Morality without God?
Carl M
Jason Brown wrote:
>
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Technically, if morals are dictated from a deity then those morals are
subjective, being based upon the opinion of a deity.
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
Dan Fake
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given
Every deed is a natural result, period. As to whether
or not you feel guilty or good about it, see religion
(and your mom and your dad and your society and
your culture and your peers and your other influences,
genetic and memetic) for a clue.
- - -
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
John Kang
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
I'm not sure whether or not I can speak for all atheists/agnostics, however,
I think you'll find that most view the moral system in which we hold to be
about as universal as our concept of beauty, or rather, what counts as
having it. Morality is determined by society, every culture has a different
average moral system. In the past, and even present day, religions have had
vast impacts and have been a major part of culture, therefore, it has
influenced the moral system for many of the Western and European
civilizations. However, it seems to be a habit for theists (particularly
Christians) to get the notion that they are the de facto. That in fact,
they are the sole source of morality and society is secondary. Not only is
this incredibly arrogant, self-centered, and just plain wrong, it is
annoying.
Fred Stone
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
People live in societies. Morals and manners tell people how to do that.
Moral rules are necessarily subjective, because they are directed towards
motives and states of mind which direct actions.
There is, however, an objective component, which may be called "damage".
Just about every society considers the infliction of damage upon a person
to be immoral unless that damage is offset by some good to that same
person.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
BAAWA Brewmaster
I must be all here, 'cause I ain't all there.
Michael Painter
"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
of the fundie who is not aware enough of the history of his own religion to
see how subjective it is.
From what goes on here there, if it is objective, there is at most one xian
practicing it. When he gets to heaven (we all know how sinful women are), he
will be alone and may let god stay.
Josef Balluch
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
"God given" morality cannot be objective. Plato recognized the problem
when he observed that god given morals are subject to the whim of the
deity, and could thus change at any time. Truly objective morals would
have to exist independent of the deity, and be free of any divine
influence.
In answer to your question, if an objective morality exists then it
would only be possible if it is not "God given".
Regards,
Josef
Without a doubt the greatest injury of all was done by basing morals
on myth. For, sooner or later, myth is recognized for what it is, and
disappears. Then morality loses the foundation on which it has been
built.
-- Lord Samuel
Jim Burns
>
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and
> therefore objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary
> terms, then I am intrigued how some still believe that morality
> can still be objective, with the implication there are moral
> laws we all agree on that are true for everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
> "God"?
I offer more of an observation than an argument tonight.
When kings justified their power by claiming it came from God, and
certain radicals called for (Gasp!) commoners to take power into
their own hands, I believe there were claims that these unwashed
masses would dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war
of all-against-all.
I hope that you agree with me that we have done a pretty good
job (not perfect) of ruling ourselves politically without the
threat of hellfire to enforce our government's edicts. (I'm
thinking near-globally here. Political threats of hellfire are
out of fashion these days almost everywhere, even in monarchies.)
I'm curious what you think would happen if (Gasp!) we chose to
rule ourselves ethically without the threat of hellfire to
enforce whatever morals we arrive at. You wouldn't be thinking
we'd dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war of
all-against-all, would you?
Yours,
Jim Burns
John Popelish
>
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Jason, before you have any business worrying about morals without god,
you should think a bit more about your conclusion that your belief
based morality is objective, and from a god.
Every religion and every believer has their own opinions about what
some imagined god wishes, commands and cares about. And those
opinions are all over the map. If some (any, several, many?) god has
provided an "objective" morality for mankind, why do almost no
randomly selected believers agree on exactly what that standard is?
In other words, morality based on god beliefs is completely
subjective. So there is really no difference in the relative
subjectivity of morality among believers compared to the morality of
nonbelievers. All is based upon opinion.
--
John Popelish
Ben Long
and is above changing morals and so they are as good as objective. please
define how you are using the word objective because morals could be say
objective for the christian God in being the ten commandments.
Ben
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C1815...@sympatico.ca...
Don Kresch
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> let us all know that:
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
>the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>everyone.
>
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Do a search on contractarianism.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man
Andrew C.
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote:
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
>the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>everyone.
>
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Ask yourself:
What is a human being?
What is proper for a human being given that definition?
Answer those questions and you pretty much what could be called an
objective morality.
Andrew C.
wrote:
What then, if you were left without hellfire, would you do to enforce
morality?
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
The golden rule.
/\tomkinder
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Something that is wrong, IMO, is something that hurts or affects someone
else. If you choose to destroy your life, it is your choice, but once you
try to destroy someone else's, you've crossed a line.
> --
>
> Jason
>
<sigsnip>
--
/\tom
aa #1984
/\tomkinder
news:MITR7.129020$8a.91...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
Hear hear! :盾
/\tomkinder
news:3C181906...@osu.edu...
> Jason Brown wrote:
> >
> > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and
> > therefore objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary
> > terms, then I am intrigued how some still believe that morality
> > can still be objective, with the implication there are moral
> > laws we all agree on that are true for everyone.
> >
> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
> > "God"?
>
> I offer more of an observation than an argument tonight.
>
> When kings justified their power by claiming it came from God, and
> certain radicals called for (Gasp!) commoners to take power into
> their own hands, I believe there were claims that these unwashed
> masses would dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war
> of all-against-all.
This is still the argument in place, only it tends to be Presidents and
Prime Ministers making it now.
> I hope that you agree with me that we have done a pretty good
> job (not perfect) of ruling ourselves politically without the
> threat of hellfire to enforce our government's edicts. (I'm
> thinking near-globally here. Political threats of hellfire are
> out of fashion these days almost everywhere, even in monarchies.)
The only way we could rule ourselves would be through small autonomous
collectives, mainly found in the roots of true anarcho-communism. People
make their own choices about EVERYTHING and no one can be oppressed, unlike
through government and religious persecution (also entailing persecution of
the non-religious).
> I'm curious what you think would happen if (Gasp!) we chose to
> rule ourselves ethically without the threat of hellfire to
> enforce whatever morals we arrive at. You wouldn't be thinking
> we'd dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war of
> all-against-all, would you?
;P of course we would, that's chaos. However, please don't confuse the
"standard" dictionary term of anarchy with chaos, they are not the same.
> Yours,
> Jim Burns
Clot...@ieee.org
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
>the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>everyone.
>
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Reverse BOP as always. Why do fundies always think this way.
>
>--
>
>Jason
>
>http://wickedmoon.com
>
>Remove ZZZ from email in replies
>
>
>
Wolf333
--
____
"HOLY JUMPING MOTHER O'GOD IN A SIDE-CAR WITH CHOCOLATE JIMMIES AND A
LOBSTER BIB!!!"
- Sam & Max
Michael Wolfe - But a meer speck in the freakin universe
AA# 1912
____
"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
"As to the (utterly absurd) proposition that one cannot be moral absent a
belief in a deity, here's the indisputable truth: morality is not a
"belief,"
morality is *behavior*." - Andrew Vacchs
Rich Goranson
>> morality?
