Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 150 of 184 (382903)
02-06-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by anastasia
02-05-2007 4:28 PM


A Summary Just for You
anastasia writes:
There is not one single shred of evidence that tells me why people do good things.
Evidence that tells you why people do good things, as explained in this thread:
Message 44
-Larni discusses how we learn that bad things are not good for us, and how we learn not to repeat them
Message 6
-I understand that "I consider myself a moral person simply because I choose to be moral". Which can be rephrased as "I do good because I want to do good". And "...because I want to..." is explained throughout the rest of the thread, culminating at:
Message 66
-where, after a discussion with Larni and others, I finally understand and explain that I do good because I use my intellect to judge my feelings (be they empathic or any other feelings) with my past experiences (what I've learnt) and with how I think future events will be affected (future projection). I then use all this information to decide that I want to do good.
-everything here is learnt behaviour, everything is naturally/physically explained. Please question a specific point again if something is still not clear, or if you think I'm missing something.
anastasia writes:
There is a right way to live, and a wrong way. Right brings harmony, wrong brings chaos. No one tribe or society has all of the right answers, and we definitely have to learn and teach each other what we have so far understood. Again, certain individuals, Jesus, Buddha, saints, anyone who we may admire for their example...they by leaps and bounds surpassed what society had so far learned. This tells me that there is always something better which we could be doing.
Yes, we've gone over your view and my view. Remember? I lined them up phrase for phrase right here:
Message 39
And it was a bit confusing, so I clarified things here:
Message 41
anastasia writes:
The only thing which is so overwhelmingly different between people who believe in God and people who don't, is that I will say that there really IS something better which we are aiming for, and others will tell you that morality is a revolving door where things come and go in fashion, and 'good' is just an invention.
But you're wrong here. And my two posts above (MSG 39 and 41) show you how wrong you are. Not only is there nothing overwhelmingly different between you and I, there's only one very small difference. You contribute morality to God, and I do not. Without God there still 'really IS something better which we are aiming for', as shown specifically in MSG 41. And, yes, I do think that "good is just an invention", but this in NO WAY lowers it's importance, or creates some sort of "revolving door where things come and go in fashion", as shown to you in MSG 39.
Please don't take this explanation as trying to prove that there is no God. It doesn't do that. This explanation shows that God is not needed for morality, that's it. It has no bearing on whether or not He exists, just that He's not needed for us to be moral people. In the same way he's not needed for me to like ice-cream, or bake a cake.
anasasia writes:
I can't ask anyone to believe in God, just to consider that possibility that heros are real, that they have found something better than what anyone has taught, or anyone has been born with.
But I do think heros are real. And I do think they "found something better than what anyone has taught". I just don't see any reason why they need God to act this way. Specifically, I would say that heros have learnt something better than anyone else has learnt. But they did learn that thing the same we anyone learns anything. Through their experiences, and making decisions judging their feelings and thoughts.
anastasia writes:
Or consider that the next person whom you admire had no choice but to be admirable, that you and I have no choice but to be mediocre.
Neither do I believe this. They did have the choice to be admirable, and they made that difficult decision, and that's exactly why they are a hero. Because they made that choice. Not because God guided them to make the choice. Because they weighed the good and bad and decided to help bring us closer to "a world which maximizes positive feelings in everyone" (GOOD), in heroic proportions. In general, everyone else does not have to be mediocre, but they choose to be mediocre, and that's exactly why they are mediocre.
anastasia writes:
We are either equal, or we are not. Nature has certainly not made us all equal, nor has education.
I think you are slightly confused here. No one has said that all people are the same, in every way. In fact, everyone seems to be saying the exact opposite.
People are different.
As you say, "nature has certainly not made us all equal, nor has education". Nor has our individual and unique full-life experiences.
People are different, yes. But this does not change the fact that we are all people. And being people, we are all given equal rights, and privileges. That is how we are equal, or the same.
Most of us "mediocre" people do have the same abilities and capacities of the "heros". Some of us choose not to become heros, and therefore do not. Some of us never get the opportunity to make the choice that would have us deemed a hero, even if they would make the heroic choice. These people too... remain mediocre. Yet, due to differing life-experience, differing natural abilities, differeing education... there are some of us that are incapable of ever becoming a hero. If you do not believe this, look around. There are people who will never be a 100-Metre dash World Champion. There are people who are incapable of climbing a burning building and rescuing a small child. There are people who cannot decipher the equations needed to understand a new reusable energy source. This is the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 4:28 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by anastasia, posted 02-06-2007 3:43 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 158 of 184 (383006)
02-06-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by anastasia
02-06-2007 3:43 PM


