Morality without god

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.

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...

In the thread about Sam Harris' views on the moral landscape we actually discussed the thought that it is only with God that humans can have an objective morality. However, the problem is which God!! In the multitude of years that individuals have believed in a higher power, there has been zero worldwide consensus on what/who God is. So, how can the morality that comes from this being be an absolute standard, we cannot even agree on what it says!? So, in this sense we have religious people running around each with his or her own absolute standard of what his or her God would want them to do morally, for some it is kill infidels, for some it is forcefully baptize posthumously, and for some it is love everybody...it seems that within this absolute morality there is some very large wiggle room. However, unlike the religious, those of us who do not believe in a higher power seem to understand that morality must be flexible. Sure there are some things that are always immoral (Harris describes it as that which causes every person involved to suffer), but there must be plasticity within many other moral guidelines. Is it wrong to murder someone to protect the life of a child? Well, according to God's absolute morality it is not okay. It is stated right in the Ten Commandments. And yet, we have Christians doing just that in order to stop abortion, so it seems the absolute guidelines do not even apply to them...Whereas, without God involved in this decision, we can judge the morality of the action based upon how many for whom it will alleviate suffering. The absolute morality in the atheistic sense is simply immorality is that which creates suffering for everyone and the moral landscape flowers off, depending upon how many people one can alleviate suffering for through moral actions. This seems far better than the idea of, "Well, God said it, so I must follow simply this as I have interpreted it."Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Yes, it looks much better. I tend to try and cram a lot of information into one paragraph. I have always written this way...my girlfriend hates editing my papers. Lol.As for what Dawn is stating...I am still at a loss for which God's morality we are supposed to be following? Who is the objective rule giver?Dawn, by continuing to repeat the same idea, without adding any clarification I see no reason to adjust my viewpoint from:
With God: No Objective morals (No idea whose god we should follow)
Without God:
Objectivity in morals because it is simply defined upon a scale of suffering and alleviating suffering.Dawn: Perhaps you could clarify which God, how we know it is that God, and who has the correct interpretation of that God's words? Without these clarifiers, I see zero reason to accept your thought about morality being non-existent without God......P.S.-Why is it always religious people who say without God, I could just kill whoever I want because of survival of the fittest. Being forced to be a moral person by a Big Brother type character would seem to make a far worse human than someone who simply wants to help alleviate some suffering in the world for the benefit of the world.

Not that I would object to something evidenced giving us an objective moral standard to live by. However, no I would not be good with a Big Brother forcing us to be moral, it should be an individual's choice to try and better the world. Why is a bad idea that Christians should come up with a consistent view of God? If it is because people are different then that simply implies that God is an idea made up in people's minds, which is why different regions of the world have different morals, standards, and gods. As for morals, without this consistency I do not see how people can come to a conclusion on objective morality.Do the Muslims have the right idea when they murder individuals for their God? Did the Christians have the right idea when they tortured and killed people during the Inquisition? Or did Jesus have the right idea when he said to love everyone? I would like to hear how these ideas can find an objective moral standard, or are there as many objective moral standards as there are religions? Using the different holy books of the world, I am quite sure I could find something that will allow me to do almost anything I want. If this is the case, then it seems like we would be better off attempting to find objectivity in morals through thought and reason, rather than through a multitude of religions that have been fractured and splintered into different groups throughout history. Perhaps Big Brother was too strong of a phrase, but when I hear about the giant man in the sky who watches everyone do everything, that is kind of the image that springs into my mind. So, if we take the message of "Love one another" on board, whether or not we are Christian, then we can do good in the world? What need is there for a God in this scenario? If all we must do is take a simple phrase to heart, then there is no need for an ultimate rule giver at all. We know the phrase and everyone is capable of making a choice to live that way. This falls completely into humanity's abilities, nothing supernatural needed. Instead of worrying about which God's rules or how to live by them, we should worry about actually living as a community and finding ways to make Earth better for everyone...Again, no God needed. If this is the case, why look to the supernatural for moral standards, we can find objective morals through analyzing human history and where humans would like to get to. I have heard God referred to as the father. After all, I was raised Catholic. However the statement I have an issue with here is God is raising people to think independantly and choose right over wrong. Many of the Christian faiths are suffering from a large amount of group think (as evidenced by the number of PRATTs that are used to argue online here) and independant thought is not of the highest concern. Also, history dictates that the Christian faith has not exactly chosen right over wrong all the time, which has led to many atrocities (Note: I am including Catholics as Christians, since they both believe Christ was God). It would seem that if God is the father, he is quite incompetent at passing on this message in order to get his people to live by his moral standard....whatever that may be.