>
>The golden rule.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#1999)
In Memoriam - The US Constitution
born: 17 September 1787
died: 26 October 2001
johac
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote:
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Morality, like human social organization and culture has evolved over time.
What we call 'morals', are widely accepted rules of behavior that have been
practiced over a long time, e. g. prohibitions against killing one's own
family or clan members.
>
> --
>
> Jason
>
> http://wickedmoon.com
>
> Remove ZZZ from email in replies
>
>
>
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
It was the schoolboy who said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910).
J. Flachs
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote:
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Any reason why you need gods (plural, please; you have more than one)
to be moral?
In order to behave 'good' you need a bribe?
In order to prevent 'bad' you need blackmail?
It doesn't work at all any religion, does it?
Heathen Bastard
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote:
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I
> am intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be
> objective, with the implication there are moral laws we all agree on
> that are true for everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Don't be silly. "Objective morality" is a fiction and always has been.
Morals are born of culture, primarily of the religious aspect of any
given culture. There are *ho* morals that are equal across all known
cultures - so all morla judgements are subjective.
Personally, I have no morals. I have _conditional ethics_, instead.
--
// "If you're not part of the solution, then I'll \\
\\ just get a stronger solvent." --Me //
\\===\\ Heathen Bastard: BAAWA Knight, //===//
\\===\\ cussard extraordinaire, certified loon //===//
Andrew C.
And that is ...
Denis Loubet
"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
I don't get it.
Why does "god given" mean objective? Why doesn't "Joe Blow given" mean
objective as well?
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Easy. Since morality has to do with principles that allow people to live
together, it's simple:
There are behaviors that are objectively destructive to people living
together. Those behaviors are objectively bad.
There are behaviors that are objectively supportive of people living
together. Those behaviors are objectively good.
No gods necessary.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Frank Downey
"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
You're not going to hear me make one--because I don't buy "objective
morality". Not even for xtians--*everybody* picks and chooses.
Even the all-hallowed Ten Commandments--how many people do you think take
"keep holy the sabbath" as seriously as "thou shalt not kill"?
Let me tell you--not many. Trust me, I work in retail, and have for a number
of years. Shopping is not "keeping holy the sabbath".
AFAIC, the only thing even remotely objective about morality is the Golden
Rule. And even *that* is not black and white.
Frank
Mark Whickman
Andrew C. <email@dress> wrote in message
news:q0qg1ug0vn7etjhve...@4ax.com...
Who has the most gold rules of course. Gold may be substituted for any other
high value material.
George Ricker
"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote:
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
On what do you base the views that there is a morality that is "God
given," that it is objective and that you know what it is? Atheists
don't believe in gods, so we obviously don't believe that your cosmic
super critter is the source of anything, much less morality.
The truth is that there is no such moral code. Religions can't even
agree on what is moral and what is not. Indeed some of the most profound
disagreements over what is and is not moral have been between those who
believed in one version of the god hypothesis and those who believed in
another. There also have been heated battles - in some cases literal
"battles" - among different sects of the same religions over what is and
is not "moral."
It's quite apparent both from the teachings of the worlds religions and
the conduct of those that follow them that either there is no such thing
as a "God-given" objective moral code or, if there is, it's as much a
mystery to believers as it is to those who aren't.
In a recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer Arthur C. Clarke noted, ³The
greatest tragedy in mankind¹s entire history may be the hijacking of
morality by religion.²(Skeptical Inquirer, September/October, 2001,
³Arthur C. Clarke¹s Credo,² pp 62)
The biological impulses which form the antecedents for human morality
have their origin in our own animal nature and, in some cases, can be
seen in the behavior of other mammals, especially our fellow primates.
The moral codes articulated by human societies are always contingent on
the nature of those societies and do evolve over time.
Morality - whether you think it came from a god or not - is not now and
never has been fixed and immutable. It always changes from culture to
culture and, sometimes within cultures, over time. If you doubt that, I
refer you to any decent history text or to the history of whatever
religion you follow.
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
What arguments can you make that defend the proposition that such a
morality exists at all?
--
George Ricker
"Goddidit" is not an answer. It is a pietistic
method of begging all questions.
Andrew C.
So how much does it cost to become ruler?
Mark Whickman
Andrew C. <email@dress> wrote in message
If you can afford a stealth bomber you can rule a large country.
Jim (Red)
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
>the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>everyone.
>
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Classifying things as objective and subjective is a metaphysical
activity and is irrelevant to atheism.
It might be more meaningful to think of morality as a system for
achieving ends, such as survival of a society. Then, what supports
that end whether it is 'don't walk off cliffs' (which is a rule that
respects gravity) or 'don't talk back to your parents' can be judged
against the end that is is supposed to support. What distinguished
moral rules is that they are reinforced by the use of emotion, they
are 'enshrined' in religion (itself a system of social control) etc.
Jim
Jim (Red)
The question was about enforcement. Do you mean the golden ruler?
Jim
Chris Nelson
news:3C1805ED...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jason Brown wrote:
> >
> > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> > everyone.
> >
> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
> subjective, being based upon the opinion of a deity.
And whether that deity exists or not, morality is often based in the
opinions of the people who claim to speak for that deity, also making
morality subjective.
The entire "pro-life" movement is rooted in the claims of certain religious
leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
--
Chris
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
Chris Nelson
>
> > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> > everyone.
> >
> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
>
>
> when he observed that god given morals are subject to the whim of the
> deity, and could thus change at any time. Truly objective morals would
> have to exist independent of the deity, and be free of any divine
> influence.
>
> In answer to your question, if an objective morality exists then it
> would only be possible if it is not "God given".
Yes, this is the Euthyphro dilemma. "Is it good because it is loved by the
gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is good?"
Chris Nelson
news:q0qg1ug0vn7etjhve...@4ax.com...
As stated so eloquently by Confucius: "Ji suo bu yu, wu shi yu ren."
Oh. You need a translation.
"What you do not desire for yourself, do not impose onto others."
Actually, I would posit that *reason* is necessary to enforce morality. The
Golden Rule is logically sound, as is the concept of justice.
Chris Nelson
I don't know about becoming a rler, but it's pretty cheap to buy a ruler at
Office Depot or the school supply aisle at K-Mart.
MEow
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:45:52 -0000 wrote:
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
>the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>everyone.
>
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
That no evidence has been given to prove the existence of your deity?
That it will just end up with how a few human priests interpret what
they believe to be the word of their deity?
That theocracy is a very, very bad idea?
That morality has to do with humans and how they deal with each other,
and not how they get to heave the fastest?
That since morality is about this reality, then it makes more sense to
find out, directly what works in this reality, by looking at it, in
stead of going by how a few priests interpret what they believe to be
the word of their deity?
Need any more reasons?
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambiguous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Sheddism is a state of mind, not a nationalitæt, innit?" Helen D. Vecht (Sheddie)
Elf Sternberg
"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> writes:
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
>with the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true
>for everyone.
