's not what happened though, and most of us abhor such a thing for reasons that seem obvious precisely because such a feeling of opposition to it is inherent to our species.
I think humans going back to a more primitive state would be the only solution, living in symbiosis with nature, not like a cancer eating away at it.
Sure, if you don't mind short life spans spent squandering our creativity. Hopefully, advances will be made to reign in our environmental impact; but there really is, short of a global disaster that forces it, no going back.
Quote: I guess that if man
Yes. We could say that.
There's no built in safety valve in evolution to prevent us from destroying all life on earth. If we do that, it will be the end result of evolution on this planet.
I wasn't coming down on you. No worries.
To a certain degree, yes. There are ways that we could alter our environment that would not be cancerous, but they would definitely involve scaling back a lot of things that we think of as modern advances. I'm not going to go into it too much because this thread is hijacked enough as it is, but maybe it'll end up as an essay soon.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Merakon wrote: Saying
Well, yeah. Evolution dictates that we are social creatures because empathy significantly raises the probability of genes being passed on to further generations. We are social creatures. Hence, the development of societies that grew more complex over time. Is it so strange to consider the notion of morality as a product of human empathy and societal need rather than something supernatural?
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
o_O
Society, religion, morality are all symptoms of an insane unnatural idle out of control imaginative state.
Nature is the objective guide and standard of the planet. There is no morality in nature, there is no ought, just is.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
Merakon wrote: Quote:
Methinks you speak too vaguely.
Society is merely the symptom of an out of control imaginative state? We didn't form societies where individual people contributed the fruits of their labor to a collective whole because we empathize with each other and understand that life is a struggle? We didn't develop unique cultures based on the practices, values, and histories of our independently formed societies? These societies didn't have complex needs in order to sustain themselves? Codes of behavior could not have been agreed upon in order to assure these societies would thrive? Relions (which may or may not have included a form of god) of some form could not have been instituted to help moderate behavior? Instead, society is just something we perceive due to our out-of-control imaginations? That seems like a little bit of a stretch. Also, I see nothing in the model above that contradicts nature.
Unless you're using some crazy definitions that I'm not aware of.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Yeah...
I am not as impressed with human morality as you. After all, it wasn't dolphins who invented mustard gas.
AImboden wrote: I am not as
Not to be glib, but what have dolphins invented? I think you'd be surprised if you looked at some dolphin morality; they do some questionable things also. But, you see, that you're even questioning human morality proves my point: you're a human, and you're striving to improve morality; thus you contribute to human morality.
Merakon wrote: Quote:
We are part of nature and we invented ought. Beneath a level of consciousness, there is no ought, but we impose our values on nature while also being an expression of it (because that's all there is: nature).
ok...
Unlike all other animals that are amoral choosing survival at any costs, humans implement society which is ruled by idiotic manipulative forms of morality that lays unsubstantiated, not to mention the economy that rules our lives is a product of the human mind and not that of nature.
Society is a labyrinth of dependencies and manipulations. There is no survival or natural selection. There is only consumers not survivors.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
I think we're drifting from
I think we're drifting from the original topic -- which is OK -- which was that all morality, from the most malevolent to the most altruistic is derived solely from natural sources. This isn't to say that human morality is "perfect" -- it's constantly being updated, and is arguably more humane than it has been in the past -- only that it is we who characterize something as good or bad, and that good and bad don't exist absolutely. We have our genes, our society and ourselves to credit, or blame, for how we see the world. Remember, the original argument was in address of a self-deprecating, I'msosorryI'mhumanI'mscumhitmeharder Christian world view.
Merakon wrote: Unlike all
Animals aren't amoral, and even some of the most brutal (brutal in our view) animals have ordered societies. We put our morality on a pedestal as something transcendant; but there are biological and practical reasons to be moral. Again, this doesn't diminish it, it only explains it.
I don't really get your conclusion.
morality
Morality is a form of amorality in disguise filled with trickery,cowardice, and manipulation of others in comparison to other forms of amoralisms.
Complete opposite actually.
If its constantly being updated how can we say anything is right or wrong?
They dont exist at all. Good and Evil are conceptual shackles that enforce our behaviour, they are our neighbors way of telling us how we should behave and how they can predict our behaviour.
Animals most certainly are amoral, I have never seen an animal create any sort of moral code.
Animals have survival groups which differ in a great length to the conventional form of society that comprises humanity.
And isnt ironic that our 'morality' is what makes all animals superior to us?
The animal kingdom seems to be doing fine without any sort of right or wrong.
It explains nothing. Morality has no basis in material reality. Upon what scientific basis can one say "this action is moral, this one is not".
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
Morality is a form of
Morality is a form of amorality in disguise filled with trickery,cowardice, and manipulation of others in comparison to other forms of amoralisms.
Is this supposed to mean something?
If its constantly being updated how can we say anything is right or wrong?
That it's relative to how society functions doesn't make it arbitrary. Everything could have gone a different way, and we would still have a morality because it would have a social basis and it would be fairly consistent. It is only required that we have an average view of how a behavior impacts society. We began with tribal morality that didn't extend beyond small groups, then villages, then nations, and we're still working toward viewing ourselves as part of a world tribe today, as we continue to try to rid ourselves of things like "racial" prejudices. What exactly are you looking for to make morality a legitimate concept?
They dont exist at all. Good and Evil are conceptual shackles that enforce our behaviour, they are our neighbors way of telling us how we should behave and how they can predict our behaviour.
They don't exist, no, but I don't follow the rest of your statement.
Animals most certainly are amoral, I have never seen an animal create any sort of moral code.
