Morality without god

Well of course it is, that's why every society everywhere has a version of this golden rule.So you have to throw away all religious belief systems and claims of a morality outside ourselves, because they consistently generate random rules of morality that have nothing to do with decent behaviour and frequently produce behaviours that are actually immoral.You will also note that despite this common emotion - which is actually simply called empathy - at any one time there is no agreement between individuals and societies how to use it.Take the state execution of criminals - it seems to me that cold bloodedly killing a person is one of the most immoral acts we can perform and is the exact opposite of what is expected of the golden rule. Yet those people that make claims for an absolute morality are generally the most avid proponents of it.If there actually was an absolute morality, we would not have differing views on such extremes, let alone the minor morality issues that the religious seem to obsess about - mostly sex.

No dispute there but that does not mean that there is not a correct way to use it.When someone declares that it is immoral to be a homosexual for example. They are answering the question as to whether or not they themselves want to be a homosexual instead of answering the question as to whether or not they wish to be allowed to indulge their sexual orientation with a willing partner.When I declare that paedophilia is immoral it is because I am answering the question as to whether or not I would want to be forced into something against my will or beyond my comprehension. I am not answering the question as to whether or not I want to have sex with children.Capital punishment is complicated for sure. I am generally against it but I wouldn't say that it is immoral in all cases. (abe; that is to say that I can imagine a situation in which I would deserve to be killed as a result of my actions.)Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

It seems to me that those declaring homosexuality immoral can be making several mistakes, the most obvious being following a religious dogma (which attempts to define morality by declaration) and reacting to their own revulsion. The first is just wrong, the second may be someone acting according to their own natural inclinations. - the revolt emotion trumping the empathy emotion.Wither, the absolute formulae for morality here? But at what age do you judge paedophilia is immoral? I bet you decide it's wrong based on the law in the country you live in. And this age is arbitrary. Your golden rule is a bit stumped here because yet again the formulae is missing. What's a moral age in one time and one country is immoral in another time and country. You may well be able to imagine a time when you think that you deserve to be killed but would you if it happened? Hard to know isn't it? Because the formulae doesn't work as a formulae.The problem is that the 'do as you would be done by' rule would release all prisioners immediately because most of them would not wish to be done to. Their rule is different to yours and mine. It's not absolute.

Try a simple philosophical exercise Tangle. It is clear from you above statement that you do not even understand the simplest forms or reasoning.Here is the exercise with regard to morality, right and wrong. Take yourself outside your own species when drawing conclusions about what is right and wrong, then see if you arguments still make sense. Of course they dont.Your arguments are emotionally charged, they are from the perspective of but one species. If murder is wrong because it harms other persons, then the same should apply to all other species.If not why not? Finding so-called reasons, regarding other species, like consumption and survival, dont work logically. Its called rationalizationOnce you can remove yourself from your own selfish perspective, your so-called morality becomes non-existent and irrattional Again, I have done this to many times to mention. First it is a logical proposition, pitted agaist physical realitiesSecondly you need to show that your position is consistent and that no more information could be gathered to change or alter your position. You simply cannot do thisHence if there is no infinite knowledge, your position is hopelessly lost in relativityAgain, relative is just that, relative and subjective. You cant eat your cake and have itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And it looks like Tangle will have to ask an 8th time...

Because our morality is defined by us, from our perspective, and is for us, as people. Sure, it doesn't exist outside of our perspective, but then when you zoom back in to it, it re-emerges as the thing that it is: a subjective morality. False. Existing moralities change over time as more information is gathered. Once again you conclude that it doesn't count as a morality because it isn't absolute without ever explaining why it cannot be considered a morality while it is subjective.

Saying the same thing over and over whilst not addressing the answers you are given is a bit tiresome. Ah well.I have said that because the world has been set up in such a way that animals must eat other living things in order for them to survive, we like all other of your God's animals, must do violence to other life.Our moral position on this has changed over time from complete insensitivity to the harm we do to other animals to where we are now, where we believe that cruelty to animals is indeed immoral. (Note that this isn't universal - other less developed societies have a more relaxed attitude to animal husbandry.)You can see this in your bible - much of the OT is now considered by modern society to be cruel and inhumane; to people. If I've missed where you tell me this, I'm sorry, but maybe you could point me at it? If what you say above is actually your answer, then I don't think you understand my question.I'll try to explain it better.Morality - or our sense of it - is how we decide our actions. How we know right from wrong and how we behave. It's a very practiclal thing, it has outcomes in the real world. I've given you many examples of how our morality is relative and changes over time, between societies and in diferent circumstances.You claim that morality is absolute. So I have asked you for practical examples to demonstrate that. I don't think you can, that's why you're repeatedly posting nonsense, so now's your chance to prove me wrong.

Then it is only reflection, which has nothing to do with actual right or wrong.I have asked numerous times, without any successful response to please be provided with a logically set out argument demonstrating the actual existence of right and wrong.show me your logical argument that demonstrates the things actually exist. Disagreement and saying you have morality is not the same as a good ole argument. Lets see what you haveStill waitingDawn Bertot

Actual demonstrable right and wrong don't exist, and yet our moralities still do.

No I claim morality is first a logically set out argument, not muzing and speculation as most of that in your last post.Its not a matter of proving you right or wrong. It is a matter of you setting out an argument that clearly and forcably demonstrates you have a right and wrong that does not proceed from only your perspective. That of course is simply nonsenseAnyone that disagrees with your perspective could of course be correct, which would render your position invalidSimply move outside yourself and your perspective. Its not really that hard, its called logicDawn Bertot

Great thanks for that admission. Now show me an actual morality that exists outside of the word that attempts to describe it. A tree is only a tree because we call it a tree. Its not actually a tree.Speculation and contemplation are other words that may describe your morality, but those dont actually exist either. Varying view points and disagreements between the same species and between the species is not morality, its subjectivity and matter in motionIf it makes you feel better to call it morality, that great, the other species and many within yours disagree. That should send up a red flag that its all relative and not really an actual moralityif morality existed, it would not be from only your perspective. To believe that it actually is morality is self-delusion and irrationalDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

But morality is not based on the individual but rather the consensus of a people, nation, era or culture.There is no right or wrong, moral or immoral except within that consensus.Edited by jar, : left off a t

How do you know it's wrong to murder someone Dawn?

quote:

---

It was called the Golden Rule until 32ADm when Jesus corrected the idea to a more pro-active "render Love and/or charity to your enemies."

---

The Golden Rule moral formalism (positive or negative) can be easily critiqued, and improved. If we accept that your perception of experience is not the same as another such that an experience is harmful to one and not to another, the Golden Rule becomes erroneous.An improved Golden Rule might be: one should not do to another what they would not have done to them.If it sounds more obvious it's because it is. The classical form is purely utilitarian and tribal, working only when all think similarly, working only within groups. My form works both inside groups, among groups, and beyond.Moreover, the above form is negative in that it demands that you avoid immoral action. One can also conjecture a moral formalism which demands moral action (positive). I think this is generally erroneous because one can conceive of actions which one would wish to have done to them but for which we ought have no obligation to act. Therefore, only the negative form is moral.In either case, Jesus's addition is not an improvement. It is an error of moral generalization which does not work well with reality because of there are no constraints on what it means to be an enemy. It might be an attempt at formulating an inter-group moral code, although I think I have done better.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

That's simplified to Google's 'Do no harm'. Which is ok as far as it goes, but if you add 'and try to do good' you may have it covered.