Dancing David wrote:
Negative internal consequence: the shame I would feel if I fantasied about having sex with my daughter.
Yes, but you choose to feel the shame. If you chose not to feel the shame, then, you would have none. And considered what I said, there are no negative external consequences of fantasizing about that.
Morals are morals: Cgristian why is a belief in god needed for morals. Is that not a semantic distinction?
No belief in God is need to have morals. My assertion is that morality should be irrelevant, useless if there is no God. You can have them, but they serve no purpose as a code of conduct.
For example there may be a burglar who , never steals from 'poor' people, gives ten percent to charity and would never commit rape. It is against that person's morals to steal from the poor and commit rape.
The problem here is always reference. Regardless of the burglar’s morals, stealing and raping is illegal. His morality is irrelevant. Whether it goes against his morality or not, it is prohibited to do it.
And here we have the mayor distinction between moral norms and legal norms.
Loki wrote:
Obviously, and repeatedly! Yes, I still don't really understand your thinking here, despite numerous attempts at clarification...
The problem, I think, is that we are coming from different frameworks. I’ll try to fix that (hopefully).
We'll be in the same place? Perhaps ... I see the differnece between "moral" and "legal" as a practical difference. In theory, they should be the same 'code', but the realities of living in a complex world require legislation (shop trading hours, for example?) that have a practical rather than moral basis. Immoral acts should be illegal. Illegal acts are not always immoral.
Ok, please read this next part carefully.
If I asked you, what is the difference between a boy from Brazil and a girl from Italy, you could answer in many ways. You could say that the boys parents are different than the girls parents. You could say that they come from different countries, and you could say that they are from different races. But you are missing the fundamental difference between a boy and a girl. Forget one is from Brazil and have different parents (forget for now the source of norms). I’ll explain further
When you answer that they are the same code, what you are saying is that says, that boy and girl both are human. And you are correct moral norms and legal norms are both norms. But you are missing the fundamental difference between a boy and a girl. (you know their reproductive systems, the XY thing). Ok, so I will try to show you the fundamental difference between a moral norm and a legal norm. You know, why is one fall under the category of moral and another of legal.
Ok, the problem too, is that you want to say that moral can be a subset of legal and vice versa. The rule that I’m putting (that you don’t want to accept I take) is that the categories are mutually exclusive. Once a moral or social norm becomes a legal norm, it stops being a moral norm. Yes, initially it started out as a moral norm but then it changed to a legal.
What I want you to see is WHAT changed it, what was it that made this norm change category.
Sure, you can say that your moral norms are exactly like the legal norms (you know, you could say, if there weren’t any laws, I would adopt those as my code of conduct) but the thing becomes moot because whether you like it or not, whether they are you own code, you have to follow legal norms. You have to.
Let’s get some definitions out of the way too:
Norms = rules of conduct
Moral norms = moral rules of conduct
Legal norms = legal rules of conduct.
Social norms = social rules of conduct
Examples of each:
Moral norm = I shall refrain from fantasizing of decapitating my neighbor.
Legal norm = The speed limit of this road is 45 mph.
Social norm = This restaurant does not allow patrons to be shirtless.
Let me show you the fundamental difference. The main difference between legal norms and moral norms is that legal norms MUST be followed penalty of punishment from an outside source.
Give me an example of a moral norm you hold and I will show you exactly the difference.
Suppose I were an materialist/atheist and I had this norm of not cursing anywhere including the privacy of my house. What would happen if I did curse in my house. There is no way an outside source can punish me for it.
Now this, there is no way someone can make me stop.
NO, I will be "100% moral" when my behaviour matches my expectations - which it often doesn't.
Yes, ok, you can take this position, but if you wanted, you could be 100% moral every second of everyday, right. If you wanted. And only you know how often you are off the mark. And the mark may be moved anytime for any reason.
And suppose you are always true to yourself, can you have that assumption on everyone else?
think part of the issue here is that you are not clearly separating the issues of "defining morals" and "applying morals". You seem to be implying (or perhaps even stating outright!) that behaviour sets morals - if I want to behave in manner 'X', then I simply define 'X' as morally acceptable, then indulge myself. I reject this - my moral framework arises from both internal and external influences, and is primarily an outcome of applying human reason. Morality is in direct relation to reason.
Let me see if with these comment I can fix the miscommunication.
think part of the issue here is that you are not clearly separating the issues of "defining morals" and "applying morals".
