Who's More Moral?

And I tell you again, you and tudwell.Survival IS a compelling enough reason to be good, and it makes no difference of we talk family, group, individual, or whatever level.The problem is, survival for anyone doesn't depend on only good choices.If you change your goal to survival, rather than the standard of human rights and brotherly love, you change ALL of your other parameters.It is a catch 22. Survival of your family means to some, killing off competition. As we developed a bigger community and world, we learned that survival can still be accomplished by treating the competition well.This in turn depends on if the competition is willing to be an apprentice. If not, then 'survive' still equals 'destroy', and thus we see that survival is not the be all and end all of morality.The only other option is to allow for your own destruction in hopes that it will benefit another. This is more or less the reasoning behind suicide bombs. It is not something that we generally consider as moral, whether it be individual or group suicide. You could ask how we all feel about martyrdom. Does a suicide of objection get folks attention? Sure. A mass suicide would get more attention. This in turn could help others to learn a lesson, and thus to 'survive' better in future. There is no guarantee.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I disagree. Human rights are what ensure our survival as a species. There is no changing of the goal nor of any parameters.

problem is, this is what rob wrote in other words, he is stating that in a naturalist framework, good = survival. if good = moral, then moral = what leads to your survival.and he still hasn't really answered my question. You have, twice. of your morality. but if moral = survival, then destruction of your enemies (whatever they may be) becomes a moral act.I'm still waiting for rob to answer my question (and yes, he "answered" it once, but I asked a second time, with a deeper explanation, so . . .)

Ok, I rescind what I said. Survival is the ultimate goal of morality, be it eternal survival or of a species. If it is personal survival, nada. There you have duality of purpose, as all of us are looking first to our own needs. And, when it comes to personal survival, there are plenty of compelling reasons to be 'bad'.So, you were right, it depends on the 'level' we are looking at. This is where my bias is, however. In Christian morality we have the best of both worlds in a way. We get to do 'good' for society, and still get the personal reward. This goes back to the purer motives thing.Oh, and look closely...you will see the Lewis. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Kuresu:It is only important to us because of these fraudulent religious impositions of Justice, Mercy, and Sacrifice...In the Utilitarian and Naturalist reality, no! What benefit is it to me? I only have one life and then I am dead. Is it my fault or responsibility that my family is dealt a chaotic and chance hand of death? They're gonna die anyway. It is inevitable. Why should I sacrifice my own wants and dreams? For some emotional concoction of chemical stimulants called endorphines and the like which give me some irrelevant feeling of nobility?My family? You mean the stupid creatures that procreated me into this disgusting and dreadful existence???They are just chemicals combined in such a way as to appear to be alive. In fact, they are only matter organized in such a fashion as to create all kinds of conflicting ideas and feelings. All of which is ultimately fleeting and non-entity. It is all relative to illusory persepective and then gone... into mindless random events and circumstances.Give me one good reason why I should give a wit about any of them if all of my emotional ties are ultimately just material and not real in terms of some immortal consequence or destiny?There is no Hell to pay. There is no Glory to gain. What will they care after they are gone. They won't remember anything. If we quit believing in this God stuff and just realize we are mere machines, then they would have no such illusions that anyone would save them from death. They wouldn't even expect it other than for their own selfish interests.Do they think I am a fool? To be is better than to not be, and I intend to live it to the full. No moral boundary is going to stop me from obtaining my dreams. There is no reason I cannot have them, other than the interest of others who are too stupid to realize that all of these pleasantries are merely illusions that get in the way of real progress.I could go on, but what is the point? As Steven hawking said, "Yes man is determined. But since we don't know what that is, he might as well not be."So let history take it's course... There is nothing you or I can do about it. Understanding our existence... is utterly futile!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

If good = survival, then this COULD mean that some things which we consider immoral now will change as the survival needs change.By way of an hypothesis; if the survival of the entire human race came down to the extermination of one group or sub-sect, would you consider it moral to destroy them? Or what if it was an alien colony out to get us?This is essentially the same as asking what you would do if a robber came to your house and threatened your family. Turn the other cheek?And how do we rationalize this?On the one hand we have proof that cooperation is best.On the other, we will always have spots where we just can't use it and still survive.So which is ultimately more important?

Anglagard:You and your cohorts are the ones who wish it to be only a game. And some of you will even admit why. [Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, 1937]Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Edited by anglagard, : forgot myself, it's Rob after all

You seem to misunderstand utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is doing that which begets the greatest good for the most people. Absolutely not like the nihilistic strawman you've concocted. In fact, you could say it's the opposite.I don't know what naturalism has to do with morality.The rest of your post is just a strawman argument. (And I'm having the hardest time figuring out just how your Stephen Hawking quote relates in any way to the rest of your post.)

hey man, it's not my fault you can't make your life meaningful without god. it's not my fault that you cannot live "for the moment" (and by that, I mean living this life to its fullest, as best you can) without some form of promise. It's not my fault you need to be punished by the threat of hell to do what's good or right. It's not my fault you can't imagine other humans as being being worthy of you "caring" about them without god existing. it's not my fault that you can't recognize the granduer of life without god's existence. and it's not my fault that you cannot imagine a worthwhile life without a big guy in the sky watching over your every little step.you know, it's good that you believe in god. because otherwise, you probably would go and murder people and whatnot, because as you say, there's no reason to be good in this "false" existence (neverminding that that's quite wrong).seriously man, your idea of morality is quite, well, immature.

deletedEdited by anastasia, : don't wish to be the one immortalizing angla's senility

Check the post {and edit} time, I do try to be self-correctingEdited by anglagard, : {}

tudwell:Ok... define good!

Yes, I deleted. That one actually took two gos before it went through, so I should have obeyed the computer God. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

We already did - in fact, you did. Good is survival.