Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

exactly. So if everyone in the world thought that stealing was moral and good for society, how would anyone know that it was actually immoral? You claimed that no matter how many people believed something was moral or immoral didn't matter, since morality is objective.

We know by sound reason, but we are also human beings so it's hypothetically possible that we are all idiots and got it wrong. Highly unlikely though. But morality, or morals, aren't objective so much as the results of moral behaviors on society are.

Let's say you had a world where everyone believed stealing and killing people to get their stuff was completely normal and good for society.

Okay, but we'd have also to assume that it was a world of complete morons.

They even have studies showing how great it is for society by leading sociologists.

That would be the studies of the leading moron sociologists.

You say that killing and stealing would still be immoral. Yet you can't explain how anyone would even know it was immoral or why it was immoral.

Of course it would still be immoral, because your basing the beliefs and studies concerning morals on complete and unreasoned morons.

[Sparko]

We know by sound reason, but we are also human beings so it's hypothetically possible that we are all idiots and got it wrong. Highly unlikely though. But morality, or morals, aren't objective so much as the results of moral behaviors on society are.

Okay, but we'd have also to assume that it was a world of complete morons.


That would be the studies of the leading moron sociologists.


Of course it would still be immoral, because your basing the beliefs and studies concerning morals on complete and unreasoned morons.

So your answer is to just call everyone who disagrees with what YOU believe is moral or immoral "morons"

How do you know that YOU are not the one who is wrong when you claim that stealing and killing is immoral if everyone else believed them to be moral and good for society? When they call you a moron, what are you going to appeal to to convince them that stealing and killing is immoral even though everyone else in the world says it is moral and they even have studies to prove it?

[seer]

Because sound reason would make it clear to you that the immoral tyrant is always at risk by the next immoral would be tyrant as well as that of the angry people. Heavy lies the head that wears the crown, particularly if the head is that of a evil tyrant. Hence the adage "do unto others......."

So what? I could be a perfectly peaceful person and be at risk from a local thug, or a falling tree. You are not making sense, if the tyrant wants to take that risk his moral opinion on that is no less valid than yours.

[Sparko]

So what? I could be a perfectly peaceful person and be at risk from a local thug, or a falling tree. You are not making sense, if the tyrant wants to take that risk his moral opinion on that is no less valid than yours.

apparently "sound reason" means "agree with JimL" since when I gave him a scenario where an entire world believed stealing and killing was moral and even had studies to prove it, they were just "morons"

[seer]

apparently "sound reason" means "agree with JimL" since when I gave him a scenario where an entire world believed stealing and killing was moral and even had studies to prove it, they were just "morons"

Carp tried to school him too. I don't think it is working...

[carpedm9587]

Talking about the actual Nazis, not the fascist morons who claim to be Nazis today (or antifa). The Nazis were very good at controlling the population. If they had won and the world was Nazi, once they had defeated any resistance and eliminate the Jews and non-Aryans, they would have had a very peaceful society.

Such "would" statements are largely pointless, IMO. They cannot be shown to be true and they cannot be refuted. They are pure speculation. Yes, it might have been "a very peaceful society." On the other hand, when you have sadistic leaders, and the target of their sadism is finally eliminated, it is also possible that they will find new outlets for their sadism, simply targeting another group, identifying them as "other," and repeating their atrocities on a new segment of the population. Which would have happened is unknown and unknowable.

Probably not much crime when the punishment could be being sentenced to the gas chambers or sent for experimentation. Much like the USSR. They had a very peaceful society. Totalitarianism tends to be peaceful because the alternative is being imprisoned or killed.

I think we have very different definitions of "peaceful society."

So if the "goal" of morality is peace, totalitarianism is just as good as any way to get there, right? The ends justify the means and all that.

The "goal" (or purpose) of morality is to protect the things we value.

[seer]

The "goal" (or purpose) of morality is to protect the things we value.

Like a despot protecting what he vales, power and control....

[Sparko]

Such "would" statements are largely pointless, IMO. They cannot be shown to be true and they cannot be refuted. They are pure speculation. Yes, it might have been "a very peaceful society." On the other hand, when you have sadistic leaders, and the target of their sadism is finally eliminated, it is also possible that they will find new outlets for their sadism, simply targeting another group, identifying them as "other," and repeating their atrocities on a new segment of the population. Which would have happened is unknown and unknowable.



I think we have very different definitions of "peaceful society."



The "goal" (or purpose) of morality is to protect the things we value.

so basically "greed?"

I can protect the things I value by killing anyone who tries to take them. I guess that's moral.

[carpedm9587]

so basically "greed?"

