Non-theist morality

[harleydavidson]

to purex ,,hi replying to your post of 12/23. Are you saying that all values are relative to ones self? So lets see ,air is not good,food is not good ,light is not good etc,,yes there are objective values!! You folks all have to get away from relative or subjective thinking,it's not clever,nor is it productive. All you have to do to destroy the argument is find one loop hole and it is kaput,,you and wilomena tend to be too specific,and narrow . Love you guys but ,we wander too far astray from the initial question,into areas that are new questions in them selves. Instead of defining good and evil per se ,we relate them to ourselves,good and it's obverse are deep and trickey subjects by themselves.....harley d.

 

[PureX]

to purex ,,hi replying to your post of 12/23. Are you saying that all values are relative to ones self? So lets see ,air is not good,food is not good ,light is not good etc,,

I am saying that we are assessing these things as good because they are good for ourselves.

yes there are objective values!!

Value is itself a subjective assessment of quality.

You folks all have to get away from relative or subjective thinking,it's not clever,nor is it productive.

It is, however, realistic. Things don't stop being what they are because we want them to be otherwise. To presume that they can, is called 'magical' thinking.

All you have to do to destroy the argument is find one loop hole and it is kaput,,you and wilomena tend to be too specific,and narrow . Love you guys but ,we wander too far astray from the initial question,into areas that are new questions in them selves. Instead of defining good and evil per se ,we relate them to ourselves,good and it's obverse are deep and trickey subjects by themselves.....harley d.

The concept of quality is wide-ranging and complex, I agree. But I don't see how you can discuss quality without also discussing the criteria being used to establish positive and negative quality. And I don't see how we can discuss the criteria without also discussing the origin of that criteria. And if it turns out that the origin of the criteria is subjective, then the values being assessed can't really claim to be absolute ... at least not honestly.

 

[harleydavidson]

to purex,,re. your 12/23 post. you say the good is related to ones self ,,take one example air is good for not only ones self ,,but for others as well.so now we have a thing that is good ,and we do not have to look to ourselves to establish that , we can observe this universaly so I say we don't have to look to ourselves to establish good it can be observed in others,,.so your first idea may well be wrong.I agree that value is an assessment of quality.Heres a magical thought for you,,if 100 people go out and see the moon and their descriptions are all about 99% the same ,,wld you say that the moon exists objectively? [or wld you be unreasonable]? In your last idea you allude to negative quality? wldn't you want to chose different words?It's hard to inagine a negative positive lol I can however imagine a thing that has lesser quality than another,,Now you wind up saying again the origine of criteria is subjective. Again I judge air to be good for Purex,I have not related that subjectively to myself,but objectively I know air is necessary to all living things,,Purex is a living thing,,therefore air is necessary for Purex.see that wasn't subjective at all..............harley davidson

 

[PureX]

to purex,,re. your 12/23 post. you say the good is related to ones self ,,take one example air is good for not only ones self ,,but for others as well.so now we have a thing that is good ,and we do not have to look to ourselves to establish that , we can observe this universaly so I say we don't have to look to ourselves to establish good it can be observed in others,,.

There are several problems with this example. One is that there are lots of life forms floating around in the air for whom it's definitely not a good thing that we inhale them. Secondly, the fact that we mammals need to keep inhaling and exhaling air is actually a huge design flaw that causes serious limitations for us. So it could be reasonably be argued that our breathing air is NOT a good thing as you claim.

so your first idea may well be wrong.I agree that value is an assessment of quality. Heres a magical thought for you,,if 100 people go out and see the moon and their descriptions are all about 99% the same ,,wld you say that the moon exists objectively? [or wld you be unreasonable]?

The moon exists regardless of who sees it. But the existence of the moon is not a quality assessment.

In your last idea you allude to negative quality? wldn't you want to chose different words?It's hard to inagine a negative positive lol I can however imagine a thing that has lesser quality than another,,Now you wind up saying again the origine of criteria is subjective. Again I judge air to be good for Purex,I have not related that subjectively to myself,but objectively I know air is necessary to all living things,,Purex is a living thing,,therefore air is necessary for Purex.see that wasn't subjective at all..............harley davidson

What was subjective was the assumption that getting what we need is good for us. If I were getting surgery to remove cancerous tumors, would that be "good" for me simply because I need it? What if the surgery ends up killing me? And if getting what we need is not an absolute criteria for something being "good" for us, then couldn't it be argued that our unending need to breath in air is actually a dangerous liability, and is therefor "bad" for us, not good?

