Christian, Morality, and Materialism

[Christian]

Fun2Bfree wrote:
To a materialist moral norms are totally external and deal with external consequences...

Care to back this up with some evidence or examples?

Scribble wrote:
Well, that wasn't your point. Your point was that what I described wasn't a moral because a moral MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Our communication broke down somewhere. Let me try to fix what I meant.

Norms, moral, social, or legal, are created to be followed. When you set up a moral norm for yourself, you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. If not, why adopt it? This was (one of ) my point(s).

Now, social norms, you can decide to follow them or not, and to suffer the consequences of not following them.

And legal, well, here you MUST FOLLOW THEM. (we all must.)

And I am saying -- which you seemed to miss -- there is NOTHING in the universe that fits your definition of morals, then, because neither you nor I can think of an example of a rule which MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Moral norms, you are correct, there isn’t a single one you MUST FOLLOW. But my point is that you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. You seem to acknowledge that you don’t have to.

But I can think of countless example of norms you MUST FOLLOW.

If there is no consequence to an action, then it is morally null.

Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.

Not ridiculous at all.

I can't think of any good example that I'd also be willing to share. If you feel like discussing these things in more concrete terms, feel free to create your own example.

Because there isn’t one.


Loki wrote:
Yes, but *you* don't know what the 'external morals' are - you have your own version, which you are refining using a process identical to mine. How do you know how 'close' or 'far' you are from getting it right?

Consequences Loki, consequences. If you have constant thoughts of murdering someone, and you never do you believe there are no consequences to those thoughts. I believe there are.

I have a few questions :
Ok

Since you believe that 'punishment' for morally wrong behaviour is external, and delivered after this life ends, does this mean that god would punish 'ChristianA' for his behaviour?

I understand the model you are working with. Please try to understand the model I’m working with. They are different models.

I believe in causality.

If someone throws himself from the top of a 20 story building, and kills himself, would you say that nature punished him for throwing himself. You could see that way. But, we don’t. We see this as cause and effect.

So, I believe that when we break a moral rule, we suffer consequences just like violating a natural one. I believe legal rules are fallible in this regards (we all know this, not all crimes are punished) but moral rules have consequences 100% of the time. I believe this.

We don’t get condemned in the after life for our bad deeds here. (I understand this is the Catholic take on it) We pay here, what we do here.

So if I’m wrong about a moral rule, I will suffer the consequences here on earth. In your specific example, my daughter will give me much suffering later on in life. Now, if I’m right, then she will give me much satisfaction and joy.

Would god punish him even though 'ChristianA' was acting in 'good faith', and firmly believed that he was engaging in morally correct behaviour?

Do you see why from my framework I could not answer this question adequately.

Is it possible that 'ChristianA' is a good, faithful, spiritual man yet has reached a wrong conclusion on a moral issue?

Of course, and the consequences of his wrong conclusion will be felt by him.

Or are 'true christians' unable to reach wrong moral conclusions?

Of course not.

 

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Christian
Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

Not true, whether you're a fanatical Christian terrorist or an ardent materialist/atheist, engaging in promiscuous sex will still most likely cause you to contract and Sexually Transmitted Disease. If something neither harms you nor anyone else, then there's no reason to have a social or moral norm decrying it.

Originally posted by Christian
[/b]It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.
----------------------
Not ridiculous at all.[/b]

It would be rediculous to create morals rules against behavior with no conseqeunces because such behaviour doesn't exist. It's the magnitude of those consequences that must be estimated before a moral or social rule can be made.

 

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Christian
Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

Not true, whether you're a fanatical Christian terrorist or an ardent materialist/atheist, engaging in promiscuous sex will still most likely cause you to contract and Sexually Transmitted Disease. If something neither harms you nor anyone else, then there's no reason to have a social or moral norm decrying it.

Originally posted by Christian
It would be ridiculousness to create moral rules based on behaviour with no consequences.
----------------------
Not ridiculous at all.

It would be rediculous to create morals rules against behavior with no conseqeunces because such behaviour doesn't exist. It's the magnitude of those consequences that must be estimated before a moral or social rule can be made.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to double post.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

If you have constant thoughts of murdering someone, and you never do you believe there are no consequences to those thoughts. I believe there are.

