Morality without god

Not really. The paradox is how something could evolve at the expense of the individual. I don't doubt that those behaviors can and do benefit the individual. What I disagree with is that an individual cannot exhibit those behaviors without benefiting from them. I disgree that a person cannot act selflessly. Why must altruistic actions be unintentional?

Morality is a philosophically based proposition, initially and primarily. Every philosophical proposition is first and always, a logical propositionHuman beings themself, in and of themself, do not decide what is logical. Reality itself and a rational contemplation of this reality decides what is actually logically allowableI only discover the law of gravity and explain it, I dont determine what it is or is notIf there eixsts a right and wrong outside of human eixstence and contemplation, it must first be discovered logicallyReality does not allow you this luxtury for morality. You cant define and invent it.the mere fact that things eixst outside of you and that your behaviour is inconsistent what you think morality should be, should clue you into this factIf i am wrong, then show me in some logical fashion, based on reality what right and wrong actually areDawn Bertot

The proposed relative moralities that you are denying as being a morality do not exist outside of human existence and contemplation, but are still moralities none-the-less.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

We can and we have. You know that to be true. Murder is wrong because it harms another person and were it to be allowed, it would destroy our society and ability to live with each other..Your move.Please provide a practical example of what absolute morality is. 7th time of asking. (at least)

Who gets to define the words "harms", "destroy" and "live with each other"?

You do realize that christians and other theists have a different definiton of morality right? To us, it is not subjective and changeable, nor is it defined by the society you live in; it is defined by God.

The society you live in does. Obviously.

No you don't. You have exactly the same definition as I have. And it is demonstrably subjective and it changes with time and between societies.
You just think it comes from a fictional god, I think it comes from people.I have asked over and over again, for an example of this absolute morality and not had one. Perhaps you can do better?

That makes me a hostage to the whims of my society and as a minority opinion on the meaning of any of the words, it could mean my happiness is sacrificed at the altar of public opinion. I suppose you believe that the happiness of the majority should have precendence over the happiness of the minority in those times when conflicts with the other? And no, your answer is not obvious. Just because it is obvious to you, doesn't mean that it is obvious to me or anyone else for that matter.

I am sorry but NO ONE, and certainly not YOU will ever tell ME what is moral and what isn't moral. I do not hold to your definition and never will. Society does not decide the meanings of words for me. Societies definition of words is only accepted as a means to communicate with the rest of society. When I communicate with other christians, I do no use societies definition of morality, and neither do other christians.

"I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other gods besides me". That is an example of absolute morality.

In any case the paradox belongs to the selfish gene theory and not to the misfiring gene theory. Well otherwise my position is wrong I think it is because that is way that all conscious living things work. They try to maximize their own benefit. Acting contrary to that goal is like trying to breath under water. Perhaps not impossible but really really hard to do intentionally.

I think that we can approach an absolute morality. Not to say that some particular action is always wrong or always right but to say that doing the right thing is always the moral action. A bit of tautology I suppose.Right and wrong are relative to the consciousness that is making the determination and so any notion of universal morality must be centred on the individual. When viewed in this light 'treating others as you would be treated' is always the moral course. This maxim can be universally applied to any conscious entity.

Yes it does mean exactly that and if you didn't have exactly the same moral emotions as everyone else in society that would be a big problem for you. We call those people psychopaths and sociopaths and we have to lock them up.Luckily, we all mostly agree on what morality is so there is no real problem - even for you. There are only disagreements within society about low level moral issues which tend to be around discrimination caused by bigotry and bias. Over time, society takes those on board too.

Didn't your parents tell you what's right and what's wrong? How about your teachers? How about your church and "other christians"?I suggest that you don't present that argument to a policeman or a court otherwise you'll find that society will apply its definition on you pretty readily.Unless you are mentally ill, you'll find that there's nothing special about your sense of morality, it's a brain function which we all have. Including us atheists.ABE
I read elsewhere that you agree with me: Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.