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
There aren't any. There aren't any even if there is a "God."
Since we cannot rationally determine which religion, if any, has it
right, then the "objective morality" religionists describe is a side-
effect of the subjective commitment they've made to following their
religion of choice-- and is ultimately subjective.
Even if God were compeletely realized and appreciated by all,
religion would still be subjective-- it would be at God's arbitrary
whim, rather than the individual's. And while we could no longer be
subjective about religion, we would instead be subjects, in the old "of
the King" sense.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/ (under construction)
Your rage is useless. Your rage will be packaged, branded
and sold back to you as entertainment. Get used to it.
Colin Day
>
> "Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
> with
> > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> > everyone.
> >
> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
> >
> of the fundie who is not aware enough of the history of his own religion to
> see how subjective it is.
Ever hear of Ayn Rand?
> From what goes on here there, if it is objective, there is at most one xian
> practicing it. When he gets to heaven (we all know how sinful women are), he
> will be alone and may let god stay.
Colin Day
Colin Day
>
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
Whether there can be an objective morality without God is irrelevant.
There isn't a God, so we won't accept a morality based on one. If this
means that society goes into the tank, then so be it.
Colin Day
Insy Dius
> Andrew C. wrote:
> >
>
> > What then, if you were left without hellfire, would you do to enforce
> > morality?
>
> The golden rule.
Do whatever you want/need/have to do and live with the consequences.
Insy Dius
Peter van Velzen
news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
>
> Jason
A morality "with God" is actually total immoral,
for in that case the moral rules are not provided by society
but by a single Tyrant, who can do whatever he wishes to do,
and who is not subject to the rules himself
In real fact, moral rules are the result of social interactions by humans,
they form a part of a society, and therefore they can be different in time
and place.
As such they are also subject to survival of the fittest.
Morals from which a society does not benefit have a lower surival rate,
than morals that are actually helpfull in building and maintaining the
society.
Today's "new" morals are formed by by todays society.
As this is more and more becoming a global society,
the morals are also becoming more global.
That is why discrimination of races and tribes is not longer morally
acceptable.
As society is also becoming more individual
The rights of the individual are also becoming more important,
than the rights of groups.
All these new ideas stem from secular humanism,
which is the driving force behind it.
Were it for religion only,
slavery would probably still be acceptable,
and so would racial discrimination,
and ethnic cleansing.
(The Bible support ethnic cleansing in several chapters)
So I am all for morality,
but let no Tyrant - God or Mortal - force you to accept his
instead:
--
"Think for yourself"
Atheist #1107
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
Etherman
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective,
You presume quite a bit here. Why is a system of morality objective
if it's god given? I think the Christian god gives away any claim of
objectivity from the first commandment.
> to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be
objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true
for
> everyone.
>
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
"God"?
What's the evidence that objective morality exists at all? Any
particular reason why subjective morality isn't useful?
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Etherman
"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
news:Jy5S7.21448$va.98...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com...
And these particular religious people don't even understand what their
holy book tells them about abortion.
Etherman
"Colin Day" <coli...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3C18FA26...@telocity.com...
> Michael Painter wrote:
> >
> > "Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and
therefore
> > > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms,
then I am
> > > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be
objective,
> > with
> > > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are
true for
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
"God"?
> > >
> > I know of no atheist who holds any morality is objective, that is
the domain
> > of the fundie who is not aware enough of the history of his own
religion to
> > see how subjective it is.
>
> Ever hear of Ayn Rand?
Objectivism is a misnomer.
> > From what goes on here there, if it is objective, there is at most
one xian
> > practicing it. When he gets to heaven (we all know how sinful
women are), he
> > will be alone and may let god stay.
They can't help it. They got those boobies that lead men astray. I
think they should take Jesus's advice and cut them off.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Etherman
"Ben Long" <ben...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:9v99lk$cp8$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
> One might argue that a diety, in some religions, is the embodyment
of good,
> and is above changing morals and so they are as good as objective.
please
> define how you are using the word objective because morals could be
say
> objective for the christian God in being the ten commandments.
Nope. God changed the meaning of several of his commandments. Or
rather his bastard son did. Murder wasn't just killing someone
unlawfully. It was made to include calling someone a fool. Adultery
was no longer shagging some dude's wife. All you had to do was think
about having sex with someone other than your wife.
Etherman
"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
> >> therefore objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary
> >> terms, then I am intrigued how some still believe that morality
> >> can still be objective, with the implication there are moral
> >> laws we all agree on that are true for everyone.
> >>
> >> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
> >> "God"?
> >
> >
> >When kings justified their power by claiming it came from God, and
> >certain radicals called for (Gasp!) commoners to take power into
> >their own hands, I believe there were claims that these unwashed
> >masses would dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war
> >of all-against-all.
> >
> >I hope that you agree with me that we have done a pretty good
> >job (not perfect) of ruling ourselves politically without the
> >threat of hellfire to enforce our government's edicts. (I'm
> >thinking near-globally here. Political threats of hellfire are
> >out of fashion these days almost everywhere, even in monarchies.)
> >
> >I'm curious what you think would happen if (Gasp!) we chose to
> >rule ourselves ethically without the threat of hellfire to
> >enforce whatever morals we arrive at. You wouldn't be thinking
> >we'd dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war of
> >all-against-all, would you?
>
enforce
> morality?
Force "sinners" to watch reruns of Roseanne.
Jim (Red)
Andrew C.
And that you DO desire for yourself. Can you impose that on others?
Andrew C.
wrote:
Holy Shit!
Quick, please, tell me, I beg of you ...
what do you define as sin!?!?!?!
Andrew C.
wrote:
>>> What then, if you were left without hellfire, would you do to enforce
>>> morality?
>>
>>The golden rule.
>
>He who has the gold makes the rules.
So how much does it cost to be a rule maker?
stoney
Message ID: <9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
>the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>everyone.
>
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
The same for the arguments in favour of morality *with* god, i.e. none.
Morality is dependant upon time and culture. Such is subjective.
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Etherman
"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
Anything which doesn't benefit me.
stoney
Message ID: <9v99lk$cp8$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
Ben, please post *after* the paragraph(s) you are responding to to enhance
communication.
> One might argue that a diety, in some religions, is the embodyment of good,
>and is above changing morals and so they are as good as objective.
The 'argument' is an empty one. Such is subjective as they would be based on
whim.
> please
>define how you are using the word objective because morals could be say
>objective for the christian God in being the ten commandments.
Those are subjective based on whim.
Objective is being used in the normal sense. When a fifteen people from
different religions measure current and voltage in a circuit and get the same
readings such is an objective reading.
>Ben
>
>"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3C1815...@sympatico.ca...
>> Jason Brown wrote:
>>
>> > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>> > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>> > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
>with
>> > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>> > everyone.
>> >
>> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>>
>>
>>
>> "God given" morality cannot be objective. Plato recognized the problem
>> when he observed that god given morals are subject to the whim of the
>> deity, and could thus change at any time. Truly objective morals would
>> have to exist independent of the deity, and be free of any divine
>> influence.
