Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Language belongs to us carpe, and though it would be illogical or unreasonable, we could just as easily make no determination as to the morality of murder at all.

Then you are changing the definition of "murder." I was speaking to the term as it is currently used and defined.

That's the point I think you are confusing. Murder isn't wrong because it's wrong, and I'm not saying that murder is wrong because its wrong, I'm saying that murder is wrong because by reason we have determined it to be wrong, or to be in contradiction to our own best interests as a society.

Jim, murder is wrong because we define the term that way. Killing is not always wrong, but murder is. It's the very definition of the term. Since murder is defined as "wrongful killing" (or illicit or illegal), the answer to the sentence "can murder every be the right thing to do" is "no." That because what you are asking, by substituting the definition for the term is, "can wrongful killing ever be the right thing to do." By definition, the answer is no - a wrongful killing cannot be right.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to see. Now - if you ask, "can killing another human being ever be beneficial to society," NOW you are asking a question that does not contain its own answer (i.e., is not a tautology). I think we can find several instances where killing a particular human being may be seen as a benefit to society as a whole, but even then you will not get universal agreement. It will depend on who you ask, and some will see some killings as beneficial while others see those same killings as not. Some will debate you on when a person becomes human - and so forth.

Your striving for objective/absolutes in a world that does not contain them - at least not morally. I know a lot of people claim they exist - but no one has ever been able to demonstrate that - at least not to me.

[JimL]

There are no underlying reasons for morality Jim that don't fully rely on someone's say so.

Good, so now you know that it is our reasoning that concludes right from wrong and that there is no need to found morality on a "gods say so."

[Sparko]

All behaviors that we have defined to be immoral have immoral built into them already. We defined them as such because we recognize them to be detrimental to society and therefore detrimental to the lives of the members thereof, not because "god said so."

uh. no.

Trying to argue logic and morality with you is like arguing math with a chimp.

[carpedm9587]

uh. no.

Trying to argue logic and morality with you is like arguing math with a chimp.

Which would be a racial slur if Jim was black...

[Sparko]

Which would be a racial slur if Jim was black...

as far as I am concerned he is text.

[carpedm9587]

All behaviors that we have defined to be immoral have immoral built into them already.

That is partially true. Murder certainly meets that description. Theft (or stealing), however, does not. Theft (or stealing) is defined as "taking (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." So now let's take the two and show how this is different.

Murder: Wrongful killing
Theft: Taking (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it.

Question: Is Murder ever right?
Reworded: Is wrongful killing ever right?

The answer to this question HAS to be "no" because something defined to be wrongful can then never be right. The problem is that the word itself is defined in moral terms. What is missing is any indication of what constitutes "murder." How do we know when killing is wrongful? The definition does not tell us.

Question: Is theft ever right?
Reworded: Is taking (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it ever right?

The answer to this question could be yes or no, depending on who you ask, without contradiction. There is nothing in the sentence that says anything about morality. The definition merely describes what constitutes theft. Unlike "murder," the definition of theft is defined iin terms of the nature of the action, not its moral value.

We defined them as such because we recognize them to be detrimental to society and therefore detrimental to the lives of the members thereof, not because "god said so."

Maybe. Morality is not defined in terms of "society." It is defined in terms of the self. If you value "society," then you will develop a moral framework that include codes that protect "society." If you do not, then you will not. Morality is not defined by the masses - and then trickles down to the individual. If you believe it does, then what is moral is determined by "majority rules."

The relationship is exactly the opposite: each of us forms a moral framework as we grow and mature. It is based on the things we come to value in our lives. It is informed by many sources: family, friends, community, society, school, country, religion, personal experiences, etc. What we consider to be "social moral norms" is nothing more than the moral principles held in common by most people. They are not right because most people believe them to be right. They are right (or wrong) to each individual based on their personal moral framework.

[carpedm9587]

as far as I am concerned he is text.

[Sparko]

That is partially true. Murder certainly meets that description. Theft (or stealing), however, does not. Theft (or stealing) is defined as "taking (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." So now let's take the two and show how this is different.

Murder: Wrongful killing
Theft: Taking (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it.

