|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total) |
| (82 visitors)
|
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,305 Year: 951/14,102 Month: 354/597 Week: 132/96 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33175 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
You are almost correct. Morality certainly is whatever a society decides is moral but it's not just made up as you go along. A societies morality does get passed from generation to generation but also evolves and changes and is effected by selection. This has been explained to you several times by several people in this very thread. Since it has been explained the topic "Evolutionists can not explain morals" has been refuted. Any future claim that Evolutionists can not explain morals deserves only ridicule.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
If you mean that without an objective standard for morality, we are like to see a variety of different moral systems, some incompatible with one another, well, that is pretty much what we see already. In fact, it was what we already saw in history when people believed there was an objective standard. So having an objective standard doesn't seem to solve this problem. On the other hand, if your concern is that without an objective standard for morality individuals will just make it up as they go along and do what's convenient for them at the moment, well, that seems to be what the majority of people don't do, not even people who believe that morals are subjective. So there doesn't seem to be a problem that we need to worry about here. Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
So you brought up an example when you didn't even know whether it supported your point?
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8066 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
quote: Not really, some norms of behaviour are pretty standard wherever and whenever; in-tribe murder for example. But I'd be interested to hear what your objective morality actually is. Do you have a list? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Enlightened self-interest. Agreed, benefiting the group benefits the members of the group.
Whether moral or immoral. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4033 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
I was attempting to come at the questions from your end... so you would be the one who needs to answer this.
I agree this is normally sufficient. But what about my quibble? Not cheating in a board game... when you know you you're not going to get caught.
Anyone who cares enough.
Many. Like not stealing from others because you don't want someone to steal from yourself.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wait, are you trying to call Hitler a Poe? Puh-lease
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Meh, not really. It's, like, inconsequential...
Yeah, that's prolly what I'd do Except I'd spell it right without that stupid "u"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4033 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
I would only note that they all can be for personal benefit.
Some people do. Realizing that practicing and enforcing moral conduct is directly beneficial to ourselves doesn't mean this automatically becomes "the reason" people do it. Just as realizing playing on a team sport directly benefits ourselves doesn't mean that is "the reason" all people do it.
I would say survival and maintaining the group and one's relationship to it is important. But not paramount.
Again, I would say that you can frame all behavior as driven by assessment of personal benefit if you want to. But just because you can frame something one way, doesn't mean all the other possible framings disappear.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4033 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Actually, upon reflection, I think I agree. I think I got caught in a colloquial-way of speaking. However, I agree that it's not "moral" if no one is affected. I think it's just an intricacy of the English language and how the term "moral" can mean so many different things. Specifically and colloquially. They're all connected... morals, honour, righteousness, protecting-the-weak...
You shut your mouth!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
And yet, if Hitler had said, "I've read Origin of the Species, and Darwin would definitely have voted for the Nazis," the creationists would totally have grabbed that and ran with it. In fact, they have run with the "Nazis are based on Darwin" theme even though Hitler didn't actually say that. But Hitler used creationist rhetoric? Now we suddenly have to question Hitler's sincerity? Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, they are different things, but they all stem from the same thing - our internal consciences. I'm interested in what drives that, but I don't have the time for a proper response right now.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18862 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
Do you think it was absolutely wrong for Hitler to kill millions of Jews and absolutely right for the Allies to kill millions of Germans?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4033 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Ha ha, I doubt I could give you a satisfactory response. One thing to note: "Internal conscience" is just a term. Is it a thing? I don't think any of those answers are known by anyone right now. The basics make sense: But what about any of the specifics, the details? I got nothing. Can we use our intelligence to negate the instinctual "group-survival-mechanism" aspect of our conscience and implement something more? Something beyond simply surviving? Can we use our conscience because we want to help others or leave the place better than we found it or for any other reason we so desire? I think we can. Just as our legs and arms evolved as survival-mechanisms for locomotion and/or using tools for survival. If we can use our intelligence to move beyond mere "survival-mechanisms" for other aspects of our existence, why not for our conscience as well? Well, that got rambling into another direction...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Another thing I've noticed about people who believe that there is an objective standard for morality is that none of them seem to really know what that standard is.
Other than a few commandments here and there and some vague aphorisms, it appears that people who believe in objective morality don't have a whole lot to go on and are forced to make it up as they go along. These people, no less than those who accept that morality is subjective, seem to have the same doubts about whether they "got it right", confront the same dilemmas that don't seem to have easy solutions, and discuss issues with other people hoping to be able to "home in" on the right decisions to make in specific circumstances. In short, they act exactly as people who believe in the subjectivity of morality act. As a result, we see that there is a wide variety of morality even among those who believe in "objectivity", and even within religions wide disagreement on what is or is not moral. And the individuals, at least the ones who aren't insane, are no more or less certain about whether they know the correct course of action than anyone else. If there is an objective standard for morality, then the world looks surprisingly similar to the way it would look if morality were subjective. An objective standard for morality doesn't really do anyone any good unless one can actually point to it and use it. People who believe in objective standards for morality are not immune to the very problems they think that the "subjectivists" are prone to. In practice, even if there exists and objective standard, everyone's morality is subjective. Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021