Objective Morals Debate (Atheists only)

[Penumbra]

Name one moral that every human agrees on.

I didn't say there are any morals that every human agrees on.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

in a roundabout way, yes


self preservation is an instinct we all have (well most of us anyway)


think about that for a minute.

you are alive and the point is about
[youtube]SKdVq_vNAAI[/youtube]
Bee Gees, Staying alive - YouTube

Just because I'm alive doesn't make it an absolute moral though, I'm sure there are people who want death.

Also, instinct or not, it doesn't determine absolute morals.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

if we are depressed our survival cannot succeed.
and since we are on survival mode...we have no choice but to choose life which is the antithesis of depression.

Why is it important to succeed?

We don't choose life, we just don't choose death and life is automatic.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I didn't say there are any morals that every human agrees on.

So, morality does have objective aspects for any person any of us would be interested in talking to (basically, non-sociopaths), because we agree on certain rather self-evident goals.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this?

 

[Penumbra]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this?

The meaning behind those statements is that practically every person worth talking to (your non-serial murder type, and so on), would prefer to be happy rather than in agony, and would prefer to see a happier world than a worse one. Most people share quite a bit in common even if they disagree on details.

There exist objectively superior ways of achieving those goals compared to others. Determining what those ways are can often be difficult, but that's where history and reasoning come in.

Picking the goals themselves is often the easier part. If a person wants death, destruction, suffering, and so forth, then they'll likely find it. If a person truly wishes to die, they'll eventually find a way. If they wish to inflict harm on others, they'll likely eventually be stopped and dealt with, and their fun ends. Talking about why peace and love is considered better than suffering and agony may make for armchair discussion when a person hits a certain phase in life I suppose, but in practice, it's not a coincidence that most people aren't psychopaths.

As it was, I believe, Sam Harris who once described it, you can compare this to medicine. The axiom of medicine is that it's better to be healthy than to be unhealthy. It's just as self-evident as why happiness is preferable to suffering. Then, in reference to that goal, there exist objectively better and worse paths to be healthy compared to others, even though there are multiple correct ways. However, if someone questions the axiom and says, "You know what, I think being unhealthy is better than being healthy, and I prefer being unhealthy and will go out of my way to make that happen", then that's fine, and they can be unhealthy, and it won't make much sense.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Why do we have to live? And apparently a majority of people have failed that meaning to life.

Because if you aren't living, you aren't alive are you? I never said the meaning of life was to continue living, just that life itself means living.

In the same sense of good and evil going around morals, morals around a meaning to life, a meaning to life that is absolute must be created by an ordain creator, something that absolutely rules the universe, and in the sense God would most likely be the wisest, if not the only choice to get your absolute, universal morals from.

If you are talking about purpose, I agree. If you're talking about meaning, I disagree.

 

[waitasec]

Just because I'm alive doesn't make it an absolute moral though,

but we are social animals who happen to be connected to others on an emotional level. we cannot deny our emotion any more than we can deny our breath.
(especially if it's bad :faint

I'm sure there are people who want death.

of course. because they reject the basic foundation of their existence.

Also, instinct or not, it doesn't determine absolute morals.

i see.
1st of all i don't believe we have absolute morals.
and survival instincts isn't contingent on morals for animals, humans however have the ability to rationalize instincts.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The meaning behind those statements is that practically every person worth talking to (your non-serial murder type, and so on), would prefer to be happy rather than in agony, and would prefer to see a happier world than a worse one. Most people share quite a bit in common even if they disagree on details.

But WHY are the non-serial murder type and so on not worth talking to? Worthiness is also an opinion just as good and bad.

You're just leaving them out of no reason and deciding that the left overs have the correct opinions.. Why? Why leave out those others?

There exist objectively superior ways of achieving those goals compared to others. Determining what those ways are can often be difficult, but that's where history and reasoning come in.

Why achieve those goals?

Picking the goals themselves is often the easier part. If a person wants death, destruction, suffering, and so forth, then they'll likely find it. If a person truly wishes to die, they'll eventually find a way. If they wish to inflict harm on others, they'll likely eventually be stopped and dealt with,

Why?

Talking about why peace and love is considered better than suffering and agony may make for armchair discussion when a person hits a certain phase in life I suppose, but in practice, it's not a coincidence that most people aren't psychopaths.

Is it a coincidence that most people like pop music? By that logic thus pop music is good?

As it was, I believe, Sam Harris who once described it, you can compare this to medicine. The axiom of medicine is that it's better to be healthy than to be unhealthy.