So do I, just not the same process, and perhaps not the sorts of consequences. I believe that my current 'state of mind' depends heavily on my previous 'states of mind'. If I've spent a fair amount of time in the past thinking about murdering my wife, then I think the sort of decisions I will make in relation to a wide variety of choices will be affected in some way. Perhaps I'll be a little more likely to be cruel to a kitten occasionally. Perhaps I'll spend less on birthday presents for my wife. Perhaps I'll spend some time reading Internet sites that offer information on "how to poison a human". Perhaps I'll eventually murder my wife. In short, I'll be a lesser person. Consequences...

So if I’m wrong about a moral rule, I will suffer the consequences here on earth.

Okay - didn't realise that you wanted to extend the 'consequences' to this world, rather than storing them up until the next. Very Karmic of you - sure you're not a buddhist?? Even has overtones of Islamic moral structures - you sure you aren't worshipping the wrong god ? (how embarassing on judegement day if you were!!)

If you were never wrong about a moral issue, would you ever suffer here on earth?

Can I assume then that you think that :

(a) If your life is 100% full right now of happiness, then you must be performing 100% moral behaviours?
(b) If your life is less that 100% full of happiness, then you must be performing at least some immoral behaviours?

In other words , is your "happiness level" directly linked to your "morally level" ??

I believe in causality.

I'm not sure you do, but it may just be a terminology problem. You believe in "(libertarian) free will", which *cannot* be resolved with casuality. But this is probably another topic.

We don’t get condemned in the after life for our bad deeds here.

Why are we condemned at all then? What purpose does Comdemnation serve?

We pay here, what we do here.

Now this is *definitely* an entire thread on it's own!

So if I’m wrong about a moral rule, I will suffer the consequences here on earth. In your specific example, my daughter will give me much suffering later on in life.

I can (almost) guarantee this!

Now, if I’m right, then she will give me much satisfaction and joy.

And I can (almost) guarantee this!

Do you see why from my framework I could not answer this question adequately.

But you have answered the question - yes, god has constructed the universe in such a way that we pay a price for breaking unseen rules, even if we didn't know the rule was there, and still don't know what the rule is after being punished.

The legal equivalent would be :

You walk into a shop one morning to buy some bread. Two police approach you and announce you've been arrested. "What for?" you ask. "Can't tell you" say the police. They drag you before a judge, who pronounces you guilty. "Of what? Where's the evidence?" you ask. "Can't tell you the charge, and you don't need to see the evidence - we've already seen it and it's perfectly correct" says the judge. After spending two weeks in prison, the police drag you out of your cell, and take you back to the shop. "Now don't do it again!" they shout as they drive off. You sit down and try to figure out just what you did in the weeks leading up to entering the shop that could have lead to this situation. Little do you suspect that you have broken the infamous "No red socks to be worn before 10.00am" rule.

But perhaps you'll get it eventually...

Of course, and the consequences of his wrong conclusion will be felt by him.

And those around him?

 

[Christian]

Jet Grind wrote:
Not true, whether you're a fanatical Christian terrorist or an ardent materialist/atheist, engaging in promiscuous sex will still most likely cause you to contract and Sexually Transmitted Disease.

Oh, but a MA would say, this is not the case. (actually in the original thread on this topic, an MA did say that engaging in promiscuous sex is not immoral and carries no negative consequences) He said that all you need to do is practice safe sex.

If something neither harms you nor anyone else, then there's no reason to have a social or moral norm decrying it.

Yes, this is the MA position. To believe there are no consequences to many actions.

It would be rediculous to create morals rules against behavior with no conseqeunces because such behaviour doesn't exist. It's the magnitude of those consequences that must be estimated before a moral or social rule can be made.

And here the main difference, a Christian and a MA would not agree on what consequences come from such and such behavior. Many MA here argued that incest was not immoral or premarital sex was not immoral. I believe they are because there are consequences to these actions.

