Atheism And Moral Progress

[Tassman]

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.

We are living organisms, and like ALL living organisms our primary instinct is survival. This is neither 'good' nor 'bad', it just "is". "Morality" is not an entity that exits of itself and for itself...or to just keep a deity happy. Morality is merely a code of behaviour...a set of rules. What we consider "good" are those rules that best enable our survival as individuals and as a species and "bad" is behaviour that is detrimental to survival. 'Acceptable' and 'non acceptable' behaviour has always been part of the human condition...long before any gods were around.

[JimL]

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?

When it comes to morality, we call those behaviors "good" which are in our best interests as a human community. Is it in your best interests to live in a community where you needn't fear being robbed and or murdered? It is, correct? Well then, now you should know why behaviors and the laws enforcing them are understood to be either morally good or morally bad. Again, not rocket science, seer. The problem you are struggling with is that you have no idea what it is that you mean by the term "good." That's why you keep asking me why is a thing 'good?" To you the term itself doesn't mean anything. If I ask you what it is that makes a behavior a "good", you have no explanation except that it's a moral that emanates from god and since god is good therefore the moral is good. But that of course is circular reasoning, since now you'd have to explain, well, why then do you call god "good"?

[carpedm9587]

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.

The problem, Jim, is that you are stating "benefit to human society" as if it is some objective, absolute thing against which actions can be measured. The very terms "benefit" and "good" can be defined in the abstract, but cannot be specified in detail until you answer "to whom" or "to what." They are relative. What is good for one is not good for another. And I doubt you will find too many things that are "beneficial to society" that have universal agreement. There are some that are widely agreed upon, but it would be essentially impossible to show anything that is universally agreed upon.

[carpedm9587]

We are living organisms, and like ALL living organisms our primary instinct is survival. This is neither 'good' nor 'bad', it just "is". "Morality" is not an entity that exits of itself and for itself...or to just keep a deity happy. Morality is merely a code of behaviour...a set of rules. What we consider "good" are those rules that best enable our survival as individuals and as a species and "bad" is behaviour that is detrimental to survival. 'Acceptable' and 'non acceptable' behaviour has always been part of the human condition...long before any gods were around.

Moralizing is a natural consequence of sentience. As soon as we can reflect on ourselves, we can reflect on our actions and choices as well. As soon as we can do that, we will begin to sort them into "ought" and "ought not." We ought to do those actions that nurture/enhance/foster the things we value, and we ought not do the things that diminish/destroy/threaten the things we value. That sorting is on a continuum from the things we value most to the things we value least. We reserve the term "morality" for those things on the upper end of that scale.

Because human beings share a significant degree of commonality, we tend to value similarly, so there is tremendous cohesion to our moral frameworks. That cohesion then gets expressed in communal moral norms, and even our legal system.

It's not really complicated. But we do live in a world that has clung to "god-centered" morality for a long long time. It's a habit that will be VERY hard to break.

Maybe I should write a book! "Common Sense Morality"

[JimL]

Moralizing is a natural consequence of sentience. As soon as we can reflect on ourselves, we can reflect on our actions and choices as well. As soon as we can do that, we will begin to sort them into "ought" and "ought not." We ought to do those actions that nurture/enhance/foster the things we value, and we ought not do the things that diminish/destroy/threaten the things we value. That sorting is on a continuum from the things we value most to the things we value least. We reserve the term "morality" for those things on the upper end of that scale.

Because human beings share a significant degree of commonality, we tend to value similarly, so there is tremendous cohesion to our moral frameworks. That cohesion then gets expressed in communal moral norms, and even our legal system.

It's not really complicated. But we do live in a world that has clung to "god-centered" morality for a long long time. It's a habit that will be VERY hard to break.

Maybe I should write a book! "Common Sense Morality"

The point is that there is no need of a god, or of morals to have an objective existence, in order that, as laws, they serve to benefit society as a whole. That's what seer can't seem to grasp.