>>
>> In answer to your question, if an objective morality exists then it
>> would only be possible if it is not "God given".
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Josef
>>
>>
>> Without a doubt the greatest injury of all was done by basing morals
>> on myth. For, sooner or later, myth is recognized for what it is, and
>> disappears. Then morality loses the foundation on which it has been
>> built.
>>
>> -- Lord Samuel
Jim Burns
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:57:10 -0500, Jim Burns <burn...@osu.edu>
> wrote:
> >I'm curious what you think would happen if (Gasp!) we chose to
> >rule ourselves ethically without the threat of hellfire to
> >enforce whatever morals we arrive at. You wouldn't be thinking
> >we'd dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war of
> >all-against-all, would you?
>
> What then, if you were left without hellfire, would you do to
> enforce morality?
I would have it enforced very much as it is today: parents teaching
their children, praising or punishing them as needed; neighbors
watching out for neighbors or watching neighbors, as the case may
be; the law being brought out when things have passed beyond mere
immorality. Where is there a need for hellfire?
I think "threats of hellfire" aren't used so much for enforcement
as for justification. So why did I talk of enforcement above? I
goofed, and I'm trying to put it right. I think if you replace
"enforce" with "justify" twice in my previous post, it will come
much closer to what I believe:
: I offer more of an observation than an argument tonight.
:
: When kings justified their power by claiming it came from God, and
: certain radicals called for (Gasp!) commoners to take power into
: their own hands, I believe there were claims that these unwashed
: masses would dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war
: of all-against-all.
:
: I hope that you agree with me that we have done a pretty good
: job (not perfect) of ruling ourselves politically without the
: threat of hellfire to [justify] our government's edicts. (I'm
: thinking near-globally here. Political threats of hellfire are
: out of fashion these days almost everywhere, even in monarchies.)
:
: I'm curious what you think would happen if (Gasp!) we chose to
: rule ourselves ethically without the threat of hellfire to
: [justify] whatever morals we arrive at. You wouldn't be thinking
: we'd dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war of
: all-against-all, would you?
Yours,
Jim Burns
/\tomkinder
Ask Bush Jr, or more appropriately, his daddy.
--
/\tom
aa #1984
Chris Nelson
No. Others do not necessarily like what you like. One man's meat is another
man's poison. Different strokes for different folks.
stoney
<gzZR7.58136$f75.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Jason Brown" <ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9v8jd9$2an$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>> objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
>with
>> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>> everyone.
>
>I don't get it.
>
>Why does "god given" mean objective? Why doesn't "Joe Blow given" mean
>objective as well?
>
>> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
>Easy. Since morality has to do with principles that allow people to live
>together, it's simple:
>
>There are behaviors that are objectively destructive to people living
>together. Those behaviors are objectively bad.
>
>There are behaviors that are objectively supportive of people living
>together. Those behaviors are objectively good.
>
>No gods necessary.
God(s) are the problem not the solution.
Josef Balluch
> One might argue that a diety, in some religions, is the embodyment of good,
> and is above changing morals and so they are as good as objective.
I am aware of the penchant of some theists for playing the
"re-definition game". I am not too impressed by a morality that is "as
good as objective".
> please
> define how you are using the word objective because morals could be say
> objective for the christian God in being the ten commandments.
I am using it in the sense used by Plato. An objective morality would
have to be independent of any observer, including any deity.
Regards,
Josef
Andrew C.
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
>news:lgli1u0ssppokhv17...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:37:48 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
>> <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
>> >news:q0qg1ug0vn7etjhve...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:47:56 -0800, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A."
>> >> <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Andrew C. wrote:
>> >> >> What then, if you were left without hellfire, would you do to
>enforce
>> >> >> morality?
>> >> >
>> >> >The golden rule.
>> >>
>> >> And that is ...
>> >
>> >As stated so eloquently by Confucius: "Ji suo bu yu, wu shi yu ren."
>> >
>> >Oh. You need a translation.
>> >
>> >"What you do not desire for yourself, do not impose onto others."
>> >
>> >Actually, I would posit that *reason* is necessary to enforce morality.
>The
>> >Golden Rule is logically sound, as is the concept of justice.
>>
>> And that you DO desire for yourself. Can you impose that on others?
>
>No. Others do not necessarily like what you like. One man's meat is another
>man's poison. Different strokes for different folks.
Then you should really add that into "The Golden Rule" then, shouldn't
you?
Andrew C.
Chris Nelson
I never claimed that the Golden Rule is the only moral rule.
DarkAngel
> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> objective,
God-given is not objective. It is a subjective judgement from God. An
objective morality would be transcendant of all sentient entities. Objective
morality would mean God being forced to abide by moral laws outside of him,
rather than him creating them. If he creates them, then they are subjective
laws and the only reason why we obey them is because God is mighty and we
don't want to piss him off.
> to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
I think that first of all, you would see that most people don't agree on moral
laws. That's the basis of the great majority of debates and arguments.
As for being true to everyone, I think that this is not a necessary attribute
of objective morality. We can assert that for every individual there is an
objectively superior (morally speaking) action that he could take at any given
moment, without asserting that this action would be the same for everyone
since every individual is unique, with unique attributes and circumstances.
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
There are plenty, of which I won't go into details because I am more
interested in a corollary question.
If there was no objective morality without God, does this mean God exists? Of
course not. Maybe there's just no such thing as objective morality.
--
a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
"If you want to leave the path that you've been
taught, don't expect help so don't get caught!"
The Anarchism FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
Colin Day
Whether it is or not, she held that it was objective.
Colin Day aa #1500
BAAWA-nnabe
Lord Calvert
>> you?
>
>I never claimed that the Golden Rule is the only moral rule.
There is always the Wiccan Rede "An ye harm none, do what ye will." Of course
the Christian response to this completely senseable and peaceful doctrine is
that Witches should be murdered (Exodus 22:18).
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX)
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the
strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. -- Thomas Paine
Jim (Red)
So, following on Michale's thought on whether any atheists are in the
domain of the fundie, I wonder if Ayne Rand (or more importantly her
more rabid followers) would meet any of the criteria of fundamentalism
as that term is broadly meant. I remember being pretty rabidly
pro-Rand after reading Atlas Shrugged as a teen.
Jim
stoney
Message ID: <Jy5S7.21448$va.98...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>"Carl M" <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3C1805ED...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Jason Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
>> > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
>> > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
>with
>> > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
>> > everyone.
>> >
>> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>>
>> Technically, if morals are dictated from a deity then those morals are
>> subjective, being based upon the opinion of a deity.
>
>And whether that deity exists or not, morality is often based in the
>opinions of the people who claim to speak for that deity, also making
>morality subjective.
>
>The entire "pro-life" movement is rooted in the claims of certain religious
>leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
When if these people would read the damned tome for themselves they'd see such
is not the case in more than one place.