But this is the problem, there is no evidence for God. Whether or not he is infinitely wise and eternal in character should be a second question to whether or not he exists.So, for the sake of debate (since this is a debate site), let us pretend (for you pretend, for me deal with evidenced ideas only) that God does not exist. There is no personal infinitely wise and eternal creator. Now, we still have these morals that must be explained. It seems far more logical that morality is derived from being a social species through evolution. We even see acts of selflessness in lower primates, who will help to feed the old in the group or save another even at risk to themselves.You are asking that we make a giant assumption to begin the entire premise and then this assumption is all that would lead us to saying that morality stems from God. If we take away your assumption, are we left with no explanation for the existence of morals or are there testable hypothesis that can be looked into?As I see it, God should not be either A. The first thing you go to when the evidence has not even been gathered yet. The problem with this viewpoint is that you are doing what the religious have done for centuries. Setting yourself up to realize that your God was not actually present where you thought he/she/it was. Also, B. God should not be the default when the information is not leading any further. The problem with this idea is that we do not know why the information is not moving us forward. However, it could be that our techology just has not allowed us to answer that scenario.Finally, what else are we to judge this God by other than A. the actions of his/her/its followers and B. the words his/her/its followers claim is from him/her/it? Without those two things, there is absolutely no evidence that can be found for the existence of this being. This means that the actions done in the name of God are the only real piece of evidence that a God exists. And if this is the case, then this God is far from the moral standard that I feel I want to follow or that we do follow.

That is true that your position does not require that. However, your position requires the assumption that there is an almighty creator of everything, who knows everything, and can do anything. This God chose to leave the world alone until approximately 5,000 years ago and then only chatted with us for about 2,000-3,000 years. Then, he magically vanished leaving us with tales written down for him by imperfect men and women that deny all of the evidence that we see with our own eyes.I would say that this is quite a large assumption to make especially with the lack of evidence. At least with the idea that morals stem from altruistic ideas that help the group or population survive better as a whole we are basing it upon evidenced ideas. We can witness random mutation taking place, we can see basic altruistic behavior in other social creatures. Is it quite to the level humanity takes its morals? No, but it speaks to a possible route for research into how these moral ideals arrived in our minds.As it stands, your assumption relies far more upon a lack of evidence than does the assumption that evolution is somehow responsible for morality. Unless you bring the Bible in as evidence (which is not a good idea since much of it can be proven wrong) there is little to go on that would merit making the assumption that you must start of your entire premise on. Without having a reason to start where you do (that is evidenced), it is irrational to state that this is where morality comes from.Now, is it possible that there is an ultimate rule-giver? Yes.
Is it possible that this rule giver is the Christian God? Yes.
Is it possible that the evidence is there, but the Bible is wrong so we looked in the wrong areas for evidence? Yes.
Is it possible that without this ultimate rule giver humanity would descent into lawlessness? Yes.However, are any of these ideas plausible, or only possible. To determine plausibility we must look to the evidence to see how it could support the idea. This is where the problem arises, in that the evidence we currently have should not make God the moral rule giver the primary assumption. Much more of the history of this world exists without God even making an appearance. In fact, God only has a presence on this Earth for .00011% of the entire history of the Earth. With the evidence currently available Morality from God is not the base starting point. Instead, the evidenced idea of evolution seems a much more likely basis to begin with to determine the arrival of humanity's morality.