Loki wrote:
So do I, just not the same process, and perhaps not the sorts of consequences. I believe that my current 'state of mind' depends heavily on my previous 'states of mind'. If I've spent a fair amount of time in the past thinking about murdering my wife, then I think the sort of decisions I will make in relation to a wide variety of choices will be affected in some way. Perhaps I'll be a little more likely to be cruel to a kitten occasionally. Perhaps I'll spend less on birthday presents for my wife. Perhaps I'll spend some time reading Internet sites that offer information on "how to poison a human". Perhaps I'll eventually murder my wife. In short, I'll be a lesser person. Consequences...

I see the turn you have taken. Ok, suppose someone kills (manslaughter) another person and gets away with it. He was driving recklessly and ran over the victim. No one sees him do it, and he gets away with it.

He ponders about this event and from then on decides he will be a more careful driver. In the MA world, there are no consequences to this action. 10 years can go by, and since future events somewhat random (according to MAs) that isolated event will not have repercussions in the future. (unless, of course someone want to argue that remorse will take over the guy forever, which would contradict free will, right?)

So, in the MA world, there are no consequences to certain actions.

Let me ask you this, if you had thoughts of having sex with your neighbor’s wife constantly. Would that make you a lesser person? Is that immoral?

And can you also answer this? Straight out then, is it immoral to have thoughts of killing people?

Okay - didn't realise that you wanted to extend the 'consequences' to this world, rather than storing them up until the next. Very Karmic of you - sure you're not a buddhist?? Even has overtones of Islamic moral structures - you sure you aren't worshipping the wrong god ? (how embarassing on judegement day if you were!!)

This is why I excluded Buddhist from the original thread, because they believe in Karma. But, no, no Buddhism or Islam in this principle, here straight from the source:

Galatians 6:7 KJV
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

If you were never wrong about a moral issue, would you ever suffer here on earth?

If I were never wrong about a moral issue, I would never suffer the consequences of the said morals.

This is like saying, if I never violate the laws of gravity (meaning never falling down) I would never suffer a bruise or injury from falling down. But, who never falls down?

Can I assume then that you think that :

(a) If your life is 100% full right now of happiness, then you must be performing 100% moral behaviours?
(b) If your life is less that 100% full of happiness, then you must be performing at least some immoral behaviours?

In other words , is your "happiness level" directly linked to your "morally level" ??

Here, the daughter example has thrown us off about happiness and sadness.

Let’s see if we can fix it.

I can be 100% happy right now and not performing 100% moral behaviors. Happiness and sadness is a poor measure of results.

It is much simpler and more precise. Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences. Following the rule will lead to the specified results. It is a very prescriptive process. Just like the laws of nature.

I'm not sure you do, but it may just be a terminology problem. You believe in "(libertarian) free will", which *cannot* be resolved with casuality. But this is probably another topic.

Say what? I believe in causality. Meaning, I believe in determinism, everything has a cause and a specific effect. I do not believe in physical randomness.

Why are we condemned at all then? What purpose does Comdemnation serve?

The exercise of your free will.

Now this is *definitely* an entire thread on it's own!

We do have topic to cover in 2004. jeje

I can (almost) guarantee this!

Very funny

And I can (almost) guarantee this!

Yes, yes, yes.

Seriously, what I meant is that if I’m right, she will become a wholesome, productive, well adjusted member of society and her life will be filled with abundance.

But you have answered the question - yes, god has constructed the universe in such a way that we pay a price for breaking unseen rules, even if we didn't know the rule was there, and still don't know what the rule is after being punished.

Funny you complain about this. Materialist have to learn to accept this fact. The universe is governed by physical laws. And yes, the first guy who ate a poisonous fruit died and people learned not to eat that kind.

Did gravity come with a manual? Yes, we must learn to brush our teeth, braking that unseen rule has dire consequences.

And MA have it worse, they live in a universe that is random, chaotic. Luck (meaning chance) plays a principal role in life. It’s just by pure chance that the we are not amongst the 30,000 dead in Iran or the 1000’s of dead in Iraq. It was the role of the dice. The famous flip of the coin it was.

And I don’t agree with your last part. We do come to understand the consequences of our actions. It is prescriptive.