Tess
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote :
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:28:09 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com>,
> Message ID: <Jy5S7.21448$va.98...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism;
> >The entire "pro-life" movement is rooted in the claims of certain
religious
> >leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
>
> When if these people would read the damned tome for themselves
they'd see such
> is not the case in more than one place.
Hmmmm, just how many times *is* infanticide described in that
particular tome? Too many for me to want to count them.
Tess
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote :
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:28:09 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com>,
> Message ID: <Jy5S7.21448$va.98...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism;
> >The entire "pro-life" movement is rooted in the claims of certain
religious
> >leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
>
> When if these people would read the damned tome for themselves
they'd see such
> is not the case in more than one place.
Hmmmm, just how many times *is* infanticide described in that
Chris Nelson
news:tsrS7.83641$oj3.14...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Actually, the buybull describes plenty of infanticide, ordered by gawd
itself.
But this shouldn't matter: infanticide is the killing of babies, while
abortion is not.
Tess
"Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote :
>
> Actually, the buybull describes plenty of infanticide, ordered by
gawd
> itself.
>
> But this shouldn't matter: infanticide is the killing of babies,
while
> abortion is not.
Yeah, but if you ask any of the protesters who line up outside of our
local clinic, they'll foam at the mouth and swear that abortion is the
equivalent of clubbing a newborn to death. Not saying that I agree
with them, just saying that they equate the two but don't see the
hypocrisy.
Peter van Velzen
> > >
> > > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> > > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I
am
> > > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective,
> with
> > > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
> >
> > Technically, if morals are dictated from a deity then those morals are
> > subjective, being based upon the opinion of a deity.
>
> And whether that deity exists or not, morality is often based in the
> opinions of the people who claim to speak for that deity, also making
> morality subjective.
>
religious
> leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
And all the while the only place in the bible that deals with unborn life
clearly contradicts these claims.
Pro-life is not EVIL,
it is not even BAD,
for it is totally WRONG.
Excuses for crying out loud.
--
"Think for yourself"
Atheist #1107
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
Etherman
"Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
news:3c1a34da...@news.inreach.com...
Do a search for Michael Shermer and Objectivism. He used to have an
article on line where he discusses Objectivist Fundamentalists.
Etherman
>
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote :
> >
> > Actually, the buybull describes plenty of infanticide, ordered by
> gawd
> > itself.
> >
> > But this shouldn't matter: infanticide is the killing of babies,
> while
> > abortion is not.
>
> Yeah, but if you ask any of the protesters who line up outside of
our
> local clinic, they'll foam at the mouth and swear that abortion is
the
> equivalent of clubbing a newborn to death. Not saying that I agree
> with them, just saying that they equate the two but don't see the
> hypocrisy.
More importantly is that under the Mosaic Law the penalty for causing
a miscarriage was not the same as the punishment for murder. Only one
earns you the death penalty. So obviously the God-given Law doesn't
equate the two.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Patrick Alexander
: If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
: objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
: intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
: the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
: everyone.
Look at the disagreements about morality that can exist within
Christianity, or even within a single sect of Christianity. Belief in a god
doesn't give you moral laws that all agree to, it just gives different kinds
of arguments when there are moral disputes. Instead of arguing about what
harm is caused, who it is caused to, who is causing it, what would best be
done to cease future harm and/or repair current harm, etc, the arguments
tend to be about how scriptures ought to be interpreted.
: What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
*shrug* Who needs objective morality?
Patrick Alexander
`Break the circle/stretch the line/call upon the devil.
Bring/the god's/the god's own fire.
In the conflict revel.'
--Jethro Tull
Andrew C.
wrote:
>>> Then you should really add that into "The Golden Rule" then, shouldn't
>>> you?
>>
>>I never claimed that the Golden Rule is the only moral rule.
>
>There is always the Wiccan Rede "An ye harm none, do what ye will." Of course
>the Christian response to this completely senseable and peaceful doctrine is
>that Witches should be murdered (Exodus 22:18).
Now that, if any, should be declared the golden rule.
Andrew C.
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
Then why declare it a "golden rule". If such a rule is barely
sufficient, and can have holes picked in it, then it should not be
associated with such a valuable and pure metal. Its association
falsely inflates the moral importance of the ethical maxim.
Adrian
Mistake No 1: Not evryone thinks that morality consists of "value
judgements". If a conclusion like that would imply that morality is
subjective, then you would find moral objectivists abandoning that
notion rather than concluding that morality is subjective.
> from God given and therefore
> objective,
Mistake No 2: As you have received many responses to this in this
thread, I'll just reiterate that the arbitrary fiat of a supreme being
doesn't make anything objectively compelling.
> to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms,
Mistake No. 3: All of knowledge is a "creation of the brain". Does
that mean our knowledge of the physical universe is subjective?
Mistake No. 4: The root of most of your confusion about morality stems
from your further assumption that something that is purely a "creation
of the brain" is subjective in nature. So, while you can revise your
statement to allow that empirical knowledge of the physical world is
objective but that "pure creations of the brain" are not, you will
still find yourself in a barely tenable philosophical position of
extreme empiricism. Geometry is a pure "creation of the brain" and
yet it is objective. Perhaps morality is a pure creation of the brain
that is objective for the same reasons.
> then I am
> intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> everyone.
>
Mistake No. 5: Universal agreement on something is not what makes it
objectively true. Not only does there need not be ANY agreement to
something for it to be true, but there can be universal agreement on
falshoods.
> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
1) Empiricism is not particularly more "scientific" than any other
philosophical views and yet is extremely untenable from a
philosophical point of view. You don't have to believe in magic to
believe that there is a priori knowledge. If you think so, then you
just need to find new material. There is plenty of alternatives out
there, just go looking for it on the web.
2) Philosophy (in my opinion) is just like math in that it is a purely
a priori subject. (That doesn't mean that all knowledge is a priori,
by the way.) So, philosophical matters are similar to arithmetic,
say, in their metaphysical and epistemological status. That means
that all philosophical questions are objective and meaningful (as
meaningful as anything) -- they just aren't empirically verifiable.
3) Whether or not you necessarily agree with all of that is irrelevant
to the fact that you certainly haven't accounted for it in your post.
In other words, once you dispell all the assumptions you so casually
make in your post, it is not surprising at all to find plenty of moral
objectivists that don't believe in magic or a god.
Q
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote :
> >
> > Actually, the buybull describes plenty of infanticide, ordered by
> gawd
> > itself.
> >
> > But this shouldn't matter: infanticide is the killing of babies,
> while
> > abortion is not.
>
> Yeah, but if you ask any of the protesters who line up outside of our
> local clinic, they'll foam at the mouth and swear that abortion is the
> equivalent of clubbing a newborn to death. Not saying that I agree
> with them, just saying that they equate the two but don't see the
> hypocrisy.
The question I like to ask protesters, after buttering them up with
questions and looking at all their sicko pamphlets, is this:
"How many unwanted children and crack babies have you personally taken
into your home and cared for throughout their lives?"