My fault for not understanding your opinion correctly. However, you are still adding an entity that has no evidence for it. Could there have been a super advanced race that came and gave us morality? Yes, but without evidence leading us that way it is irrational to even suggest it. Could there have been a not perfect God that gave us morality? Yes, but with zero evidence why should we trust that? I am pretty sure this is the assumption you are beginning with (correct me if wrong) and I do not see any justification for starting with adding in an unevidenced entity or entities. That is not all that these situations of altruism show us. We see the beginnings of a moral code within the social structures of animals and we see the willingness of individuals to help one another. The more of the group that is able to survive the better chance for the group to control territory, have individuals to mate with, and locate food to sustain the group. Working together is an advantageous behavior for social animals and basic morality is extremely helpful toward keeping the group whole.
http://www.livescience.com/...chimps-humanlike-altruism.htmlI have many questions about this section:
Removing the Bible, what is the purpose of a rule giver who does not tell us the rules? Or is it your thought that we naturally have these morals only becasuse we were given them?If it is your thought that the Bible is not the code, but rather our hearts tell us God's Moral code, why is God so poor at ensuring that so many people act within the moral good? This is where the inconsistency with the code lies. Everybody's God is telling them different things within their hearts....where is the objectivity?Also, on your point about computers, yes we have designed computers with intelligence, but not morals, correct? Could we design a computer with morality? It is possible I'm sure, but just because we can does not mean that morality cannot arise through natural means as well. This is not required to be a one way or another. After all, many of the appearances of design in nature are just superficial and do not really look designed when thought about in any engineering sense.Also, on computers, they do require a designer because they do not have random mutation and natural selection acting upon them. The same requirement is not guaranteed for reproducing, biological organisms. I have never been a fan of using inanimate objects as metaphors for something that reproduces an inexact copy which is then subject to selection. How do you know that God is? Through objective experimentation or through subjective personal experience? Science tells us that our five senses can only perceive a small portion of the Universe. However, we can determine the nature of a lot that we cannot perceive (such as your mentions of dark matter, dark energy, and QM). We can verify that these items do exist, even without being able to perceive them. Why can the same not be said of God? IMHO, we should rely solely on physical evidence, because that allows for objectivity to remove our biases. Without this, all tests are relegated to being subjective to an interpreters whims, so that the answer conforms to the researchers previous thoughts.Finally, your last statement is simply an attempt to shoehorn a god into the explanation. You claim morals could not have evolved, yet then state that we can currently see them evolve. After which, you determine, without evidence, that it is God responsible for this evolution of morality. You are putting God into the answer before the topic has even been fully researched. Just looking at the last thousand years, it seems like it was society that began to determine that racism, sexism, ageism, murder in the name of religion, and constant warring were not right. People got fed up with poor treatment of others and themselves and began to look for a better way. This seems to be a perfect example of our species realizing that the tribe is slightly bigger and evolving morality to incorporate the entire new tribe. The next step in this would be considering the entire world our tribe and working for the benefit of everyone.

Not exactly sure where any respect exists in that comment, so please let us try to debate only the arguments and not comment on someone else's critical thinking skills. You have zero idea who I am and the amount of time in my life I have spent developing my critical thinking skills. But, I digress...on to the arguments you are making. And I have done this, I have pointed to other species that have what seems to be a less evolved morality than ourselves. When looking at a pack of wolves, they instinctively understand that to kill another member of the pack (Outside of defending a cub or a move for dominanace) then the effects will be detrimental to the pack. The number in the pack will allow the wolves to control more territory, mate more often, and have all around better opportunities. Then when we go to chimps we see that they even display altruism. I linked to an article about this is Message 132. We see chimps willing to provide food to others and work together as a group for the same reasons we see wolves do so. Also, with chimps we begin to see emotional connections to other members of the group. We have witnessed one chimpanzee crying over another that had died. So it seems that even in the animal kingdom there is a structure that permits, but frowns, upon murder. The fact that it is permitted in the animal kingdom is enough to show that morals are not absolutes so even if morals were to come from God, we know they are not absolutes. It is definitely logical to see the structure for how morals could have evolved from