Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

So I take it then that, to you, good and evil mean nothing other than gods say so. Is that correct?

Of course Jim, all claims of good or evil, at bottom, hinge on someone's say so. There is NOTHING else.

[Tassman]

No Tass, the moral claim that our survival is a moral good only relies on our SAY SO. The fact that we have an instinct to survive has nothing to do with whether our survival is a moral good or not.

Yes, like in your country...

Oh yes, ALL the colonial powers behaved despicably to the indigenous inhabitants they conquered...Interesting that they were ALL Christian powers.

And we are back to SAY SO...

You mean as opposed to your "SAY SO" that god "SAYS SO".

[Tassman]

Of course Jim, all claims of good or evil, at bottom, hinge on someone's say so. There is NOTHING else.

Indeed! What determines MORALITY for theists is the "say-so" of their imaginary god. The rest of us will refer to the natural evolution of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. The latter is supported by evidence, the former is not...it is merely a faith-belief.

[Starlight]

Of course Jim, all claims of good or evil, at bottom, hinge on someone's say so. There is NOTHING else.

What a bizarre claim. (You really are a nihilist extremist aren't you? Everything you accuse others of...)

In one of these threads I saw you comment that distance objectively exists. So I take it you at least accept that we can study the world around us and come to a scientific understanding of what distance is, measure distance, etc? So you accept the possibility of us learning objective scientific truths about the world, yes? So while a caveman might be able to give only a very poor account of distance, and Einstein might be able to explain it in great detail, and while Americans might measure things in miles and the rest of the world in kilometers... distance nonetheless is an objective reality.

In the same way there are many objective truths about humanity, evolution, human nature, human societies, human actions, human intentions etc. There are all sorts of facts that can be learned and studied by science. There different ways that humans can interact with each other can be analyzed. The outcomes of those actions can be measured in all sorts of different ways.

To my mind morality is much like distance but is a measure of human actions and intentions. Different people have a different level of grasp of it, just as the caveman and Einstein have a different level of grasp of what distance is. And by studying the science of it we can progress in our understanding of it. Your statement that "there is NOTHING else" in your denial of the reality of this, rings about as hollow to me as if you were saying distance didn't really exist and there was nothing else other than opinions about it. It seems like a pretty absurd and foolish claim on your part.

[seer]

What a bizarre claim. (You really are a nihilist extremist aren't you? Everything you accuse others of...)

How can I be a nihilist if I believe in universal moral truths, and the reality of everlasting life.

In the same way there are many objective truths about humanity, evolution, human nature, human societies, human actions, human intentions etc. There are all sorts of facts that can be learned and studied by science. There different ways that humans can interact with each other can be analyzed. The outcomes of those actions can be measured in all sorts of different ways.

To my mind morality is much like distance but is a measure of human actions and intentions. Different people have a different level of grasp of it, just as the caveman and Einstein have a different level of grasp of what distance is. And by studying the science of it we can progress in our understanding of it. Your statement that "there is NOTHING else" in your denial of the reality of this, rings about as hollow to me as if you were saying distance didn't really exist and there was nothing else other than opinions about it. It seems like a pretty absurd and foolish claim on your part.

Nonsense Star, like I said recently the problem has never been inventing decent moral theories, based on science or philosophy. The problem is in following them, if we followed the golden rule from the heart and really did love our fellow man we would have heaven on earth. We don't need science to tell us that, we have collectively know that for centuries. And I'm sorry Star, you have no objective basis for moral truths. I can objectively measure distance, or objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4 - how do you objectively demonstrate that murder is wrong. You could speak of all the negative consequences of murder, though in certain cases it may be a positive for the murderer, but applying a moral label is and will always be a subjective call.

[JimL]

How can I be a nihilist if I believe in universal moral truths, and the reality of everlasting life.



Nonsense Star, like I said recently the problem has never been inventing decent moral theories, based on science or philosophy. The problem is in following them, if we followed the golden rule from the heart and really did love our fellow man we would have heaven on earth. We don't need science to tell us that, we have collectively know that for centuries. And I'm sorry Star, you have no objective basis for moral truths. I can objectively measure distance, or objectively demonstrate that 2+2=4 - how do you objectively demonstrate that murder is wrong. You could speak of all the negative consequences of murder, though in certain cases it may be a positive for the murderer, but applying a moral label is and will always be a subjective call.

Seer, you are still arguing against yourself. If as you say " if we followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth," then you are making my argument for me. What you are arguing is that moral rules are rules dictating those behaviors that are in the best interests of human society. Now that you understand and admit this I'm sure that you will reverse course and try to deny it once again. Go ahead, can't wait to read it.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Star, like I said recently the problem has never been inventing decent moral theories, based on science or philosophy. The problem is in following them, if we followed the golden rule from the heart and really did love our fellow man we would have heaven on earth.