Actually I'm a person who disagrees with this myself, but the reasons I have against healthiness I wont bring up, I'll bring up some Nihilistic claims instead just to show my point more.

But being that I'm one of those that does not believe it, it obviously isn't an objective moral.

It's just as self-evident as why happiness is preferable to suffering.

Why follow what is preferable?

Then, in reference to that goal, there exist objectively better and worse paths to be healthy compared to others, even though there are multiple correct ways. However, if someone questions the axiom and says, "You know what, I think being unhealthy is better than being healthy, and I prefer being unhealthy and will go out of my way to make that happen", then that's fine, and they can be unhealthy, and it won't make much sense.

It doesn't make sense just because you BELIEVE that healthiness is BETTER (an opinion word) Fact and Opinion than unhealthiness.

 

[9Westy9]

Why do something that benefits both us and them?

I guess it's our default setting. Why don't other 'pack' animals just kill each other? Because that would be bad for the group as a whole. If you keep doing it then eventually your species will just die out

I doubt it's 'everyone's morals' after all the long questions we've been through.

see above. Occasionally people will differ from the golden rule but there's usually a reason for that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

but we are social animals who happen to be connected to others on an emotional level. we cannot deny our emotion any more than we can deny our breath.
(especially if it's bad :faint

There's that word, 'WE'. We are social animals, does that work for all? No. Does that even work for all humans? No, there are many humans that are unsocial.

Emotion itself it subjective.

of course. because they reject the basic foundation of their existence.

What foundation?

i see.
1st of all i don't believe we have absolute morals.
and survival instincts isn't contingent on morals for animals, humans however have the ability to rationalize instincts.

I thought you did, then there is no sense in debating if we both already know there is no absolute morals.

 

[waitasec]

Why is it important to succeed?

in order for life to sustain, it has to.

We don't choose life, we just don't choose death and life is automatic.

right. we have no choice... because life is automatic...
we can most certainly choose to die though.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why don't other 'pack' animals just kill each other?

Because there's no reason to. There is no reason to not kill them also, but acting upon a double negative would equate a positive when actions have no reason to be negative or positive for both terms are subjective.

see above. Occasionally people will differ from the golden rule but there's usually a reason for that.

There can be a 'reason' for any morals.

 

[krsnaraja]

Do you believe in absolute good/evil? Do you believe in absolute morals?

How can you believe in absolute morals or something that is good or evil to everyone if you don't believe in an objective meaning to life?

Do you believe in an absolute meaning of life?

How can you believe in an absolute meaning to life if you don't believe in a God?

What I mean by absolute is that it applies to everything living.

I absolutely believe Krishna & Christ who is Absolute Truth. But Absolute Morals I don`t believe. You see my decease grandparents were dentists& they told me they have not seen in all their working lives people with absolutely good molars. They all decay in time.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

in order for life to sustain, it has to.

Why should life sustain?

right. we have no choice... because life is automatic...
we can most certainly choose to die though.

There's no reason to choose to die in the same sense there is no reason to live, but because living is automatic it is as it is.

No reason to change anything, no reason not to but as I said in a post above, why act upon double negatives when they also have no reason behind them?

 

[waitasec]

Because there's no reason to.

the alpha lion kills the offspring of the one he replaced...
life is selfish.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I absolutely believe Krishna & Christ who is Absolute Truth. But Absolute Morals I don`t believe. You see my decease grandparents were dentists& they told me they have not seen in all their working lives people with absolutely good molars. They all decay in time.

Frubals

 

[The Sum of Awe]

the alpha lion kills the offspring of the one he replaced...
life is selfish.

How is that relevant?

 

[waitasec]

Why should life sustain?

ultimately it won't...
but if life doesn't sustain, with in our understanding of it, there wouldn't be life.

There's no reason to choose to die in the same sense there is no reason to live, but because living is automatic it is as it is.

i disagree. people choose to die for their rationalized reason.
instinct isn't a choice.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

the alpha lion kills the offspring of the one he replaced...
life is selfish.

Oh I see now, I said that too many times, couldn't see where you were quoting from at first sorry

Sure life is selfish, but that isn't an absolute moral as I'm sure you agree and that's all I'm saying.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

ultimately it won't...
but if life doesn't sustain, with in our understanding of it, there wouldn't be life.

Why does there need to be life?

i disagree. people choose to die for their rationalized reason.
instinct isn't a choice.

All reasons can be rationalized to some extent...

Reacting to the instincts are though