the slow increasing in size of the group that our species had to care for together. Actually, my explanation of looking for other examples of basic morals in animals does apply here. As I stated, it seems that the benefits for living morally and not murdering members of the same species is better control of territory, more mating opportunities and the ability to expand control. However, all of these morals apply only to the species. A wolf is perfectly happy to kill me because it protects its territory and maintains control. However, it will not be as willing to kill another member of its pack. This would weaken the pack and perhaps cost territory or females. Similarly, our killing of insects would not have affected our specie's chances of survival, while murdering a fellow member of a tribe may (when the tribes were very small) leave the group susceptible to attack or loss of territory or females. I never stated that morality was absolute and I think a simple cursory glance at reality will show us that morality is a fluid thing. However, being fluid and alterable does not disqualify it from being objective, only absolute. There are and they are being looked at. Studying the behavior of animals with less cognitive ability can show us different stages of morality that are not quite as developed as humans. These behaviors can show us a possible pathway that morals could have taken. We can find ways to test morals in other animals that should be (due to brain size/social structure/other telling signs) living based on simple morals. To claim there is no way to test it means that you have already made up your mind. You personally could not think of any possibility so you placed God in as a marker for that spot. However, that is simply an argument from incredulity and has no bearing on what reality is. I believe that I have presented evidence. I will not say the idea is subjective as it is based on observable data. You keep speaking about an absolute standard, and yet, morality as we see it in reality is definitely not absolute. If it were, "Thou shalt not kill" would mean ever. Never, for any reason at all, should you kill another human being. However, our human morality tells us that in certain situations (Danger to life of offspring, imminent threat to well-being, threat to our country and values, etc...) killing is okay. How is this an absolute rule whatsoever? This falls into the "how on Earth are we supposed to know what this absolute moral controlling God would want" idea? To believe in absolute morals is to deny reality and the many shades of grey (More than 50, I am sure...Lol) that actually exist within our morality. There can still be an objective standard (as explained by Sam Harris), but there is definitely not absolutism.As for the Gladiator question, I believe that this even shows the current evolution of morality that we are experiencing as our knowledge about the world grows! Our tribes/groups began very small and so our concern was for only our group. Then we began to live in larger and larger areas together. Our ideas of morality had to expand to encompass these settlements. Then, for a long time, we had our tribe as defined by nation-states. You do what you can that benefits your nation-state and people from outside that nation-state are not of concern. Watching them fight to the death is entertainment. These people also thought that Africans and others were a lesser species, so there was little remorse for what occured. As we learned more as a species, we realized this idea was wrong. All Homosapiens are basically the same and treating others based upon race and other similar qualifiers is incorrect and immoral. It wasn't religion that stopped the violent entertainment or violent treatment of human beings, but rather it was understanding that we are the same.

The most important part of this statement is when you say, "I see no justification for starting with the assumption that our intelligence and morality evolved from..." to the end of the sentence. This is simply an argument from incredulity, which as I stated is why you are simply shoehorning God into the explanation.You even state that we can currently see the evolution of morality happening as we have learned more about the world. So, it seems that you are simply denying the root cause of it being natural selection being responsible for the first cause. However, similar to evolution of species, what is the mechanism that stops the extrapolation at a certain point? If we were to travel back in time, would see a point were Homosapien went from zero morality to having a moral compass nearly instantly? This flies in the face of all evidence that we have ever observed about how the world works. All we have ever observed is natural causes, so it is far more parsimonious to assume a natural first cause versus a supernatural one. This is not to say that the supernatural answer is not possible, but it should not be the starting point. This would not benefit you that much, the resources in the area you are speaking about are poor and so there was little desire in the past to control those areas. However, our tribe is currently getting much larger because of science. The understanding that all homosapiens are basically the same creates a bond to all our fellow members of the species that no other creature on Earth has. We are beginning the evolution of our morals toward looking at things as a world together...Sure it is in its basic stages now but this allows us to see why we are willing to give up some of what we have for those who have not just less, but so much less that it shows us how lucky we really are. This also explains why humanity