The Q
Andrew C.
wrote:
>
>"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
>news:2ili1u0bkoknogiue...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:54:40 GMT, "Etherman"
><ether...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
>> >news:54dg1useq60u14sfo...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:57:10 -0500, Jim Burns <burn...@osu.edu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jason Brown wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and
>> >> >> therefore objective, to a creation of the brain, in
>evolutionary
>> >> >> terms, then I am intrigued how some still believe that
>morality
>> >> >> can still be objective, with the implication there are moral
>> >> >> laws we all agree on that are true for everyone.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
>> >> >> "God"?
>> >> >
>> >> >I offer more of an observation than an argument tonight.
>> >> >
>> >> >When kings justified their power by claiming it came from God,
>and
>> >> >certain radicals called for (Gasp!) commoners to take power into
>> >> >their own hands, I believe there were claims that these unwashed
>> >> >masses would dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war
>> >> >of all-against-all.
>> >> >
>> >> >I hope that you agree with me that we have done a pretty good
>> >> >job (not perfect) of ruling ourselves politically without the
>> >> >threat of hellfire to enforce our government's edicts. (I'm
>> >> >thinking near-globally here. Political threats of hellfire are
>> >> >out of fashion these days almost everywhere, even in
>monarchies.)
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm curious what you think would happen if (Gasp!) we chose to
>> >> >rule ourselves ethically without the threat of hellfire to
>> >> >enforce whatever morals we arrive at. You wouldn't be thinking
>> >> >we'd dissolve into a vicious mob, leading to bloody war of
>> >> >all-against-all, would you?
>> >>
>> >> What then, if you were left without hellfire, would you do to
>> >enforce
>> >> morality?
>> >
>> >Force "sinners" to watch reruns of Roseanne.
>>
>> Holy Shit!
>>
>> Quick, please, tell me, I beg of you ...
>>
>> what do you define as sin!?!?!?!
>
>Anything which doesn't benefit me.
What if I undertake an action that has such an infinitesmal benefit to
you as to be declared of no benefit to you. (which is practically
everything I have done in life, ever.)
Must I still be condemned to watch reruns of Roseanne?
Q
> Jason Brown wrote:
>
> > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> > everyone.
> >
> > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
>
>
>
> when he observed that god given morals are subject to the whim of the
> deity, and could thus change at any time. Truly objective morals would
> have to exist independent of the deity, and be free of any divine
> influence.
The problem here is that the type of God was different. The Greek gods
were far from omni- everything and far from resolute on their
positions about anything. Not that the logical contradictions involved
in Western religions anre better, but it still casts a doubt on this
point of argument. Another issue is, however, that Plato did believe
in an objective concept of morality in the conception of "The Good."
The theory of forms as espoused by Plato saw such things as
transcendent and attainable only through study, education, extro- and
introspection. Pure reason, he said, would lead us to an understanding
of "The Good," a divinity apart from all gods, mortals, or particular
things which only participate in the form of "the Good."
>
> In answer to your question, if an objective morality exists then it
> would only be possible if it is not "God given".
That would be god given, not "God" given. The difference is the first
is a job title, the second a proper name. If you think about it, it
does make a difference.
The Q
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
>
> Without a doubt the greatest injury of all was done by basing morals
> on myth. For, sooner or later, myth is recognized for what it is, and
> disappears. Then morality loses the foundation on which it has been
> built.
>
> -- Lord Samuel
But it doesn't have to...
Dez Akin
> "Chris Nelson" <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote in message
> news:Jy5S7.21448$va.98...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> > "Carl M" <NO_SPAM_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C1805ED...@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and
> therefore
> > > > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms,
> then I am
> > > > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be
> objective,
> with
> > > > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are
> true for
> > > > everyone.
> > > >
> > > > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without
> "God"?
> > >
> are
> > > subjective, being based upon the opinion of a deity.
> >
> > And whether that deity exists or not, morality is often based in the
> > opinions of the people who claim to speak for that deity, also
> making
> > morality subjective.
> >
> > The entire "pro-life" movement is rooted in the claims of certain
> religious
> > leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
The "pro-life" position is actually an ethical, rather than a moral
position if declared on terms of the definition of the beginning of
personhood. If a person's conciousness begins at conception, then that
person has a right to not be terminated on ethical grounds. The
'unborn' person's ability to exist and the contractual obligation of
the mother to sustain the said unborn person is another ethical
question, similar to my ethical obligation to give someone on of my
kidneys at great inconvenience to me.
But as a hunk of cell's certainly displays no qualities of personhood
that is outside of the religeous arena, its quite moot.
>
> And these particular religious people don't even understand what their
> holy book tells them about abortion.
Chris Nelson
I didn't name it the "Golden Rule".
Andrew C.
<cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>"Andrew C." <email@dress> wrote in message
>news:u63l1us3a3tgv448m...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:02:31 GMT, "Chris Nelson"
>> <cris...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>> >I never claimed that the Golden Rule is the only moral rule.
>>
>> Then why declare it a "golden rule". If such a rule is barely
>> sufficient, and can have holes picked in it, then it should not be
>> associated with such a valuable and pure metal. Its association
>> falsely inflates the moral importance of the ethical maxim.
>
>I didn't name it the "Golden Rule".
Then why continue to attribute it?
Abner Mintz
> Then why declare it a "golden rule". If such a rule is barely
> sufficient, and can have holes picked in it, then it should not be
> associated with such a valuable and pure metal.
"Hrm - gold is a pretty metal, but not particularly useful
- it's too soft and malleable for most uses. Perhaps
the naming of the golden rule is more appropriate than you
think?" :)
Josef Balluch
> Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3C1815...@sympatico.ca>...
> > Jason Brown wrote:
> > > If we shift morality (value judgements) from God given and therefore
> > > objective, to a creation of the brain, in evolutionary terms, then I am
> > > intrigued how some still believe that morality can still be objective, with
> > > the implication there are moral laws we all agree on that are true for
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
> >
> >
> >
> > "God given" morality cannot be objective. Plato recognized the problem
> > when he observed that god given morals are subject to the whim of the
> > deity, and could thus change at any time. Truly objective morals would
> > have to exist independent of the deity, and be free of any divine
> > influence.
> The problem here is that the type of God was different. The Greek gods
> were far from omni- everything and far from resolute on their
> positions about anything. Not that the logical contradictions involved
> in Western religions anre better, but it still casts a doubt on this
> point of argument.
As you state below, Plato concerned himself with Forms, or ideals. In
your words, these forms are "... a divinity apart from all gods,
mortals, or particular things which only participate in the form ... "
This suggests that your point above is irrelevant.
> Another issue is, however, that Plato did believe
> in an objective concept of morality in the conception of "The Good."
> The theory of forms as espoused by Plato saw such things as
> transcendent and attainable only through study, education, extro- and
> introspection. Pure reason, he said, would lead us to an understanding
> of "The Good," a divinity apart from all gods, mortals, or particular
> things which only participate in the form of "the Good."