 

[Somkid]

From my Buddhist prospective (which is atheist) and hopefully on the high end of morality and virtue.

Is it wrong to kill in defense of another?

Yes, but it is also wrong to stand by and do nothing while another is being unjustly harmed so, that really enters as you said the gray area.

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?

I would suggest that there are always alternatives and steeling is without merit I would suggest asking for food first, you might be surprised how compassionate people can be.

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?

No, but we will be judged by future generations on how we treat them for example look at how we judge our ancestors for slavery, Native American slaughter, Adolph Hitler, etc.

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Killing is immoral and uncivilized.

Sexuality is a goldmine here:

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?

Personal choice, as long as the participations are of legal age and consenting.

What about polyamory/polygamy vs. monogamy?

Personal choice as long as the participations are of legal age and consenting.

....prostitution?

The worlds oldest profession why not as long as health checks and safe sex are in place.

 

[whereismynotecard]

The way I see it, people can do pretty much anything they want, as long as it is not harmful to anyone who doesn't deserve to be harmed. However, if someone kills children, or anyone for that matter, or drowns people's cats, or is a rude obnoxious manipulative *****, or threatens people's lives, then they can go ahead and be killed. Whatever... As long as you have a good reason for killing someone, I think you should be able to.

As far as people being slutty and prostitutes, if that is what they want to do, then it doesn't matter to me. We are all just going to die eventually anyway, so why not just do what you want to the greatest possible extent?

Oh, and stealing is fine, as long as it isn't very noticable. I steal small things all the time, like pens, gum, little trinkets, chalk from class rooms... No one notices that they are even gone, so what is the harm? I like stealing things.

 

[Somkid]

Cold-blooded murder, rape, and pedophilia are Judeo-Christian concepts as you said:

"Yes, I realize that the Old Testament is pathetically immoral by modern standards. It ain't my book, so let's just stick with modern ethics".
Which is the only major problem I have with Christianity you can't pick and choose what you want if that is what God said.

If the Holy Bible is you book well, that's part of it. Law in most non-fanatical countries is based on "universal truth" and philosophy of ethics it has little to do with religion. I live in Thailand (a Buddhist country) you live in the USA a primarily Christian country and the laws in both countries are very similar they have nothing to do with religion that's kind of not a good premise on your part law being based on your religion. Buddhism has been around for 551 years more than Christianity so I could suggest that laws are based on Buddhism. Do you see my point?

 

[Yes Man]

I realize that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics are decent, intelligent people.

Aw thanks.

Is it wrong to kill in defense of another?

Generally no.

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?

It depends. I could not blame anyone for doing that.

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?

I believe so. But this is something that society will probably never agree on.

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Just, in the right circumstances.

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?

As long as they are not doing anything illegal and are not being willingly promiscuous while they know they have some sort of disease.

What about polyamory/polygamy vs. monogamy?

As long as everyone knows what is going on.

....prostitution?

I find nothing wrong with it.

These are all questions that I use my spirituality to explore, and hopefully answer. What do you use?

Philosophy, logic, my conscience. (Yes I have one)

 

[emiliano]

But there's a huge grey area, and that's what interests me. Examples:

Is it wrong to kill in defence of another?
No provided that the term is properly defined, what constitute defence of others must be clearly stated.

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?
Yes, because the person in need should ask first for it not take it, taking must no be the first resort

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?
Yes we do

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?
Yes, if a person is assessed and found to be a danger to others and there is no known ways of changing his/her for the better, then that person should be executed, is it just? Death penalty is not punitive (to do justice) but a risk elimination action

Sexuality is a goldmine here:

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?
The line must be drawn when it turning into lust, immoral? The line must be drawn when it about to become harmful to self or other

What about polyamory/polygamy vs. monogamy?
This are forms of abuse, treason and a break of promises.