has decided to stop destroying plant and animal life and cultures are now trying to protect and preserve for the future. Our understanding of our world through our evolved cognitive abilities moves the progression of our morals further and further. So, there is no objective standard for your ideals and I think that I am close to a similar idea. There is objectivity, but it sits only at the very heart of morality. The objective starting point is that bad is described as that which causes all beings to suffer, according to Sam Harris. All other moral decisions are subjective, but there is an objectivity at the heart of it. This speaks to the Christian argument that without evil, there can be no good. Well, even without religion we can determine that which would be objectively bad (evil) and so there can be proper responses (good) by moving from that moral base. I understand that you do not feel there is another answer without an intelligent first cause, but this metaphor still falls flat. I agree with you that the intelligence of a computer requires an intelligent cause. However, we are discussing an inanimate object. There is no reproduction with mutations, which are then selected for or against through natural selection. This means that this metaphor has nothing to do with anything in the biological world. Did these scientists believe it was a guarantee or were they proposing attempting to find tests for the idea? It seems to me that the idea still exists and it was discredited only because no one could devise a test at this time for the other dimensions it proposed. I could be incorrect on why it was discredited (or if it even was, as you stated), so someone who knows otherwise feel free to correct me. This does not mean the idea is incorrect (discredited), but simply that the technology we currently have is unable to test it. By you considering this discredited completely the same could be said of God, which we cannot devise a test for. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, if you will. String Theory should remain in the realm of hypothesis until it becomes testable. Scientists use subjectivity, but they do not rely upon absent evidence. I cannot think of one piece of evidence that is non-physical, and please correct me if I am wrong.... There is no such thing as "Science of the Gaps". The difference between the two ideas is that with "God of the Gaps" the answer stops there. There is no need for further research because we can simply claim God did it, and that is the answer. Whereas, with your "Science of the Gaps" idea, it is admitting ignorance and searching further for reason. It is the opposite of the inherent laziness in simply ascribing work to a divine power and walking away without further investigation. So, if "Science of the Gaps" exists, it is still positive because it admits to incomplete knowledge and that research will continue in the area.Finally, I believe there was a miscommunication. I did not intend to state that sexism, ageism, and constant warring were done in the name of religion, although they were as well as in the rest of society. The only one I applied to religion was murder in the name of religion. Honestly, I was just looking for more specific examples of things that were done in the past that society is starting to frown upon. Murder, in and of itself, has seemed to be frowned upon for a long time in society. Although for a long time, it was considered justified in the name of religion, which was why I included that connotation. I would agree that these instances are now being looked at in a new light and we realize as a society that these do not benefit us. Again, I state we are witnessing morals evolve and there is no mechanism that stops this evolution that has been discovered, so backwards extrapolation is a valid practice at this point.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

You keep stating that there is no absolute standard and I would agree with you on this point...with or without God/god/gods there is no absolute standard.Without God, we have an objective standard, but no absolute standard. Bad=that which causes all to suffer is the objective standard for human morality. Anything that relieves some suffering moves us up the moral scale away from bad. In this scenario, we determine where our own morality lies, which seems far closer to reality to me. Thou shalt not kill is important as most times, but there are certain grey areas where it does not apply and the moral action would be to kill.With God, we have no absolute standard..."Thou shalt not kill" really becomes "Thou shalt not kill, unless you are commanded to by the very thing telling you not to kill." An Absolute standard would mean that "Thou shalt not kill" always means just that, Do Not Kill. In absolutes there would be no grey area (like we see in reality), just simply a command and humans should listen. Also, with the breadth of gods that have existed, there is no objective standard because what is immoral to one god is moral to another and vice versa. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Both groups were wrong. What benefit was gained by the senseless murder of so many? I have tried to explain the idea of an objective morality from an atheistic view and you have yet to respond to the exact point of it once. All you have done is assert that it is not possible because it is not absolute (a contention I have never held about morality, even when I believed in a God).So, again we must classify bad and good, without a God. I stand by the idea that Sam Harris states:
Bad = That which causes everything to suffer.
Good = That which causes everything to benefit.
Within these two absolutes, there lies our relative morality.In the case of the Inquisition questions you asked, these killings would not be moral because individuals did not attempt to relieve any suffering from those that were not killed by killing the unbelievers. In fact, due to the fear of possible death, those left alive would have lived with more suffering, so the church managed to increase total suffering.In the opposite vein, look at World War 2. Did the suffering visited upon the German people by the allies serve to relieve the suffering of enough individuals to make the killing of German men, women and children moral? While this is a tough question, it is apparent (to me at least) that the there was a total relief of suffering through the actions taken by the allies. Europe was freed from despotic rule, millions were saved from some of the most inhumane treatment ever visited upon humans. Yes, the cost was many, many lives but the action lowered the total suffering in the world and thus was a higher level in the moral landscape.I would like to point out that I used to believe like you did that without God there could not be morality. However, as I have thought more about it, I have realized that we have no evidence for God and a lot of evidence for morality. Why should I attribute this to the unevidenced entity instead of looking for logical explanations?One final point and I could be wrong, but you mention that we would refer to a lion as murdering a human being. I have not heard someone use this phrase for this type of death, so perhaps you could point me to someone calling a lion attack murder? We would say the lion killed the person, but not murdered because murder is considered a crime between two humans. Why is that? Because we attribute murder to something that has been thought through, planned, or is basically the result of a conscious action (hence requiring the term manslaughter), something that we cannot provide evidence that a lion or dog or hippo is capable of. So, please stop attributing words to occurances that they do not describe unless you can provide evidence of the word being used in this manner (not by one or two people, but by a preponderance of those who communicate in human languages).Oh...and before you bring up our species putting dogs down that attack humans. You must look at this from a moral standpoint. If there is a chance that this dog could attack again, it would be beneficial to society (create benefit for more by reducing the chance of a dog attacking and injuring or killing someone) through the loss of one. I am not saying it is nice, not saying it is a pleasant thought, only that it is moral in what is a relative morality (whether it comes from religion or not, it is always relative)I understand what your statement is, but I cannot agree in any way, shape, or form with how you constantly shove God into the explanation even though it is not necessary. We see the morality you are discussing, even without God. All you are doing is claiming to know God is responsible for it, without any evidence (whether through logic or observation) to support this statement. I have no issue with you thinking God is responsible, but please do not claim that it is the only rational explanation, when it is first based on irrationally assuming an entity that is unevidenced.ABE - Also, this is not specfic to our species. It is seen in rudimentary forms in other species. Such as altruism in other primates, working together to feed the entire pod in Dolphins, providing for the older wolves in a pack, and protecting an owner from danger in the case of dogs (unless you think this is only food related, which as a dog owner for many years, I do not). Plus, humanity has recently extended its morality to extend to treatment of many other species. It is not perfect yet, but it is evolving in the right way.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

You are correct, Mr. Harris is not the standard. His ideas, however, state an objective standard which can be agreed upon by nearly all of society.You state, "if bad is only that which causes suffering to his species", yet I am not sure that that is clarified anywhere within his ideas. We should not wontonly slaughter cattle, because the benefit of killing every head of cattle we currently have would not outweigh the cost. We would therefore cause more suffering by the cattle, without offsetting that with additional benefits of food. Also, the cattle get easy access to food and mating, so there is some benefit during the time that they are alive.Also, this does not mean that cattle should be treated poorly or put through unnecessary suffering. Our task should be to make the killing as quick and painless as possible.Sam Harris' idea does not quickly fall into nonsense, especially with the cattle example you used. If we as humans have treated the cattle well through its life (as we should according to the moral landscape), then the cattle has benefitted from the access to food and shelter and mating during its lifetime. When we send this cattle to the slaughterhouse, you are correct, the cattle does not benefit. However, the hundreds of people who will have meat to eat from the sacrifice of one cattle will benefit, so the benefit outweighs the cost. So, we are sacrificing one thing for the benefit of many. Seems to fit right into the moral landscape that you claim falls into nonsense. Really, you only recognize suffering when it happens to you? I personally have empathy for even those animals that our species must kill, even for the benefit of our survival. I know that they are suffering, but I understand that it is in order to create a larger benefit than the suffering that had to be endured. Again, the sacrifice of one to benefit many increases our standing in the moral landscape.As per your comment on relative morality, until you can give me an example of an absolute morality (Thou shalt not kill=Thou shalt not kill always) there is no reason for me to trust your subjective idea that an absolute morality even exists. Yes, Relative is relative, well done! 0 also equals 0!For the rest of that statement, it makes absolutely no sense. If what you are stating is that murder cannot be claimed when lives are taken, you are wrong. Murder is not a specific definition for any action done in the wild...a Lion does not murder a zebra. Murder is a legal term specifically designed by humans for the crime of one human taking another human's life. If that wasn't your point, you will need to clarify, because I have no idea what you are saying then. You are right that if we took a selfish look at only self-preservation then it would fall short of morality, but that is not what we are doing. As humans our morality is based upon species preservation, not the self. Also, as morality evolved, we have even begun to look into other species preservation. There was no special book that informed us that we should take care of the animals of this world. In fact, if we simply read the Bible, we would still be slaughtering animals left and right because God put them here specifically for our use and nothing else.You keep claiming that a morality looking specifically at suffering caused versus benefit gained cannot work and yet, it is this idea that has moved us beyond where naturalists just killed animals to study without a care for how many of the species was left.Your example of the humans and aliens traveling through the event horizon makes no sense as well. Does not seem to apply to the discussion. Unless you are trying to say that bad ideas should be thrown out when they don't conform to reality? If you are saying this, I hesitate to say.....so, Why does God, who has no evidence for his existence, get a bypass? If I had your stance wrong, please clarify it. You are right, we were conditioned from our ancestors, with their religions that told them all the creatures of the Earth are theirs, to not care about animals. However, what I would state is that choosing to walk past the flounder is not a moral action. The individual passing the flounder is allowing suffering where there is no benefit, which would lower the level on the moral landscape. Whereas, if this individual took the time to place the flounder back in the water, he or she did not suffer, the flounder is no longer suffering and our moral landscape is raised. We have decreased total suffering in the world, at least through what we could affect. The same would go for the whale as well, there is no difference. I would state that anyone who walked past the flounder or the whale without taking action is responsible for lowering the moral landscape. You are correct, the pack of dogs does not share our concern. However, what would be the response of the dog pack or the vulture? These animals would choose to eat the animal that is dying. They have no method or understanding of how to return the animal to the water. They simply see a meal for themselves when hungry. But there is still a cost benefit ratio that could be looked at. The death of the whale or flounder will feed the wolf pack or vultures allowing for them to alleviate suffering. Similar to the situation with the cattle the death of one can alleviate the suffering of many.You are right about individuals claiming that their morals are better. But that is because we must look at morality in a cold, dispassionate way. Morality contains so many shades of grey, that we cannot ever completely alleviate suffering and achieve what Sam Harris would call good, no suffering for any creature. But, we can attempt to find ways to increase our moral landscape by lowering what suffering we can, without creating more. We have to understand that suffering in the world must be accepted, and attempt to limit it instead of stop it. As our species increases in number, there is less habitat for other species. Claiming to have a superior morality is pointless, rather individuals should simply be looking for ways to lower suffering.On your comment about without a creator, again all I can say is that you are shoving God into the explanation. You can see that we are moral beings and you believe in God, so you just close your eyes and go, "Well, God must have done it." However, if we are looking at reality, then we must remove any unevidenced answers. It is irrational to leap to God as the first guess, when the evidence is non-existent that there is even a god. Plus, a group could determine whether their morals are getting better by studying the suffering and benefit that decisions cause. In other words, we can learn from previous mistakes and hone our morality, a process which has been continuing for hundreds of thousands of years...

I enjoyed how your simplified explanation was simply a restating of your original point but with more words included...it actually confused the issue even more! Lol.Now, onto the points, if I can decipher what you are saying... I did state an absolute and objective morality that applies to all species, so I am not sure why you keep bringing up this point. I am not limiting my perception of the moral landscape to simply humanity (although, it is a slightly weighted scale toward humanity, it still applies to all creatures)Bad = Everything on in the Universe feels suffering...This is everything, every plant, animal, bacteria. BAD = Bad for everythingGood = That which causes benefit to all species...this is everything, every plant, animal, bacteria. Good = Good for everything.This is absolute and objective. It includes the animals that you keep claiming I am not including. Both of these absolute ideals are unattainable, such is the case when dealing with absolute morality. We can never alleviate all suffering. Yes, as I have stated multiple times, a morality must be relative! Thou shalt not kill does not mean that in any circumstance thou shalt not kill. Rather, there are certain circumstances where this rule does not apply because the benefit that can be gained is greater than the cost. To claim otherwise is to deny the shades of grey that exist in reality. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!!!! Only Good and Bad are absolutes and also unattainable. However, this does not affect whether it can be actual or valid. Unattainable doesn't mean not actual, rather it means that we cannot reach it, but we can attempt to make our way upwards in the moral landscape closer to Good. Yep, it is relative and includes all species. However, we must realize that we are not perfect moral creatures. This is why we currently see the evolution of morality starting to incorporate all of humanity and many other species. Are we fully there yet? No, but we are on our way. I have already stated that if a human being sees a flounder on the beach and can release it into the water, the human should do so. This is because it lessens the suffering of a creature, without subtracting benefit from the human. The other species is involved.This is a newer adition to the human mindset of morality and is seen very much in how we treat the conservation of resources now. It is definitely not done evolving and should get to the point where animals are only killed when there is benefit for humanity through the death of the creatures that outweighs the suffering the animals feel. I did include other species.....many times, perhaps you missed the whole entire idea of a suffering-benefit ratio and determining the moral action by that which causes more benefit than the suffering that must be endured. Correct, it applies to my perspective. Yet, the benefit and the suffering do not require my perspective. Whether or not another human being suffers because of lack of food is an objective standard. Whether or not a chicken benefits from easy access to food for up to three years is objective, things like to eat and gain energy. Searching for food is more difficult than having it provided for you. It is tougher to see the suffering-benefit ratio when it comes to the time for the chicken's death, but it still exists. We have a hungry person and a chicken who has lived with all its concerns provided for. The chicken suffers through its death and the benefit is gained by alleviating hunger in the person or persons who eat the meat.If we use God's Absolute standard then we have "Thou Shalt not Kill". For this to be absolute, it means never kill. We could not eat at all since by procuring food we are killing. Whether it is plant or animal it must die so that others might live. Therefore, the absolute method of God falls apart and the relative method of studying suffering-benefit ratio and determining the action that will increase standing in the moral landscape makes more sense.As for why the chicken runs away... they're called chicken, Duh! Have you ever lived with chickens? I have and even when you do not kill them for food, they run away from you. We did not slaughter our chickens and these things would run from me for hours even though my only goal was to feed them.

I know someone posted the answer to this, which means it can be objectively determined. However, so you know how it can be objectively determined, an individual could utilize fractal geometry to determine the actual length of the coastline. In fact, that is exactly what Mandelbrot first used his new, non-euclidean geometry to determine. How Long is the Coast of Britain?This question was what led him toward his future research in fractals and using mathematics to measure natural formations.As per your "did it hurt" question, there is absolutely nothing objective about it.If we imagine pain as being measured in a unit named "painons", then when I hit my thumb, I claim that I feel 5 "painons", while another individual feels 12 "painons". There is no reason to believe that the same action will hurt each of us equally, no matter what. Some women I have known did not experience a lot of pain in childbirth and it was a relatively easy process. Whereas, most of the other women I know have told me it was the worst pain ever and I would have passed out from it.Does this even begin to sound like we could garner an objective ideal about the amount of pain that childbirth will include?I will say that with the hammer example, we can objectively say there will be pain (even in Straggler's example of taking a painkiller, the pain is there objectively because the pain centers are firing, but the pain level is still subjective because he cannot feel it due to the painkillers)...however, we cannot set an objective level to the amount of pain that will be received. Likewise, with morality, we can set the basic ideals of a moral or immoral action, but there is nothing but subjectivity when it comes to determining the actual amount of "harm" that an action causes.I agree we should minimize "harm" whenever possible, such as the example from earlier in the thread of a fish lying on the beach. We can use this example to show two different ways, both moral, of minimizing harm.The first is to take the fish and place it back in the water. In this case, we have taken zero "harm" upon ourselves, and reduced the "harm" being caused to the fish.The other option is that we could take the fish to our house to eat. In this case, we have increased the "harm" caused to the fish, but decreased the "harm" of our family being hungry.Both of these actions would be moral, but actually rating the final level of "harm" can only be based on opinion and not objectivity. The only immoral action would be to walk past the fish and do nothing, because it increases "harm" without diminishing "harm" somewhere else."harm" is in quotations to show that it cannot be determined the exact level objectively, but that we can know objectively (similar to the thumb example) whether or not harm is being caused at all.