> > In answer to your question, if an objective morality exists then it
> > would only be possible if it is not "God given".
> That would be god given, not "God" given. The difference is the first
> is a job title, the second a proper name. If you think about it, it
> does make a difference.
I recognize the difference. I was simply using Jason's terminology in
order to directly address his point.
Regards,
Josef
MEow
<heathen...@heathenbastard.com> on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:02:41
-0800 wrote:
>
>Don't be silly. "Objective morality" is a fiction and always has been.
>Morals are born of culture, primarily of the religious aspect of any
>given culture. There are *ho* morals that are equal across all known
>cultures - so all morla judgements are subjective.
>
>Personally, I have no morals. I have _conditional ethics_, instead.
I hope you don't mind me asking, but - How do you then avoid falling
into the trap where you will have to accept atrocities going on in
other cultures (FGM for instance), on account of "well, it's
acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I don't like
it, so they should just be allowed to". I'm not saying that you've
fallen into that trap, but how do you avoid it with that POV?
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambiguous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Death is universal. Religion is merely very common." Tukla Ratte (a.a.)
stoney
Message ID: <tsrS7.83641$oj3.14...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
I have no idea. That malevolent tome is gruesome from cover to cover.
Lord Calvert
>>particular tome? Too many for me to want to count them.
>
>I have no idea. That malevolent tome is gruesome from cover to cover.
Let's take a brief little count. This is nowhere near complete.
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of
thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall
not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child
shall be ripped up.
Luke 23:29 "For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed
are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave
suck."
Jim (Red)
>The alien which happened to be occupying the body of Heathen Bastard
><heathen...@heathenbastard.com> on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:02:41
>-0800 wrote:
>>
>>Don't be silly. "Objective morality" is a fiction and always has been.
>>Morals are born of culture, primarily of the religious aspect of any
>>given culture. There are *ho* morals that are equal across all known
>>cultures - so all morla judgements are subjective.
>>
>>Personally, I have no morals. I have _conditional ethics_, instead.
>
>I hope you don't mind me asking, but - How do you then avoid falling
>into the trap where you will have to accept atrocities going on in
>other cultures (FGM for instance), on account of "well, it's
>acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I don't like
>it, so they should just be allowed to". I'm not saying that you've
>fallen into that trap, but how do you avoid it with that POV?
I think you need to justify the logic of this 'trap'. The notion that
"well, it's acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I
don't like it, so they should just be allowed to" implies some sort of
moral 'should' about leaving other cultures alone. WHere does that
moral 'should' come from. Perhaps one's conditional ethics can include
not allowing other culures to do what offends one's own culture to
have going on anywhere in the world. To put it bluntly, aren't you
telling the conditional ethicist how to behave toward other cultures?
Of course, if the conditional ethicist values leaving other cultures
be, what you say is worth asking about, and, perhaps, justifies
calling it a trap. But Heathen Bastard has not claimed having such a
moral rule, as far as I can see.
Jim
MEow
wrote:
>>
>>I hope you don't mind me asking, but - How do you then avoid falling
>>into the trap where you will have to accept atrocities going on in
>>other cultures (FGM for instance), on account of "well, it's
>>acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I don't like
>>it, so they should just be allowed to". I'm not saying that you've
>>fallen into that trap, but how do you avoid it with that POV?
>
>I think you need to justify the logic of this 'trap'. The notion that
>"well, it's acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I
>don't like it, so they should just be allowed to" implies some sort of
>moral 'should' about leaving other cultures alone. WHere does that
>moral 'should' come from. Perhaps one's conditional ethics can include
>not allowing other culures to do what offends one's own culture to
>have going on anywhere in the world. To put it bluntly, aren't you
>telling the conditional ethicist how to behave toward other cultures?
>Of course, if the conditional ethicist values leaving other cultures
>be, what you say is worth asking about, and, perhaps, justifies
>calling it a trap. But Heathen Bastard has not claimed having such a
>moral rule, as far as I can see.
>
set of morals just goes if you say that moral behaviour is just what
happens to count as moral in each culture. See my point?
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambiguous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Barbara Cartland's arj range of cosmetics..."Cruelty without Beauty"
Skipweasel - master of tqt (Sheddie)
Jim (Red)
>The alien which happened to be occupying the body of
>us...@nospam.batnet.com (Jim (Red)) on Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:03:12 GMT
>wrote:
>>>
>>>I hope you don't mind me asking, but - How do you then avoid falling
>>>into the trap where you will have to accept atrocities going on in
>>>other cultures (FGM for instance), on account of "well, it's
>>>acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I don't like
>>>it, so they should just be allowed to". I'm not saying that you've
>>>fallen into that trap, but how do you avoid it with that POV?
>>
>>I think you need to justify the logic of this 'trap'. The notion that
>>"well, it's acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I
>>don't like it, so they should just be allowed to" implies some sort of
>>moral 'should' about leaving other cultures alone. WHere does that
>>moral 'should' come from. Perhaps one's conditional ethics can include
>>not allowing other culures to do what offends one's own culture to
>>have going on anywhere in the world. To put it bluntly, aren't you
>>telling the conditional ethicist how to behave toward other cultures?
>>Of course, if the conditional ethicist values leaving other cultures
>>be, what you say is worth asking about, and, perhaps, justifies
>>calling it a trap. But Heathen Bastard has not claimed having such a
>>moral rule, as far as I can see.
>>
>What I was trying to ask was how to avoid being at a point where every
>set of morals just goes if you say that moral behaviour is just what
>happens to count as moral in each culture. See my point?
Yes, I think it's a valid question, but it is not necessarily a trap,
It requires us to think about how we justify moral expectations of
anyone but ourselves. So I'd take it further: how do we atheists
justify moral approval or disapproval (and the accompanying
enforcement of behavior) not only of those in another culture (or of
the culture's moral code), but of any individual other than ourselves
(or of that individual's moral code), whether in another culture or in
our own. The answers to these questions have to be built into any
moral code that claims to deal with the issues of the real world.
Jim
MEow
wrote:
>>What I was trying to ask was how to avoid being at a point where every
>>set of morals just goes if you say that moral behaviour is just what
>>happens to count as moral in each culture. See my point?
>
>Yes, I think it's a valid question, but it is not necessarily a trap,
>It requires us to think about how we justify moral expectations of
>anyone but ourselves. So I'd take it further: how do we atheists
>justify moral approval or disapproval (and the accompanying
>enforcement of behavior) not only of those in another culture (or of
>the culture's moral code), but of any individual other than ourselves
>(or of that individual's moral code), whether in another culture or in
>our own. The answers to these questions have to be built into any
>moral code that claims to deal with the issues of the real world.
>
Exactly - It's only a trap if you don't look into that issue. I don't
have any answers to it, myself though, which is why I'd like to hear
what others might have thought on it.
Ed. Stoebenau
<ja...@wickedmoonZZZ.co.uk> wrote:
>What are the arguments in favour of objective morality without "God"?