Am I Missing Something?
anastasia writes:
We learn that bad things are not good for us and we constantly repeat them. We need a lot of motivation to keep us from repeating mistakes.
Agreed. I don't see how any of this shows that God is required though.
I am looking for sources of motivation which those who do not believe in God may have when they choose to do moral actions.
Okay, explicitly, then:
My motivation to choose moral actions is that I want to be a moral person.
If you want the expanded answer, it's all there in that Summary post. Actually, even this condensed answer was already included there...
What if the future will be better for you or someone else if you do a bad action?
What if it will? It doesn't change that I will still take in all the information I can, through feelings, and thought-processes, and make the best decision I can. As explained in the Summary post, and all the previous posts.
On the other hand, I do consciously think about God when I act, and even if something seems 'good' for me or my family, I know that it might not be truly good.
And I do not consciously think about God when I act, yet I too know that something may not be truly good even if it seems 'good' for me or my family, or my friends, or the entire civilization or world or universe for that matter. This is the intellect coming in. You gather all the information you can, and decide if it actually is 'truly' good or not.
I still do not see any reason at all for why God is required for morality.
I would say that for me to be a hero or a saint, I would have to do the right thing much more often and even when it is bad for me or my family.
Agreed. And again, no mention of thinking of God, or requiring God.
Perhaps I should ask you the same question... maybe I am not following you quite clearly.
The opposite is true, and I am sure that people can be moral without belief or even knowledge of God.
Okay. Do you think that being moral-through God is any... "more" moral, or a "better-way" to be moral than my non-God method? To me, I think our two methods of being moral are equal. As I showed, we both seem to think and believe the exact same thing. You just ascribe it to God where I do not. To me, this makes no difference and I think our two morality systems are equally good. Do you agree?
If you agree, I really have no further questions. The thing is, I've received the feeling that you think your God-based ethical system is somehow superior. And if you do think that, I'd really like to know why. Because I am very interested in having my ethics be as good as I can possibly make them, and if you have something you can add, that is exactly what I'm searching for.
It's just that, so far, you havn't explained any reasons why God-based ethics are any better, just that they have God included. If that is your point, that God is simply included in your ethics, then I have no further reason to question your moral system. I am only questioning it because your posts seem to imply that I am missing something. If you do actually think I'm missing something, please say what that thing is, because so far, I cannot understand any significant difference in our two ethical systems that is worth mentioning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by anastasia, posted 02-06-2007 3:43 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by anastasia, posted 02-06-2007 10:27 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 168 of 184 (383164)
02-07-2007 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by anastasia
02-06-2007 10:27 PM


Complex questions deserve complex answers
anastasia writes:
Yes, maybe you can tell me what a moral person is?
No problem. Here you go:
Message 150
-if you have any specific questions, please ask.
For example, were slave keepers moral, even if we have now decided that slavery is bad?
You answered your own question similar to how I would have:
quote:
I must say they were moral by their standards, but not by better standards such as we have today.
I would say they were within the law, and those that understood how immoral it was were a minority for a long time. I do not think that everyone in those time periods thought slavery was acceptable. Nor do I think that everyone who had slaves was justified for doing so just because it was accepted in that time period. So, yes, I agree that they were moral by their society's standards. But I do think that some people "knew better".
Just as today (we don't have to go into history for examples), in some places gay-discrimination is moral by their society's standards. In some places even racism is still normal and moral by their society's standards. But there are those of us that know better. There are those of us that have used our intellect to judge the information available to us and understand that all people have the same rights and privileges. We also know that to deny any of these rights or privileges to anyone is wrong, and immoral.
anastasia writes:
Yet, somewhere along the line, people began to listen to another voice beside what they had learned. They had always felt empathy, but they did not listen to it. The morality got 'better'. I would say a moral person is someone who listens to the voice of reason, or of God if they believe He is the reason.
I don't think so. I certainly don't see any reason to believe that anyone started listening to some external voice. They just started learning different things, and using their intellect to put more importance on different things. They thought about it, and finally realized that their is no reason for any one person to be able to force any other person to do their bidding. No 'other voice' told them this, they learnt it.
I agree that moral people are acting with the same goodness whether they believe in God or not.
I thought so. I just wanted to be clear. I will stop pestering you for something that isn't there, thanks for your time and participation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by anastasia, posted 02-06-2007 10:27 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 182 of 184 (391131)
03-23-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by NosyNed
03-22-2007 1:55 PM


Re: Biological Morals from New Scientist Podcast
Thanks Ned, that was interesting to listen to in either case. I can't say he really said anything difinitive, though. He did talk about a few different things I'd like to point out:
--------------------
1-2 min. in
-An introduction talks about two moral scenario's.
The first, a surgeon has 5 men in need of organ transplants. In walks a healthy man. Is it moral for the surgeon to harvest the healthy organs, sacrificing the 1 man, to save the 5 men? Most would say that no, this isn't moral.
The second, a train will run into and kill 5 men. However, you can switch the tracks and the train will only kill 1 man. Most would say yes, this is moral to do.
Then he goes on to talk about how we seem to instinctively understand the differences in these situations. I think the difference is obvious. With the surgeon, he must choose to kill the 1 man. If he chooses otherwise, that 1 man will remain alive. With the train, either path is going to kill either 1 man or 5 men. Here, it is a "lesser of two evils" which says we should switch the tracks to kill the 1 man.
--------------------
8.5-9 min. mark
-Talking about how most people see Action leading to harm as worse than Non-action leading to harm. I'm not sold on this concept. Yet I'm having a hard time describing why. I think it has to do with how difficult it is to judge/deduce motive when one is acting or not-acting. Motives are what drive morals, and without being able to prove them, understanding if it is moral or not is very difficult.
--------------------
Last 6 min.
-Talks about how some people think religion is required for morality.
-I just wanted to point this part out in case anyone else was interested in what he has to say. Of course, he's scientifically biased and attempts to show how these two are not intrinsically intertwined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2007 1:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 184 of 184 (401813)
05-22-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by bgmark2
05-19-2007 7:29 AM


Fruit of Eden
bgmark2 writes:
Yes it was eating the fruit from that tree in the garden of eden...perhaps it had special chemicals or biological compunds in it or something...
No, I don't think that eating the fruit in the garden of Eden is what gave us our ability to think about good and evil. Perhaps there is a "biological basis for our sense of right and wrong" as the guy talks about in Nosy's post. Yet, such a claim in and of itself is rather general.
I think the "biological basis" is more just an ability we have because we're able to think abstractly and have such intelligence. Almost a side-effect, even.
I don't really know of any concrete evidence either way for exactly how we're capable of our moral thinking. Yet, the reasoning why we're able to have moral thoughts doesn't really matter. We are able to have them, and they are a part of our lives. It's how we use these abilities we're capable of that makes any difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by bgmark2, posted 05-19-2007 7:29 AM bgmark2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024