....prostitution?
I am all for entrepreneurial freedom, it is providing a service for material gains, not giving it free may be unloving but, OK I don’t know what to think of it!

 

[Francine]

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Before Calvary, God's justice said that man atoned for the shedding of man's blood with his own blood. Now men have recourse to the atonement of Christ's once and for all sacrifice of his own blood on the cross. Jesus was the final human sacrifice for sin.

 

[Dislekseyuh]

Is it wrong to kill in defense of another?

Is it wrong to steal food for one's dependents, if there are no alternatives?

Do we as a society have a moral obligation to provide for the poor?

Is the death penalty just, or immoral?

Sexuality is a goldmine here:

Is promiscuity immoral? If so, where do you draw the line?

What about polyamory/polygamy vs. monogamy?

....prostitution?

These are all questions that I use my spirituality to explore, and hopefully answer. What do you use?

1. Depends on the situation, but yes if the person's life is in jeopardy.

2. If your life depends on it, then sure. But it's not as if people can't get food now a days, or not be able to pay off the food debt.

3. I think we have more of an obligation to get them jobs than to give them food.

4. I'm against it. Death is just the easy way out.

5. Nothing wrong with that if everyone is cool with it.

6. Same as 5.

7. Everyone is going to have sex anyway. We should do away with prostitution laws.

 

[doppelganger]

Jesus was the final human sacrifice for sin.

Not in Texas he wasn't.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

The goal of morality is to eliminate suffering, increase happiness and increase quality of life and survivability for everyone, at least in an evolutionary sense...in my opinion. I think this is morality in its most bare and basic form. But that's all we really need, isn't it? We just need to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Why must we associtiate morals on a spiritual level? The complexities of the universe are too infinate to try to constrain them with a sense of "right" vs. "wrong". One could argue that both "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective to the individual. Thus, having a guideline for humanity to follow in regard to ethics is completely useless, as it is open to multiple interprataions. However, to completely ignore ethics would be shameful to the human race. One should help others for the sake of helping them, and one shouldn't cause harm onto others because it puts humanity a step back on the road to evolution, but not because it goes against any ethical or moral code.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Great questions, Storm. To briefly answer one of them:

Reason, compassion, and facts.

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

 

[yossarian22]

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

Do you have to pollute every single thread about atheism with garbage statements like this? Hypocrisy is amusing the first 20 times I read it. After that, it is just a waste of space.


I'll just answer the last question.
Statistics, and necessity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great questions, Storm. To briefly answer one of them:

Reason, compassion, and facts.

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

Nice strawman.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Nice strawman.

A red herring, actually. But one that must be addressed if you answer is to make any sense.

Do you have to pollute every single thread about atheism with garbage statements like this? Hypocrisy is amusing the first 20 times I read it. After that, it is just a waste of space.


I'll just answer the last question.
Statistics, and necessity.

Hmmm. Seems consistency of thought is of no concern for some. They can't refute the logic, so they aggressively or passively dismiss it.

Oh, well. Nuthin' new. :angel2:

As for the new guy's signature: "A man's Ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary." Einstein was wrong here, for sympathy is sentiment and arbitrary while social ties and education are evolutionary--foundations of sand. However, he was absolutely right with respect to the second part: "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

 

[Sunstone]

In other words, sentiment; personal likes and dislikes are your criteria. It's emotion-based idealism and nothing more.

Reason, compassion, and facts do not sound like mere sentiment to me. Your strawmen are becoming tiresome.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Reason, compassion, and facts do not sound like mere sentiment to me. Your strawmen are becoming tiresome.

Tied together as a foundation for values, its arbitrary. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (to name a few) didn't get up one morning and decide to perpetuate evil. They rationalized their actions based on facts as they saw them, on compassion (or lack of it) as they understood it.

Oops! Wait a minute! Reason tells us the concept of evil assumes a transcendent Law--an objective good. No transcendet Law, no evil. So they weren't "bad" after all. "Good" is a value-judgment; not something that can be reasoned from (non-rational and arbitrary) compassion or facts (which are amoral).

Yes, I'm sure it's tiresome. So why not refute the logic with superior logic instead of begging the question?