The fact that all of the broad strands of metaethics (with the
exception of divine command ethics) have no need of a
supernatural source.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
Heathen Bastard
nik...@aub.spammustdie.dk wrote:
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of Heathen Bastard
> <heathen...@heathenbastard.com> on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:02:41
> -0800 wrote:
> >
> >Don't be silly. "Objective morality" is a fiction and always has been.
> >Morals are born of culture, primarily of the religious aspect of any
> >given culture. There are *ho* morals that are equal across all known
> >cultures - so all morla judgements are subjective.
> >
> >Personally, I have no morals. I have _conditional ethics_, instead.
>
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but - How do you then avoid falling
> into the trap where you will have to accept atrocities going on in
> other cultures (FGM for instance), on account of "well, it's
> acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I don't like
> it, so they should just be allowed to". I'm not saying that you've
> fallen into that trap, but how do you avoid it with that POV?
It's not really a problem. My ethical stance applies to me. But events
"out there" get filtered through my opinions. I dont buy the "in my
culture, this is acceptable" argument - for some things, I'm not willing
to extend that much slack. I see some things as just plain wrong,
period, but I know that the judgement that I am making in *my* judgment,
and therefore subjective. Those "atrocities" are pretty disgusting, for
instance, and wrong in my worldview - but as I lack the ability to
effectively do much about them, then my opinions about whether they are
ethical or not do not matter. This changes in situations that I can
effect - and I can usually tell the difference between the two types of
situations.
--
// "If you're not part of the solution, then I'll \\
\\ just get a stronger solvent." --Me //
\\===\\ Heathen Bastard: BAAWA Knight, //===//
\\===\\ cussard extraordinaire, certified loon //===//
Q
> qui...@hotmail.com (Q) wrote in message news:<a2c74d83.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3C1815...@sympatico.ca>...
> > > "God given" morality cannot be objective. Plato recognized the problem
> > > when he observed that god given morals are subject to the whim of the
> > > deity, and could thus change at any time. Truly objective morals would
> > > have to exist independent of the deity, and be free of any divine
> > > influence.
>
> > The problem here is that the type of God was different. The Greek gods
> > were far from omni- everything and far from resolute on their
> > positions about anything. Not that the logical contradictions involved
> > in Western religions anre better, but it still casts a doubt on this
> > point of argument.
>
>
>
> As you state below, Plato concerned himself with Forms, or ideals. In
> your words, these forms are "... a divinity apart from all gods,
> mortals, or particular things which only participate in the form ... "
>
> This suggests that your point above is irrelevant.
the fact that western deity structures are viewed as synonymous with
the Good. The Greek Gods could hardly have been equated with the Good
as they were endowed with more falliable and human characteristics.
Well, if not falliable, then ephemeral.
>
> > Another issue is, however, that Plato did believe
> > in an objective concept of morality in the conception of "The Good."
> > The theory of forms as espoused by Plato saw such things as
> > transcendent and attainable only through study, education, extro- and
> > introspection. Pure reason, he said, would lead us to an understanding
> > of "The Good," a divinity apart from all gods, mortals, or particular
> > things which only participate in the form of "the Good."
>
> > > In answer to your question, if an objective morality exists then it
> > > would only be possible if it is not "God given".
>
>
> > That would be god given, not "God" given. The difference is the first
> > is a job title, the second a proper name. If you think about it, it
> > does make a difference.
>
> I recognize the difference. I was simply using Jason's terminology in
> order to directly address his point.
This point is intrinsically tied to the undeveloped point above and
serves as an indicator as to the direction I was headed. If the God
and the Good are synonymous, then it stands to reason that the edicts
of the God are the Good, or at least derivative. This is, of course,
suspect at best as the Western dieties are just as much subject to
their culture as any other, but due to the rhetoric and revealed
scriptures is apparently true to the adherents of these religions.
The Q
Brian Landon, Sr.
> --
> "As to the (utterly absurd) proposition that one cannot be moral absent a
> belief in a deity, here's the indisputable truth: morality is not a
> "belief," morality is *behavior*." - Andrew Vacchs
>
That's a great quote. You should note, though, that the name is
spelled "Vachss," as in http://www.vachss.com, Andrew Vachss' website.
By the way, this was posted on one of those e-mail site of the day
things:
"On December 12, 2001, [Andrew Vachss] will launch a free 34-minute
radio drama on the site, an adaptation of his play "Replay." You can
preview the feature at the link below this tip. This radio drama is
unavailable anywhere else, and has never appeared anywhere else. It
debuts here as a free, downloadable 34-minute MP3. This CD-quality
recording was made during a stage performance featuring gifted actors
Jill Kotler and David Joe Wirth. Wirth recently recorded a performance
of "Placebo" for inclusion on Vachss' "Proving It" audio book
(Publishing Mills, 2001). The MP3 version of "Replay" was
professionally recorded and engineered, and has its own
custom-designed Web site to enhance the listener's experience."
The Url for the play: http://replay.vachss.com
The URL for the rest of the website: http://www.vachss.com
Brian
Al Klein
>The entire "pro-life" movement is rooted in the claims of certain religious
>leaders that a certain deity opposes abortion.
Even though that deity's own holy writ clearly states that he's not.
But what did he know? His followers know better what he wants than he
knows himself. (They should, since they invented him.)
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
MEow
-0800 wrote:
>
>It's not really a problem. My ethical stance applies to me. But events
>"out there" get filtered through my opinions. I dont buy the "in my
>culture, this is acceptable" argument - for some things, I'm not willing
>to extend that much slack. I see some things as just plain wrong,
>period, but I know that the judgement that I am making in *my* judgment,
>and therefore subjective. Those "atrocities" are pretty disgusting, for
>instance, and wrong in my worldview - but as I lack the ability to
>effectively do much about them, then my opinions about whether they are
>ethical or not do not matter. This changes in situations that I can
>effect - and I can usually tell the difference between the two types of
>situations.
Then what makes your set of morals above theirs? I mean - they can
justify saying the same thing about your set of morals, in the exact
same way, so how do you avoid complete moral relativism?
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambiguous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
AFV Bitchiness-Club
"The tele.dk news admin is good
The tele.dk news admin is great
We surrender our minds
As of this date" Thåths (afdaniain)
Peter van Velzen
> It requires us to think about how we justify moral expectations of
> anyone but ourselves. So I'd take it further: how do we atheists
> justify moral approval or disapproval (and the accompanying
> enforcement of behavior) not only of those in another culture (or of
> the culture's moral code), but of any individual other than ourselves
> (or of that individual's moral code), whether in another culture or in
> our own. The answers to these questions have to be built into any
> moral code that claims to deal with the issues of the real world.
There is no justification, there is just survival of the fittest.
It is either there moral rules or ours!
Only that moral rules will survive that are beneficial to society.
When dealing with other societies, a global society arises.
Only that morals will survive that are beneficial to the global society.
Even the "anti-globalists" contribute to that!
(taken a moral stand that is in fact global)
--
"Think for yourself"
Atheist #1107
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm