Objective Morals Debate (Atheists only)

[waitasec]

How is that relevant?

our natural instinct is survival which is selfish...it's not instinctual to think of the whole but our rationality does which is where morality comes to play. that is what separates us from animals

 

[9Westy9]

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.

And if they did they'd go extinct pretty quickly. Therefore killing of your own species (at least in your own society) is viewed as 'immoral'.

There can be a 'reason' for any morals.

uh.. Yes?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

our natural instinct is survival which is selfish...

Just because it is an instinct doesn't mean we have to follow it. If we have automatic reactions defending us, who cares? We can't avoid that.

Conscious reactions are unnecessary though, as is everything.

it's not instinctual to think of the whole but our rationality does which is where morality comes to play.

Unconscious morality, oh well, that also varies.

that is what separates us from animals

We are animals...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

And if they did they'd go extinct pretty quickly. Therefore killing of your own species (at least in your own society) is viewed as 'immoral'.

Still not answering me... Why is it viewed as immoral?

"This is immoral." "Why?" "Because this is doesn't happen." "Why is that important?" "Because it is immoral." Is where our argument is at.

uh.. Yes?

So might as well follow every moral claimed to man, including sadistic morals also pacifist morals... Contradiction?

 

[Willamena]

So might as well follow every moral claimed to man, including sadistic morals also pacifist morals... Contradiction?

Why?

.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why?

.

Why what?

 

[Willamena]

Why what?

Why "follow" a moral just because it has a reason?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why "follow" a moral just because it has a reason?

That's exactly what I'm asking.

 

[waitasec]

Just because it is an instinct doesn't mean we have to follow it.

can you explain that for me?

If we have automatic reactions defending us, who cares? We can't avoid that.

right...

Conscious reactions are unnecessary though, as is everything.

it is what you make it though

Unconscious morality, oh well, that also varies.



We are animals...

do animals rationalize or do they think everything is about them?

 

[9Westy9]

Still not answering me... Why is it viewed as immoral?

"This is immoral." "Why?" "Because this is doesn't happen." "Why is that important?" "Because it is immoral." Is where our argument is at.

killing is wrong because it goes against what we are made to do. Simple as that. The golden rule doesn't need to be explained as it's an axiom (self evidently true). We can observe that people view killing as wrong by how they act around people.

So might as well follow every moral claimed to man, including sadistic morals also pacifist morals... Contradiction?

what reasons are given for sadistic and pacifistic morals?

 

[Willamena]

That's exactly what I'm asking.

You're not making much sense.

If I follow correctly, you've construed that "objective morals" are implications of "good and evil" that must "apply to everyone," even "pacifists and sadists," presumably in all situations. If it's "good" for one, it's good for all; if it's "evil" for one, it's evil for all. You also agree that "good/evil" are opinions/beliefs. So your argument apparently is that because we do not all believe the same thing, "good or evil", about things, there is no objective morality?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

can you explain that for me?

Well, unless it is an unconscious reaction, we don't have to follow the instinct's goal.

right...

Sarcastic or realistic?

it is what you make it though

Yep, and all I'm saying is that what we make it doesn't fit everybody, otherwise I agree.

do animals rationalize or do they think everything is about them?

They have their own type of reasoning, just because it isn't recognizable because it isn't seemingly an anthropomorphic-like culture doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps if you want to continue debating about humans not being animals you should start another thread, because I get pretty aggressive and would probably take us off track in this thread.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

killing is wrong because it goes against what we are made to do.

That's why I tried to avoid theism, because it eventually leads down to "God made us to do this".

Simple as that. The golden rule doesn't need to be explained as it's an axiom (self evidently true). We can observe that people view killing as wrong by how they act around people.

Not everybody feels that way about killing.

How is it self evidently true? Just because it has reason behind it?

what reasons are given for sadistic and pacifistic morals?

For example, a sadist would like torturing people, a pacifist would try to avoid violence.

 

[Willamena]

That's why I tried to avoid theism, because it eventually leads down to "God made us to do this".

It doesn't have to be "god" that makes us the way we are --society structures us just as efficiently.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You're not making much sense.

If I follow correctly, you've construed that "objective morals" are implications of "good and evil" that must "apply to everyone," even "pacifists and sadists," presumably in all situations.

Nope, not construed that at all, I was replying when he said "it is a reasonable moral".

If it's "good" for one, it's good for all; if it's "evil" for one, it's evil for all.

If someone believes in absolute morals, then yes.

You also agree that "good/evil" are opinions/beliefs. So your argument apparently is that because we do not all believe the same thing, "good or evil", about things, there is no objective morality?

Exactly.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It doesn't have to be "god" that makes us the way we are --society structures us just as efficiently.

But then we could ask why society's moral structure are absolutely right, etc.

 

[Willamena]

But then we could ask why society's moral structure are absolutely right, etc.

That's the tinker-toy asking why it's been put together. Can it reasonably answer that question?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's the tinker-toy asking why it's been put together. Can it reasonably answer that question?

Explain.

 

[Penumbra]

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?

Why achieve those goals?

Why?

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

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.

Why follow what is preferable?

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

If a person defines their self as the type of person that is willing to kill, desiring of agony for themselves, purposely pursuing that which is purposely unhealthy, or other nonsensical things, then they are entitled to. They can run around in traffic or roll around in poop if it makes them suffer like they want. :sarcastic

The context of objective morals usually has a background context. That is, the question usually arises in this sort of way, "if you don't believe in god, why not murder, rape and steal? Why do what is good, and how can there be good or evil?" And the answer is pretty elementary: just like the person asking the question, the person answering the question prefers peace, happiness, and flourishing, and there are objectively better or worse ways to meet those goals than others.

If, however, a person doesn't even share the basic goals, there's not much to discuss. If the axiom of eudaimonia being preferable to suffering is lost on them, then the best one can do is wish them well and move on. If they want to die or inflict suffering on their selves, then they can do so. If they want to do so to others, a cooperative force will likely eventually stop them. Either way, the chance of them breeding and having kids that breed themselves isn't too high, their moral systems are unlikely to catch on because they are inherently self-destructive.

That's why the topic of objective morality is separated into two parts: better ways of achieving a given goal, and agreeing on a goal to begin with. There's not much to discuss concerning medicine if the participant actively prefers to be unhealthy.

 

[Willamena]

You also agree that "good/evil" are opinions/beliefs. So your argument apparently is that because we do not all believe the same thing, "good or evil", about things, there is no objective morality?

Exactly.

I believe there are no such beliefs about "good" that anyone can propose that fit "if it's good for me, it's good for everyone," etc. If anyone suggested this, they were in error (converse fallacy of accident). On the other hand, a morality that's objective does exist in the idea that, because of similiarities in societies that essentially stem from how we interact, our societies can uniformally structure us to believe certain things in certain ways. Further, we are so structed to interact in certain ways that essentially shape societies. We are truly self-made creatures.

In other words, we can believe that "if it's good for everyone, it's good for me." We constantly compare our actions and achievements with those of others and emulate each other; we challenge each other to conform, and sometimes to not conform; we shape how society will shape us, and measure ourselves by how well we fit. When it comes to 'good' or 'bad', our conscience is that measuring tool: shame, guilt, pride, honour and duty.

You might be interested to read some Confucius.