The legal equivalent would be :

You walk into a shop one morning to buy some bread. Two police approach you and announce you've been arrested. "What for?" you ask. "Can't tell you" say the police. They drag you before a judge, who pronounces you guilty. "Of what? Where's the evidence?" you ask. "Can't tell you the charge, and you don't need to see the evidence - we've already seen it and it's perfectly correct" says the judge. After spending two weeks in prison, the police drag you out of your cell, and take you back to the shop. "Now don't do it again!" they shout as they drive off. You sit down and try to figure out just what you did in the weeks leading up to entering the shop that could have lead to this situation. Little do you suspect that you have broken the infamous "No red socks to be worn before 10.00am" rule.

But perhaps you'll get it eventually...

How did people learn to fly airplanes?

And those around him?

When applicable.

 

[Yahweh]

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.

This comment is where my attention hangs, you have a bit of a preconceived misunderstanding.

Rather than give you a series of arguments, I'll save you a great deal of effort:

Ask atheists if there is any use in morals.


My answer:

Speaking as your typical Evil Atheist, morals do happen to be very important. If for anything, they keep people in line and promote positive cooperation. That makes morality a pretty important and purposeful social tool.

One more comment: I'm probably one of the most altruistic Evil Atheists you'll ever meet... what reason would I have to harbor altruistic tendencies... no reason, probably just a nice guy.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Ok, suppose someone kills (manslaughter) another person and gets away with it. He was driving recklessly and ran over the victim. No one sees him do it, and he gets away with it.

He ponders about this event and from then on decides he will be a more careful driver. In the MA world, there are no consequences to this action.

Agreed. There are no *direct* consequences of this action for the perpetrator - that's what "he got away with it" means I guess. I'd suggest there can be (and often would be) severe internal consequences - guilt, remose, etc. These may also lead to positive external influences in the long run.

But yes, there is no *guaranteed* negative outcome as far as I can see.

Let me ask you this, if you had thoughts of having sex with your neighbor’s wife constantly.

Have you seen my neighbor's wife? Nice woman, but ... this seems unlikely...

Would that make you a lesser person? Is that immoral?

Oh...you mean theorectically? Right...sorry...hmmm...(summoning up mental picture of nextdoor neighbor's wife being 18 year old scandinavian blonde)...if I did this constantly, then yes it would (most likely) lessen me. Probably an immoral behaviour ... but Heidi is just so sweet!!!!

And can you also answer this? Straight out then, is it immoral to have thoughts of killing people?

I assume by this you mean that I have decided to kill someone, but have not yet turned thought into action? The decision has been made, the intention exists, but the act is yet to happen? Good question!!! Are thoughts alone, without matching actions, immoral? Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" ? For now, I'm gonna go with the answer "a little bit immoral". On a scale of "Angel" to "Demon", it probably comes in at "used car salesman".

here straight from the source:

I hope you'll understand (but fear you won't) that adding scripture to your case weakens it? Since you agree that interpretation is required to understand the meaning of scripture, you can't use scripture to back up your interpretation. But let's not go there...

Happiness and sadness is a poor measure of results.

I was simplifying, but you appear unhappy with the simplification.

It is much simpler and more precise. Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences.

This sounds like you are saying there is a clear and specific result for each and every immoral act. If so, can you give some examples? What is the "result" for adultery? For running someone over in your car while driving erratically, but not being seen?

Say what? I believe in causality.
...
The exercise of your free will.

You will need to provide definitions for the bolded terms before I can follow you here.

...what I meant is that if I’m right, she will become a wholesome, productive, well adjusted member of society and her life will be filled with abundance

Just to be clear, you aren't linking your daughter's *entire* future to the single behaviour "was spanked with a rod at required times when young" are you? You don't think perhaps the course of her life might be influenced by a few other (and perhaps more influential) things?

And I don’t agree with your last part. We do come to understand the consequences of our actions.

No argument from me - I'm not saying we can't learn from experience! I'm just wondering how you are able to link "moral action" and "physical consequence" with such amazing clarity.

Is disease/illness a consequence of immoral activity?

What immoral activity have 6 month old children with leukemia been indulging in?

Funny you complain about this. Materialist have to learn to accept this fact. The universe is governed by physical laws. And yes, the first guy who ate a poisonous fruit died and people learned not to eat that kind.

Did gravity come with a manual? Yes, we must learn to brush our teeth, braking that unseen rule has dire consequences.

I wasn't going to address this because it seems such an obvious strawman - but then I though if I left it alone you might feel like you'd made a strong point! I can't tell if you're just having a bit of fun here, or if you're serious. If you can't (or don't wish to) understand the difference between physical consequences of physical actions, and physical consequences of moral actions then I'm afraid the conversation is rather doomed.

But I'm prepared to be taught - can you give me a concrete example of a repeatable scenario where an immoral action *always* generates a physical consequence? To overturn the theory of gravity I need to produce *just one* example where it doesn't behave as expected. Is the same true for your theory of "moral consequences"? Do I just need to find one example of someone who has commited immoral act 'X' and not suffered consequence 'Y'?

And MA have it worse, they live in a universe that is random, chaotic.

(edited to add : The universe is "random" and "chaotic" from the perspective of human consciousness. Doesn't mean it's true nature is "chaotic")

News for you dude - you do to! You just need to believe that you can somehow weave a protective web around you and your family by being "virtuous and true". I hope your family is safe and well, but there are no guarantees - none, just probabilities. Such is life.

I believe moral behaviour helps stack the deck in my favor - immoral behaviour stacks the deck against me. But it's still just probabilites - some moral people suffer far more than is fair, and some immoral bastards escape unscathed. Play the odds...

 

[Fun2BFree]

Christian-

start with the notion that the way YOU have defined MA as you call us and our moral notions is wrong. And the way you have defined so called Christian morality is actually possible without any Christian belief whatsoever--that is to say it is entirely based on real material real world consequences..and evil thoughts that do not ever leave someone's head in any way shape or form are not measureable but you keep postulating bad consequences from thoughts and once they get expressed outside that person's head they have entered the world of the real the objective the materialist --in other words wht you have called Christian morality is in fact just exactly what a MA calls morality--things that can be demonstrated to have an undesired REAL WORLD effect are wrong--stuff that has desirable REAL WORLD effects are right...I have given you many examples..and they all derive from understanding the world in strictly materialist ways--physics/biochemistry/neurobiology, evolution, etc...no souls, no God no spirituality is necessary NOR is it helpful.

 

[Christian]

Yahweh wrote:
Speaking as your typical Evil Atheist, morals do happen to be very important. If for anything, they keep people in line and promote positive cooperation. That makes morality a pretty important and purposeful social tool.

Oh, are you saying poeple have imposed their morality on you and you must follow that said moral code?

One more comment: I'm probably one of the most altruistic Evil Atheists you'll ever meet... what reason would I have to harbor altruistic tendencies... no reason, probably just a nice guy.

You know what, I have yet to meet a single atheist who does not consider himself good. I have yet to meet one that will admit to a single immoral act.

Loki wrote:
But yes, there is no *guaranteed* negative outcome as far as I can see.

And here a main difference in our world view (as with so many things)

Have you seen my neighbor's wife? Nice woman, but ... this seems unlikely...


Oh...you mean theorectically? Right...sorry...hmmm...(summoning up mental picture of nextdoor neighbor's wife being 18 year old scandinavian blonde)...if I did this constantly, then yes it would (most likely) lessen me. Probably an immoral behaviour ...

Why would it?

assume by this you mean that I have decided to kill someone, but have not yet turned thought into action? The decision has been made, the intention exists, but the act is yet to happen? Good question!!! Are thoughts alone, without matching actions, immoral? Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" ? For now, I'm gonna go with the answer "a little bit immoral".

The slippery slope thing. Thing can be a little immoral. Would that be 10% immoral? At what % is it unacceptable?And who assigns the % of immorality?

Do you see what my point is. You are the judge and jury. And I submit that humans tend to acquit themselfs or at the very least be lenient on themselves.

I hope you'll understand (but fear you won't) that adding scripture to your case weakens it? Since you agree that interpretation is required to understand the meaning of scripture, you can't use scripture to back up your interpretation. But let's not go there...

I did not present the Bible verse to support my case. I understand it is irrelevant in your opinion. I presented it, because you suggested I might be getting my worldview from other sources. I showed you the Bible holds this concept.