We don't need science to tell us that, we have collectively know that for centuries. And I'm sorry Star, you have no objective basis for moral truths.

[seer]

Seer, you are still arguing against yourself. If as you say " if we followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth," then you are making my argument for me. What you are arguing is that moral rules are rules dictating those behaviors that are in the best interests of human society. Now that you understand and admit this I'm sure that you will reverse course and try to deny it once again. Go ahead, can't wait to read it.

No I am not Jim, I never said that certain behaviors would not lead to specific consequences. But calling that a moral good is completely subjective. Others may believe that the other golden rule is a moral good: "he with the most gold rules." Saying that what is generally in the best interests society is a moral good, is again subjective. An opinion, a SAY SO. Try to keep up James.

[JimL]

No I am not Jim, I never said that certain behaviors would not lead to specific consequences. But calling that a moral good is completely subjective. Others may believe that the other golden rule is a moral good: "he with the most gold rules." Saying that what is generally in the best interests society is a moral good, is again subjective. An opinion, a SAY SO. Try to keep up James.

Wrong seer, you're still confusing the issue due to your agenda. If as you agree that certain behaviors will lead to certain consequences then those consequences are either a benefit to, or adverse to, the best interests of the social order. When you speak of the other moral good, i.e. "he with the most gold rules," you are not speaking about the interests of society, you are speaking about the interests of one individual. As I have previously made clear, morality is not about the individual alone, how could it be, it's about the good of all individuals and of the society to which they belong. It's not simply about someones say so, it's about what truly is in the best interests of the good of the group, it's about what actually works, and a divine say so isn't needed for that.

[seer]

Wrong seer, you're still confusing the issue due to your agenda. If as you agree that certain behaviors will lead to certain consequences then those consequences are either a benefit to, or adverse to, the best interests of the social order. When you speak of the other moral good, i.e. "he with the most gold rules," you are not speaking about the interests of society, you are speaking about the interests of one individual. As I have previously made clear, morality is not about the individual alone, how could it be, it's about the good of all individuals and of the society to which they belong. It's not simply about someones say so, it's about what truly is in the best interests of the good of the group, it's about what actually works, and a divine say so isn't needed for that.

Jim, you are really being dense here. Saying that the best interests of society is a moral good IS A SUBJECTIVE CLAIM, based on opinion or say so.

[carpedm9587]

So our deaths would be bad for us, but a good for the Alien race that harvest us for food.

Yes. Because "good" is measured relative to an individual, what is a "good" for one may well be a "bad" for another. Smoking cigarettes is a good for the tobacco industry, and a bad for me. I'm surprised that I have to explain this. It seems fairly obvious to me.

[Sparko]

Yes. Because "good" is measured relative to an individual, what is a "good" for one may well be a "bad" for another. Smoking cigarettes is a good for the tobacco industry, and a bad for me. I'm surprised that I have to explain this. It seems fairly obvious to me.

You are arguing something completely different than JimL is talking about. This is just confusing the conversation. JimL believes in objective morality but without God. He has said that something like stealing is wrong even if everyone in the world thought it was good. We are just trying to get him to realize that he can't support his claim without an objective standard of "good" and "evil" - your talking about good being relative is just confusing the issue.

[JimL]

Jim, you are really being dense here. Saying that the best interests of society is a moral good IS A SUBJECTIVE CLAIM, based on opinion or say so.

You are apparently going to keep on contradicting yourself. You said that if people followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth. Now you know I'm not religious, but that is my argument seer, that is the point of morality, what is "good" is not just say so it is the empirical results of enforced moral law. And if the morals have the effect you say they do, then they need have nothing to do with being objectively divine. The moral against murder, theft, rape, et etc. is good simply because it proves to be beneficial to human society, or as you yourself put it, to have heaven on earth.

[seer]

Yes. Because "good" is measured relative to an individual, what is a "good" for one may well be a "bad" for another. Smoking cigarettes is a good for the tobacco industry, and a bad for me. I'm surprised that I have to explain this. It seems fairly obvious to me.

No, I just need Jim to see the logic of relativism, perhaps he will believe you. He is not getting it yet.

[seer]

You are apparently going to keep on contradicting yourself. You said that if people followed the golden rule we would have heaven on earth. Now you know I'm not religious, but that is my argument seer, that is the point of morality, what is "good" is not just say so it is the empirical results of enforced moral law. And if the morals have the effect you say they do, then they need have nothing to do with being objectively divine. The moral against murder, theft, rape, et etc. is good simply because it proves to be beneficial to human society, or as you yourself put it, to have heaven on earth.

Jim, let me try again - why is the best interests of society is a moral good? If it is not our "say so" then what is it?