[Tassman]

Moralizing is a natural consequence of sentience. As soon as we can reflect on ourselves, we can reflect on our actions and choices as well. As soon as we can do that, we will begin to sort them into "ought" and "ought not." We ought to do those actions that nurture/enhance/foster the things we value, and we ought not do the things that diminish/destroy/threaten the things we value. That sorting is on a continuum from the things we value most to the things we value least. We reserve the term "morality" for those things on the upper end of that scale.

Because human beings share a significant degree of commonality, we tend to value similarly, so there is tremendous cohesion to our moral frameworks. That cohesion then gets expressed in communal moral norms, and even our legal system.

It's not really complicated. But we do live in a world that has clung to "god-centered" morality for a long long time. It's a habit that will be VERY hard to break.

Maybe I should write a book! "Common Sense Morality"

It would be preferable for you to actually interact with what I said rather than launch into a separate epiphany of your own. Again, we are simply naturally evolved biological creatures existing in an amoral material environment. If there is any goodness or caring to be done we are the ones to do it and to this end we devise rules of behaviour, which we refer to as morality, in order to benefit society as a whole. At one time we attributed these rules of behaviour to divine revelation, nowadays increasingly less so in the more developed world. .

[seer]

The point is that there is no need of a god, or of morals to have an objective existence, in order that, as laws, they serve to benefit society as a whole. That's what seer can't seem to grasp.

And Jim you need to stay on topic. This all started when you questioned God's "say so." Like somehow that was not sufficient in defining what is good or moral. Yet, when you claim that what benefits society as a whole is a moral good that is solely based on "say so." Yours individually or ours collectively.

[Sparko]

The point is that there is no need of a god, or of morals to have an objective existence, in order that, as laws, they serve to benefit society as a whole. That's what seer can't seem to grasp.

Which society? In China, they used to kill girl children because they were too overpopulated. That was good for their society, right? Germany felt it was good to purify the races and get rid of Jews and the disabled. Rome thought slavery was good for their society to keep them in power. The Mongols thought raiding villages and stealing everything and killing anyone who resisted was good for their society.

Currently it appears our society thinks it is good to abort babies. But just 50 years ago we thought that was completely immoral and bad for society.

[seer]

Currently it appears our society thinks it is good to abort babies. But just 50 years ago we thought that was completely immoral and bad for society.

One wonders how killing millions of our own offspring is good for any society...

[Sparko]

One wonders how killing millions of our own offspring is good for any society...

Why it frees up women to go to work instead of being slaves in the home! And saves money for the family!

[JimL]

Why it frees up women to go to work instead of being slaves in the home! And saves money for the family!

If single moms stay at home and take care of their child, will you pay taxes to support her and the child that you care so much for as a fetus?

[Roy]

PS did you know that the very word "Good" comes from "God?"

"Sense of "kind, benevolent" is from late Old English in reference to persons or God, from mid-14c. of actions."

That does not support in any way your assertion that "good" comes from "God". It actually refutes it, since it implies that the word "good" existed before then, and only acquired an additional meaning.

You are propagating a lie.

[seer]

If single moms stay at home and take care of their child, will you pay taxes to support her and the child that you care so much for as a fetus?

So killing our unborn by the millions is good for society? And a single mom can already get welfare, I know, a number of them live in my neighborhood.

[JimL]

So killing our unborn by the millions is good for society? And a single mom can already get welfare, I know, a number of them live in my neighborhood.

You people have made it perfectly clear that the unborn only matter to you when they are unborn, so lets quit with the canard already, eh! We on the other hand, whether you agree or not, don't necessarily consider a fetus to be a human being as do you, so we don't see abortion as killing. We also don't consider that choice to be anybody's business other than the parents, ultimately the mothers. And yes, I know that a single mother can receive welfare, my point was that conservatives don't want her and her child to get welfare.

[Sparko]

If single moms stay at home and take care of their child, will you pay taxes to support her and the child that you care so much for as a fetus?

Actually I did. And not through taxes. out of my own pocket I helped a friend who was a single mother with two children. Because guess what? She couldn't qualify for welfare! She was working full time, raising two children, paying daycare and couldn't get any government assistance because she was white. But she thought raising her children instead of aborting or abandoning them was the right choice. And now that she is a grandmother, I am sure she thinks that even more.