I guess it depends on how you use the word "greed." If you consider it "greed" to act so as to protect my life - my liberty - etc., then feel free to call it "greed." To me, the term "greed" implies "at the expense of others." If one is moralizing on what they value in the context of the social contract (i.e., recognizing the dynamics of society), then "greed" does not apply.

I can protect the things I value by killing anyone who tries to take them. I guess that's moral.

See my statement above. A code "kill anyone who threatens what I value" does not extend in a social context. It opens me up to risk. What I value is at least risk when not only I, but the society around me also acts to protect it - hence the "golden rule."

[carpedm9587]

Like a despot protecting what he vales, power and control....

No. See my response to Sparko.

[Sparko]

I guess it depends on how you use the word "greed." If you consider it "greed" to act so as to protect my life - my liberty - etc., then feel free to call it "greed." To me, the term "greed" implies "at the expense of others." If one is moralizing on what they value in the context of the social contract (i.e., recognizing the dynamics of society), then "greed" does not apply.



See my statement above. A code "kill anyone who threatens what I value" does not extend in a social context. It opens me up to risk. What I value is at least risk when not only I, but the society around me also acts to protect it - hence the "golden rule."

So to you morality is just about selfishness? I would argue that morality is the exact opposite of selfishness. It is about selflessness.

[carpedm9587]

So to you morality is just about selfishness? I would argue that morality is the exact opposite of selfishness. It is about selflessness.

Again, it depends on how you use the term "selfish." Ultimately, we are all intrinsically selfish, and make the decisions we make in our own best interests for our own reasons. I help at the community shelter because I think my entire community is enhanced when all of its members have a better quality of life, and because it gives me a sense of satisfaction to spend some of my energy that way. If I didn't think those things, I would not help out.

Christians follow their interpretation of the "Christian moral code" because they believe it pleases their god and their god requires it of them, or because they want to gain "eternity" with their god, or because they fear eternal damnation. I'm sure many do it for the same reasons I do: because they find value in other people and want to help. Ultimately, we all do what we do because we want to do it and believe it is important. If we didn't, we'd do something else.

[Sparko]

Again, it depends on how you use the term "selfish." Ultimately, we are all intrinsically selfish, and make the decisions we make in our own best interests for our own reasons. I help at the community shelter because I think my entire community is enhanced when all of its members have a better quality of life, and because it gives me a sense of satisfaction to spend some of my energy that way. If I didn't think those things, I would not help out.

Christians follow their interpretation of the "Christian moral code" because they believe it pleases their god and their god requires it of them, or because they want to gain "eternity" with their god, or because they fear eternal damnation. I'm sure many do it for the same reasons I do: because they find value in other people and want to help. Ultimately, we all do what we do because we want to do it and believe it is important. If we didn't, we'd do something else.

We can't earn our way into heaven by being moral or good.

Think of a man who adopts a young boy. He makes the boy a part of his family. Now the father asks the son to do some chores and behave like a gentleman. If the son disobeys, he is not cast out of the family. The chores don't earn his position in the family, that is secure. He does what his father asks because he loves his father and wants to do the right thing, to contribute to the family. Not out of obligation or fear.

and the purpose of morals is basically to get along with other people, to share, to help. How we ought to act. JimL is right that morals are about the good of society. He is just wrong about knowing what is good for society since under his theory morals are just some magical standard that everyone should follow but have no source or way to judge what "good" even means.

[Tassman]

Again Tass, that is a lie. I completely resolved the homosexual question by the text. It is clear and unambiguous,

and I can do it on any number of other moral issues.

I'm sure you can make scripture say whatever you want it to say to support your personal prejudices. Christians have been doing it for centuries. The SBC used it to justify slavery and the Jim Crow laws.

And Tass, you know what the texts actually say that is why you said this: Many other Christians disagree and view homosexuality in keeping with the psychiatric assessment of it, namely that it is a normal variant of human sexuality.

If Christians are denying the text for a psychiatric assessment then they have abandoned Scripture.

There is a clear answer, they just don't like it.

"They just don't like it" because it flies in the face of what we now know about human sexuality.

And remember rape is a normal variant of human sexuality, as is pedophilia. Being a normal variant tells us about the morality of the behavior.

Those activities are deviant variations of human sexuality and harmful to the social order. Homosexuality is not...apart from socially disruptive bigots who persecute homosexuals.

[Tassman]

Of course God is necessary, we could never be truly loving and peaceful without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We are demonstrably loving and peaceful; our communities are based upon such virtues. There is no reason to think that such behaviour depends upon God or the Holy Spirit, nor is there any good reason to think that such fanciful entities even exist.

Nor is there any real reason to be loving and peaceful if the opposite serves ones selfish desires.