This sounds like you are saying there is a clear and specific result for each and every immoral act.

Yes, correct.

What is the "result" for adultery? For running someone over in your car while driving erratically, but not being seen?

For adultery is severe problems in your marriage. For running over someone, I don't know. Has never happened to me.

You will need to provide definitions for the bolded terms before I can follow you here.

causality= The relationship between cause and effect
free will= The ability or discretion to choose; free choice.

Just to be clear, you aren't linking your daughter's *entire* future to the single behaviour "was spanked with a rod at required times when young" are you? You don't think perhaps the course of her life might be influenced by a few other (and perhaps more influential) things?

You chose the specific example. Of course not. The way the Bible teachs to education children encompasses much more than that. As a said many times, corporal punishment is just one of many tools to educate. And the underlying principle is that children must learn consequences, you see.

No argument from me - I'm not saying we can't learn from experience! I'm just wondering how you are able to link "moral action" and "physical consequence" with such amazing clarity.

Because, you see, for me, a personal relationship with God is not just empty words. I see causality in my life. I can equality moral choices with physical consequences in my lifel. All the evidence I have is anecdotal, from others and from me.

Is disease/illness a consequence of immoral activity?

It can be, yes. Of course Loki it cannot be too.

What immoral activity have 6 month old children with leukemia been indulging in?

None.

If you can't (or don't wish to) understand the difference between physical consequences of physical actions, and physical consequences of moral actions then I'm afraid the conversation is rather doomed.

We already take for granted that you do not believe in anything supernatural. I do Loki. Moral actions have physical consequences.

But I'm prepared to be taught - can you give me a concrete example of a repeatable scenario where an immoral action *always* generates a physical consequence?

This would presuppose that this *field* has advanced in knowledge as much as physics. I can only speak for myself in terms of evidence.

To overturn the theory of gravity I need to produce *just one* example where it doesn't behave as expected. Is the same true for your theory of "moral consequences"?

Yes, the problem is that evidence is much harder to evaluate. People lie, (what I mean is that, they will know their moral choices had negative consequences but wont admit it)

Do I just need to find one example of someone who has commited immoral act 'X' and not suffered consequence 'Y'?

Can you give me the methodology that will go past people lying?

News for you dude - you do to! You just need to believe that you can somehow weave a protective web around you and your family by being "virtuous and true". I hope your family is safe and well, but there are no guarantees - none, just probabilities. Such is life.

But you see, I stake my life in such belief. And I assure, I'm well ahead for it.

I believe moral behaviour helps stack the deck in my favor - immoral behaviour stacks the deck against me. But it's still just probabilites - some moral people suffer far more than is fair, and some immoral bastards escape unscathed. Play the odds...

On the contrary, I believe that if there is no God, immoral behavior stacks the deck well in favor of you. Most crimes go unpunished by the human hand. Most people get away with illicit behavior from human laws.

Fun2beFree wrote:
start with the notion that the way YOU have defined MA as you call us and our moral notions is wrong. And the way you have defined so called Christian morality is actually possible without any Christian belief whatsoever--that is to say it is entirely based on real material real world consequences..and evil thoughts that do not ever leave someone's head in any way shape or form are not measureable but you keep postulating bad consequences from thoughts and once they get expressed outside that person's head they have entered the world of the real the objective the materialist --in other words wht you have called Christian morality is in fact just exactly what a MA calls morality--things that can be demonstrated to have an undesired REAL WORLD effect are wrong--stuff that has desirable REAL WORLD effects are right...I have given you many examples..and they all derive from understanding the world in strictly materialist ways--physics/biochemistry/neurobiology, evolution, etc...no souls, no God no spirituality is necessary NOR is it helpful.

Just what I thought, you can't come out with one example.

 

[daenku32]

Re: Christian

Clearly your definition of Morality differs from regular understanding of most people, especially those that are Atheists. And considering your original claim was directed at them, you should certainly reword your statement.

If I accept your definition for 'Morality' and answer that you are correct in your claim, that answer can and will be misinterpreted by others.

Most people consider morality as a total for rules of conduct that paraller closely to laws and social norms.

