|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
All action is selfish. While it's true that in the end we can only ever do what we want to do (as chosen from a selection of possible actions, anyway), that does not necessarily mean that "selfish" desires have a greater power to move one than the internal desire to act in accordance within one's moral code. I suppose you can take it that compliance with one's internal moral code becomes the reward, but it feels a bit stretched.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I think that we are just lucky that cooperation and kindness have been selected as being beneficial to our survival. If it were more beneficial to kill all competition then our moral sense would reflect that. Indeed I think that it does reflect that in many cases such as war and starvation.
Its because we dont see the whole human race as a society, but we see countries people religions..... How was it possible for nazie leaders to convince people to brutally torture and kill jews, gipsies, and the like. By convincing them that those people are really not people but animals that look like people who are doing harm to their society. Our morality works for people we consider a part of our society the rest is fair game. If you consider the whole human race as a part of your society then you are acting twards them all in the way your moral values perscribe, but if you see gays, blacks, christians, muslims, they are not an equal part of what you believe your group is so you have different moral standards for them. Example: american soldiers "accidently" kill a bunch of Arab-Muslim civilians. An american reaction well shit happens they are all just sand niggers anyway they should be happy that we are giving them freedom. example nr 2: Muslim resistance fighters aka terrorists kill a bunch of american civilians while trying to bomb some soldiers. The american response dos damn sand nigger bastards how can they harm innocent civilians that is just wrong only animals do that not soldiers those head diaper wearing bastards. While the rest of the world or at least me in both cases see both actions as wrong and wishing/demanding that the responsible parties be brought to justice in a court of law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
All action is selfish. The 'better' becomes the reward. Empathy and compassion are merely tools that are ultimately intended to deliver some reward to the bearer of those qualities. There is no such thing as good or bad without reference to the self.
When i was 18 one new years we had a party organised by the youth of our county there where all sorts there from the age of 15 to 23. One kid got really drunk that night he was 16ish so when the party was winding down at 4 in the morning and he wanted to walk home we told him to wait we will get a ride for you some 15 minutes later the ride arrives the kid is gone. Now going after him to check if he got home aright would give me no reward i dint know him very well i just knew where his home was. But i did convince a friend to give me a ride on his motorbike to this kids house and back just to make sure he dint fall in to a ditch or something because it was -20 Celsius (-4 F) outside he would have frozen to death by morning. About 300 meeters from his home we found the kid lying on the side of the road passed out we got him home had to ring the dorbell and wake the parrents (poor guy hehe) but if we hadnt gone to check uppon him he would have died. The only reward i got from this deed is a bit of a dopamine boost in my brain as a reward for doing a good deed. But it wasnt that that drowe me to do this, if i went and had sex with my gf instead of checking up on the kid i would have gotten a larger dose of dopamine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
I think that Richard Dawkins had an extremely important point when discussing whether or not religion is the basis for our morals. When talking about it, he was using the Christian Bible as the basis for his critique. If all of our morals come from the Bible (which according to Christians is from God), then why is it that we do not follow all of the moral precepts that are included within it. Now, I am not saying that we should ask all Christians to follow everything the Bible tells them, because then we would have a bunch of murdering, hate-filled people running around killing people for disobeying parents, working on the Sabbath, and choosing a different religion. However, the fact that each individual is able to take the lessons from the Bible and realize what should be kept and what should not be there (different for each group, of course) means that we are getting our morality not so much from the Bible (through God) as people are using the Bible and finding simply the good parts that are actually moral (or in some cases taking that which is immoral). If we have to remove a bunch of precepts from the equation in order to classify this book as the source of our morals, then it would not seem likely that this is not the source, rather simply some bronze age ideas that we are bouncing our actual moral compass off of to gain insight.
10.The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins 33.Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
However, the fact that each individual [Christian] is able to take the lessons from the Bible and realize what should be kept and what should not be there (different for each group, of course) means that we are getting our morality not so much from the Bible (through God) as people are using the Bible and finding simply the good parts that are actually moral (or in some cases taking that which is immoral).