Question: Is Murder ever right?
Reworded: Is wrongful killing ever right?

The answer to this question HAS to be "no" because something defined to be wrongful can then never be right. The problem is that the word itself is defined in moral terms. What is missing is any indication of what constitutes "murder." How do we know when killing is wrongful? The definition does not tell us.

Question: Is theft ever right?
Reworded: Is taking (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it ever right?

The answer to this question could be yes or no, depending on who you ask, without contradiction. There is nothing in the sentence that says anything about morality. The definition merely describes what constitutes theft. Unlike "murder," the definition of theft is defined iin terms of the nature of the action, not its moral value.



Maybe. Morality is not defined in terms of "society." It is defined in terms of the self. If you value "society," then you will develop a moral framework that include codes that protect "society." If you do not, then you will not. Morality is not defined by the masses - and then trickles down to the individual. If you believe it does, then what is moral is determined by "majority rules."

The relationship is exactly the opposite: each of us forms a moral framework as we grow and mature. It is based on the things we come to value in our lives. It is informed by many sources: family, friends, community, society, school, country, religion, personal experiences, etc. What we consider to be "social moral norms" is nothing more than the moral principles held in common by most people. They are not right because most people believe them to be right. They are right (or wrong) to each individual based on their personal moral framework.

I can't believe Carp and I are arguing the same thing in a debate about morality.

[seer]

Good, so now you know that it is our reasoning that concludes right from wrong and that there is no need to found morality on a "gods say so."

No Jim, I'm saying that what we consider right or wrong is only based on our say so. Nothing more.

[carpedm9587]

I can't believe Carp and I are arguing the same thing in a debate about morality.

I love it...


Don't look now, but you may be learning, paduan...

[Tassman]

No Jim, I'm saying that what we consider right or wrong is only based on our say so. Nothing more.

As opposed to YOUR

[seer]

As opposed to YOUR

Exactly... What a joy it is to be comprehended...

[Tassman]

Exactly... What a joy it is to be comprehended...

Why should one accept YOUR "say so" of what God's "say so" is claimed to be? Many of your fellow Christians disagree agree about what God supposedly means. Or, are you merely retreating to your usual position of "I'm right and they're wrong...so there?"

[JimL]

That is partially true. Murder certainly meets that description. Theft (or stealing), however, does not. Theft (or stealing) is defined as "taking (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." So now let's take the two and show how this is different.

Murder: Wrongful killing
Theft: Taking (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it.

Question: Is Murder ever right?
Reworded: Is wrongful killing ever right?

The answer to this question HAS to be "no" because something defined to be wrongful can then never be right. The problem is that the word itself is defined in moral terms. What is missing is any indication of what constitutes "murder." How do we know when killing is wrongful? The definition does not tell us.

Question: Is theft ever right?
Reworded: Is taking (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it ever right?

The answer to this question could be yes or no, depending on who you ask, without contradiction. There is nothing in the sentence that says anything about morality. The definition merely describes what constitutes theft. Unlike "murder," the definition of theft is defined iin terms of the nature of the action, not its moral value.



Maybe. Morality is not defined in terms of "society." It is defined in terms of the self. If you value "society," then you will develop a moral framework that include codes that protect "society." If you do not, then you will not. Morality is not defined by the masses - and then trickles down to the individual. If you believe it does, then what is moral is determined by "majority rules."

The relationship is exactly the opposite: each of us forms a moral framework as we grow and mature. It is based on the things we come to value in our lives. It is informed by many sources: family, friends, community, society, school, country, religion, personal experiences, etc. What we consider to be "social moral norms" is nothing more than the moral principles held in common by most people. They are not right because most people believe them to be right. They are right (or wrong) to each individual based on their personal moral framework.

Morality is summed up in the adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That wouldn't make any sense if morality weren't defined in terms of society. And I agree, morals are not right because most people agree they are right, morals are right because they serve the best interests of the whole of society within the which those people live.

[JimL]

No Jim, I'm saying that what we consider right or wrong is only based on our say so. Nothing more.

Morals are based on human reason and are relative to ourselves, yes, not on some unknown objective and arbitrary standard.