 

[Christian]

daenku32 wrote:
Most people consider morality as a total for rules of conduct that paraller closely to laws and social norms.

That parallel closely? What does that mean? Are social and legal norms indistinguishible from moral norms?

What distinction do you make between them? How do you know the difference between a moral norm and a social norm or legal for that matter?

 

[daenku32]

daenku32 wrote:
Most people consider morality as a total for rules of conduct that paraller closely to laws and social norms.

That parallel closely? What does that mean? Are social and legal norms indistinguishible from moral norms?

What distinction do you make between them? How do you know the difference between a moral norm and a social norm or legal for that matter?

Your definition of 'morals' seems to mean that you believe in them so that God doesn't smite you or something similiar. Most people include the desire to follow laws and social conducts (not necessarily all, but definately at least a couple) into this definition. They equate being 'immoral' or without morals to being lawless and without any respect to social norms. You are using a socially broad term to describe a very narrow definiton.

Edit: Here is my correction to your claim:
"Smiting of God or anything supernatural should be irrelevant if you are an materialist/atheist."

With that, I can agree.

 

[scribble]

Scribble wrote:
Well, that wasn't your point. Your point was that what I described wasn't a moral because a moral MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Our communication broke down somewhere. Let me try to fix what I meant.

Norms, moral, social, or legal, are created to be followed. When you set up a moral norm for yourself, you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. If not, why adopt it? This was (one of ) my point(s).

In my worldview, I've always got an opiton. There are no MUSTs. I don't know what kind of thing you're imagining that MUST be done. I cannot think of anything.

Now, social norms, you can decide to follow them or not, and to suffer the consequences of not following them.

And legal, well, here you MUST FOLLOW THEM. (we all must.)

Nonsense. I see many people who break legal rules. I've done it many times myself, and I will bet $10 you have as well. What on Earth do you mean by this ridiculous use of the word MUST?

And I am saying -- which you seemed to miss -- there is NOTHING in the universe that fits your definition of morals, then, because neither you nor I can think of an example of a rule which MUST BE FOLLOWED.

Moral norms, you are correct, there isn’t a single one you MUST FOLLOW. But my point is that you adopt it with the conviction that you MUST FOLLOW it. You seem to acknowledge that you don’t have to.

But I can think of countless example of norms you MUST FOLLOW.

Name one.

If there is no consequence to an action, then it is morally null.

Prove this please. Give me an example of a moral norm that has external consequences. (from the MA perspective, there are no external consequences of violating moral norms.

I've got to admit that I can no longer think of any action whatsoever that fits your definition of a moral. It cannot be something that has ever been legislated, as that makes it a legal norm. IT cannot be something society enforces, as that makes it a social norm. It can't be a rule I have the option of not following (which at last check was any rule). What exactly CAN it be?

I can't think of any good example that I'd also be willing to share. If you feel like discussing these things in more concrete terms, feel free to create your own example.

Because there isn’t one.

I've got to agree. I can't think of ANY rule that fits your definition. Can you help clear that up some?

 

[Christian]

scribble wrote:
In my worldview, I've always got an opiton. There are no MUSTs. I don't know what kind of thing you're imagining that MUST be done. I cannot think of anything.

Yes, I understand this. That why I said you should call them preferences, inclinations, not norms.

Nonsense. I see many people who break legal rules. I've done it many times myself, and I will bet $10 you have as well. What on Earth do you mean by this ridiculous use of the word MUST?

Ahh, because the State (legal norms) are the only legitimate power on earth who can make you do or not do against your will if necessary. This is a truly unique quality of legal norms. It's what sets it apart from any other norm system.

Let me give you an example. I don't know your proffesion or what you do for a living, but regardless, you can be sued civilly (by a plaintiff in a civil court) and if you lose (including all possible appeals) YOU MUST obey the Court. If you don't obey, the State can make you obey. They can use force to make you obey.

Name one.

How about 10?

1. You must be checked at the security check points in an airport (if you want to board a plane.)
2. You must file a tax return
3. You must appear in court if a warrant is issued against you.
4. You must follow zoning laws.
5. You must pay at toll booths
6. You must wear clothes in public places
7. You must not make loud noises (loud music) at night in your house in a residential neigborhood.
8. You must not smoke inside buildings.
9. You must not shout FIRE inside a movie theater.
10. You must not carry firearms inside an airplane.