Because it is irrelevant to my point. The source (how you got them) is irrelevant to the quality they possess. Now the applying part, ok, depending on the qualitative nature of the norms, yes, the applicability is affected.
You seem to be implying (or perhaps even stating outright!) that behaviour sets morals - if I want to behave in manner 'X', then I simply define 'X' as morally acceptable, then indulge myself.
I’m stating that this is one quality of moral norms in general. I can change what I feel is right in an instant, what I thought was right yesterday I might not today. So, I can change my moral norms. Now, it is irrelevant why I changed, ( it can be indulgence, enlightenment, masochism, etc.)
Not the case with legal norms. I can’t wake up one day and say, “ok, today I have decided that raping is good, I will rape from now on.”
my moral framework arises from both internal and external influences, and is primarily an outcome of applying human reason. Morality is in direct relation to reason.
As I said, the source of your morality is irrelevant. One day, you may decide to change all of them in favor of a new set, (coming from a combination of your human reasoning and external influences). It won’t change the fact that you can decide in an instant to disregard them yet again in an instant.
Are you really asking "why does any atheist think it is better to be moral than immoral?"
For a materialist/atheist the best strategy is to strive for a social and legal standard of conduct.
Maybe a computer analogy will help. What good is the ASCII code if only you use it?
Scribble wrote:
I cannot think of any rules set in any manner for humanity that MUST BE FOLLOWED. Can you give me an example of the sort of thing you're talking about?
That is my point. Codes (rules) are made to be followed. Why make up a rule if you have not intention of following it.
Think about it. When you create rules (by default) you create the consequences of not following them. What is the use/purpose/application of rules that have no consequences if not followed?
If I may be so bold (and excuse the personal question) can you tell me of a moral rule you broke recently and the consequence you suffered for it? I don’t want to put you on the spot here, it just for illustration only.
Loki wrote
'morals' :…How about - a set of personal beliefs regarding what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour.
I would say a set of rules of conduct (rules based on what is considered good or bad behavior)
'being moral' : Acting in accordance with one's morals - essentially an internal process.
Agreed.
'the process for defining morals' : How one's morals are established/reviewed/revised - essentially an external process (morals are initialy installed by parents/society, then reviewed/developed via exchange of ideas with others).
A materialist/atheist view. It is ok, irrelevant to our discussion.
This I think is at the heart of Christian's position - that atheists will (or should) simply change the rules if the game is going poorly for them, rather than try to lift the level of their play.
No, no, no. My position is that morality is a one person game created by the person and refereed by the person. Not even solitaire is like that.
To me (using your analogy) the only way to lift the level of play for an materialist/atheist (and this is what I know of human nature) is to be accountable to other players and a referee. This simply does not exist in materialist/atheists morality: accountability
Humanism (it seems to me) suggests that the correct course is to develop the rules as a community (using 'reason' as the primary toolset), and to apply the rules (play the game) individually.
I agree that the first part is the best strategy for a materialist/atheist (from now on MA) but the second part is flawed. Once you take the rules to the individual level there is no guarantee that they will be kept intact or that they will be followed at all.
Ossai wrote:
Incorrect on both counts.
1. Morals are useful if they enhance survivability of the individual and the group.
2. #1 deals with both positive (life) and negative (death) consequences - there are of course others but those are the driving force.
1. You are presupposing that they are enforceable in the group, that nullifies its moral nature. By definitions, you as a MA (if you are) believe no one can impose his/her morality on you and you cannot impose your morality on anyone. So, how can you enhance survivability if it’s a non-enforceable, voluntary code?
2. There are no negative external consequences to violating moral norms. Again, this should be the view of a MA. I challenge you to give a moral norm that has negative external consequences. You will not find one that does not fall under the category of social or legal norms, I assure you that the negative external consequences will come from others, them be society or the State.
Can you give an example of a moral rule that is not a legal rule?
Sure I can give you several of mine:
1. No cursing
2. No thoughts of murdering other people
3. No coveting my neighbor’s wife.
Incorrect, society as well as the individual place and enforce the rules.
Please read above, to me and it should be evident to you, society can impose its morality on a MA.
Your entire stance is flawed in that you assume morals originate from religion.
Where did you get this from. Absolutely not.
Plindboe wrote:
*Sigh* Not this discussion again. People have explained it all thoroughly to Christian before, but I guess it didn't sink in. Just give up. Christian will have that belief the rest of his life, no matter how many times people explain it to him
Glad you can join the discussion, yet again.
) How about - a set of personal beliefs regarding what constitutes "good" and "bad" behaviour.