Damn it, I was just listening to a thing that was talking about an ethics experiment involving rats. I'll have to dig it up for sources and details, but the gist was that a rat would rather go hungry than take food that would result in another rat being electrocuted. There are also articles (that I would also have to dig for) that demonstrated altruism in chimpanzees. I don't think any of those things are what you're talking about though: you seem to think morality must be something other than altruistic behavior resulting from social and biological factors.
Animals have survival groups which differ in a great length to the conventional form of society that comprises humanity.
No idea what conventional means, and beside that we're the oddballs with opposable thumbs and abstract thought.
And isnt ironic that our 'morality' is what makes all animals superior to us?
What could that mean?
The animal kingdom seems to be doing fine without any sort of right or wrong.
Right and wrong do exist relative to the rest of the animal kingdom. When a herd of buffalo risk their lives taking on a pack of lions to rescue a calf -- something they could be wired to do, or not do -- they are practicing moral behavior. A consistent behavior beneficial to their society; that it's biological (genes saving genes) doesn't diminish it.
It explains nothing. Morality has no basis in material reality. Upon what scientific basis can one say "this action is moral, this one is not".
I'd guess biology.
morality
To those who have not succumbed to the illusion of morality, yes.
What is the scope of 'impact'? How far into the future do you look when considering the morality of an action? Do you take into account indirect, secondary effects?
To me trying to determine morality would be like trying to determine the paths of every single ball in a game of billiards -- they interact far too much to make any reasonable prediction.
Also you say our view of how behaviour impacts society. Does that mean morality is a function of awareness? are the stupid exempt from morality?
The same things that would validate a god hypothesis -- a grounding in reality and fact, and not preconcieved notions and wishful thinking.
I know the one your talking about. Too bad like creationists, they start with a conclusion and make it fit what has been observed. Very biased I thought.
Yes, im thinking of morality as oughts. Saying morality is altruism is just stating your opinion of what we ought to do. A theist would state different, morality is following their gods word. Both unsubstantiated.
You dont get alot of what I say. Ill try dumb things down and make things more clear in the future.
Im getting the feeling you have no idea what Morality is.
You are defining morality as a preferred group dynamic and mode of behavior as a group survival strategy. Im talking about right and wrong.
Genes saving genes is natural selection not morality. It is an animal conditioned to act in a certain way. Its all in the chemisty.
I have to ask, why do you think collaboration has anything to do with morality? Social behavior is a biological phenomenon. Dont start with a conclusion and apply it retrospectively. You are starting with a conclusion and applying it to what you observe, just like a theist >.<
The only ultimate judge of actions is natural selection, notions of good, evil, right, wrong, moral, immoral, are just baseless rubbish, just like the gods of the theists.
The powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on that most rarefied delicacy: impunity.
Merakon wrote: What is
I would say the answer to that question is irrelevant. No matter how far into the future they look when considering the effects of an action, and no matter how many branches of causality they take into consideration, this says nothing as to what their reasoning will be when they make the final decision. I'm pretty sure that's at least partly what he meant when he said it's only necessary that we have an average view. If I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to slash some douscehbag's tires, I think of the consequences in terms of myself, those I empathize with, and society as a whole. I would not be interested in how my actions affect someone three states away that I've never met and would have no way of knowing, even if my actions, through a chain of causality, did affect that person. It's irrelevant.
This would make more sense to me if someone was arguing that morality is absolute and people are omniscient.
If the "stupid" person in question is stupid in such a way that they are ignorant of how their actions affect themselves and other people, they are morally exempt. For example, a dog who was never taught that he shouldn't bite a person's face and steal their turkey sandwich could not be held accountable for his actions because he was not aware of the moral situation. However, through some societal conditioning, he soon learns the consequences of these actions, which were determined by the society in which he found himself (his owner's household) for the best interest of that society.
A trite example maybe, but it serves its purpose.
How is it not grounded in reality and fact? We can actually observe people and the way they behave towards one another. We can study what actions one culture deems moral while another culture does not, and study the history of that moral, and the possible reasons it may have come about.
Of course, the results aren't going to be as easy as dropping an apple and saying it always falls to the ground. If you're looking for evidence that concrete, you're basically skeptical of everything. We can make observation studies and can perform brain scans to indicate certain emotions always involve certain parts of the brain (thus grounded in reality) and are always triggered by a specific type of stimuli. But if you're asking for absolute, irrefutable evidence, you're asking something ludicrous.
Too bad that, like creationists, you simply accuse science of being faulty without ever actually giving a reason why we should.
I fail to see the similarity. Defining morality based on biological and societal implications grounds it in reality whereas defining it on a god alone is not.
I don't get a lot of what you say either. Maybe you're just not very good at communicating? Always a possible outcome.
Uh yeah. That's basically the whole point. The word "right" and "wrong" are relative terms that are applied by a society to actions to label them as either helpful or harmful to your biological/social situation. Presupposing that morals are more than that simply means that you are the one who has started with an unsupported conclusion. What is your rationale for thinking morality is something higher?
Natural selection is the passing on of favorable genes through reproduction. However, looking out for your loved ones (those who share your genes) is a moral act that benefits your genes. Also, you can't compare human morality to animal morality since humans have a complex culture that animals tend to lack (though some animals do demonstrate aspects of culture).
If I pulled out a gun and shot you in the foot right now, how would you react? You'd probably be pretty pissed off right? Not only does it hurt like hell, but it's not exactly helpful to your biological situation. Isn't it reasonable that we could all look at this situation hypothetically and think "what if that happened to me?" and conclude that this would be a really shitty thing for someone to do to us? And therefore agree that it is a "bad" thing or a "wrong" thing for someone to do? Yes, we could. And I'm pretty sure we did.
Well yeah, that's because we make them up to meet our own needs and goals, just like the theists! =D
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.