A rather important point to consider. Not having read that particular Dawkins book, I don't know whether that thought is his or yours, but good that you had brought it up. How often do we hear "God's absolute morality" Christians denigrate non-Christians' morality, especially atheists', by challenging us with "You just arbitrarily choose what you want to be moral and immoral. What do you base your decisions on?" Well, as it turns out, they are also arbitrarily picking and choosing which parts of "God's absolute morality" they want to follow and which they want to ignore, the exact same thing that they love to denounce us as doing. OK, since they're doing it too, it is only fair for us to ask them what they based their decisions on -- obviously not the Bible. According you (and/or Dawkins), they're basing their decisions of what moral precepts to follow on the exact same thing that everybody else does. And I would agree. BTW, one example of "God's absolute morality" that they wouldn't want to follow is requiring a rape victim to marry her rapist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 364 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Yes, the main thought was from Dawkins' book, however he put it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to. I found it quite interesting and it made me realize that far more than from my religious upbringing, my morals were based upon lessons learned in my childhood from my educational institutions and my parents. Far more of a nurture mentality. However, Dawkins was more postulating that there must be an evolutionary reason (whether intended or a side effect of some other evolutionary change) for the basis of morals. I really noticed that most of the morals I was taking were simply from the love section of the Biblical text (Jesus) and I was completely removing much of the Old Testament God's moral rules. I think that it is important to show individuals that they are not deriving their morality from from a Biblical stance and so I definitely agree that culturally we need to ask them where exactly they get their sense of morality from.
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : I spelt like an idjut...The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I think you're underestimating the impact that their beliefs have on themselves. Well, I think that's how it goes. The Christian believes that God keeps Hell hot for sinners, and that God thinks that masturbation is a sin, and that God watches everything he does, and then he masturbates. On the other hand, the Christian knows that (for example) picking his nose in public is not even a crime, but merely something that society censures. And he doesn't do that. So, what is really keeping him in line? Fear of God, or fear of men? Fear of burning in Hell for all eternity, or fear of someone saying: "Ew, that's gross, you're disgusting"? It is fear of men. So why can't he see that the same thing keeps me in line? (Again, I am overlooking the fact that I do have a conscience. I am trying to reply to the argument as it is commonly stated.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
It is fear of men. So why can't he see that the same thing keeps me in line? I dont think its just fear of men that keeps you in line i believe that apart from our invented morality, we also have an evolved sense of morality. One only needs to look at experiments on morality on our distant cousin species. I dont think it has to do with fear but with cooperation in order for members of a species to cooperate they need a sense of morality or their group would fall apart its not fear of being punished by our fellow men but the fact that we know that is socially unexpected behaviour and there is a chance that those who see our behaviour might no longer cooperate with us or distance themselves from us, leaving us an outcast. Or look at socipaths they just lack the morality gen, all of us would struggle to kill someone eaven in self defence, soldiers have the same problems they haveto be trained to kill, Soldiers whitout proper training where found to more often aim high when shooting at the enemy, but to a socipath its easy to kill to them it does not feal wrong at all. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying that you have a conscience, or that I have a conscience. I'm just pointing out that the common argument that we can only be good if we live in hope or fear of some sort of supernatural reward or punishment is clearly untrue.
--- As far as conscience goes, that's another question. I was trying to convince a die-hard Christian that I as an atheist have a conscience, so I told him this story: "I went into a shop and bought a thing, and when I came out and counted my change I found that they'd so far overchanged me that I came out of the shop with more money then when I came in. So I went back in and pointed out their error and handed over the money." Now the point is that without a conscience I could have gotten clean away with it, it was the shopkeeper's mistake and no-one could have proved that I was aware of it. The response of the Christian I was talking to was: "No you didn't." Yes I did. "No you didn't, this is impossible". He could not even conceive of someone wanting to do the right thing without some prospect of punishment or reward. He can't even imagine people wanting to do right without the terrors of burning in hell. And he was so dogmatic on this point that he found my little anecdote as certainly implausible as though I'd claimed to have grown wings and flown to the moon. According to his dogma, atheists can't do right without a belief in God smiting them for doing wrong. But that Christian, if he believed what he said, is simply a psychopath. He believes that there is no such thing as conscience, merely a reckoning up of benefits. But I doubt that he really is a psychopath. But his religious doctrine compels him to think that he and I and everyone else are psychopaths. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Better. I don't like seeing her like this and I wouldn't feel bad for not seeing her. 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. The term 'motivation' refers to what causes a desire. A desire to do a thing is selfish by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I suppose you can take it that compliance with one's internal moral code becomes the reward, but it feels a bit stretched. I don think that is stretching it too far. When I act in opposition to my conscience it can be severely uncomfortable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Its because we dont see the whole human race as a society, I agree. Compassion and empathy only apply to those who we consider to be part of our tribe. At some level we recognize the tribe as important to our own survival and so make apparent sacrifices for those people. Doesn't this highlight the fact that the action is motivated by self interest?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The only reward i got from this deed is a bit of a dopamine boost in my brain as a reward for doing a good deed. I think you are ignoring how bad you would have felt and would likely still feel if you had ignored your inclination and he had subsequently died.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
He believes that there is no such thing as conscience, merely a reckoning up of benefits. I am suggesting that a reckoning up of benefits is exactly what a conscience is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I am suggesting that a reckoning up of benefits is exactly what a conscience is. So what benefit did Dr. A reckon up when he returned money to the shopkeeper? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024