I've got to admit that I can no longer think of any action whatsoever that fits your definition of a moral. It cannot be something that has ever been legislated, as that makes it a legal norm. IT cannot be something society enforces, as that makes it a social norm. It can't be a rule I have the option of not following (which at last check was any rule). What exactly CAN it be?

Wait, you got all this next quote right:

Scribble's
I've got to admit that I can no longer think of any action whatsoever that fits your definition of a moral. It cannot be something that has ever been legislated, as that makes it a legal norm. IT cannot be something society enforces, as that makes it a social norm.

This next part, is what MA call moral rules:

Scribble's
...a rule I have the option of not following

And you are wrong about this next part:

Scribble's
...a rule I have the option of not following (which at last check was any rule)

You don't have the option of wearing or not wearing cloths in public.

I've got to agree. I can't think of ANY rule that fits your definition. Can you help clear that up some?

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.
Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.
Don't commit adultery
Don't fornicate, etc
Don't get drunk ever (just once)

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

No moral rule has external consequences. This is why, to a MA, they should be useless.

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh wrote:
Speaking as your typical Evil Atheist, morals do happen to be very important. If for anything, they keep people in line and promote positive cooperation. That makes morality a pretty important and purposeful social tool.

Oh, are you saying poeple have imposed their morality on you and you must follow that said moral code?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I answered what I thought was a concern of yours.

Note: Morality is not an absolute set of laws which governs peoples lives.

One more comment: I'm probably one of the most altruistic Evil Atheists you'll ever meet... what reason would I have to harbor altruistic tendencies... no reason, probably just a nice guy.

You know what, I have yet to meet a single atheist who does not consider himself good. I have yet to meet one that will admit to a single immoral act.

Yep, most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] have a tendency to consider themselves to be good people.

Most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] would have a hard time trying to say they have never committed an immoral act while being honest at the same time.

If you put an atheist or other person on the spot and asked them "What are some immoral things you've done", it might create a bit of confusion. People have a habit of assuming "immoral" is equivelant to "absolute evil".

Its also helpful to know about a little thing called Moral Relativism. Quick description: There is rarely a such thing as absolute morality that can be applied equally and universally across humanity. And with Moral Relativism, keep you sociology in mind: While some person's morals might differ from another's morals (such as instances involving the Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life crowd), for the most part people have a tendency to think alike (such as the fact very few people would consider torturing children for sport morally acceptable).

Again, your concern that atheists wouldnt admit to immoral acts is a bit premature. Either you just arent asking, or you just arent listening, I find it hard to believe that not a single atheist you have met would admit to even a smidgen of immoral behavior. If you still have concerns, start a thread called "Confess your sins" or something, then plenty of the atheists and materialists on the board will answer accordingly.

To answer your concern:

My Immoral behavior: Lots. One of the things I try to work on is not letting my ego become overinflated. And I occasionally busy my time poking fun at others behind their backs for a good laugh (thats a bit euphemistic, but it gets the point across). I've done lots of other bad stuff, but it wouldnt be in my best interests to detail it.

 

[scribble]

Let me preface this by saying if you really meant anything you said in your last post, then I must be done with you. This has become a ridiculous game.

Nonsense. I see many people who break legal rules. I've done it many times myself, and I will bet $10 you have as well. What on Earth do you mean by this ridiculous use of the word MUST?

Ahh, because the State (legal norms) are the only legitimate power on earth who can make you do or not do against your will if necessary. This is a truly unique quality of legal norms. It's what sets it apart from any other norm system.

You are deluded. The law and legal system cannot force me to do anything.

Let me give you an example. I don't know your proffesion or what you do for a living, but regardless, you can be sued civilly (by a plaintiff in a civil court) and if you lose (including all possible appeals) YOU MUST obey the Court. If you don't obey, the State can make you obey. They can use force to make you obey.

Then let me give you an example. The legal system ruled that I was no longer allowed to drive when I was 23. This in no way changed my ability to drive, and in fact I continued to do so.

Name one.

How about 10?

1. You must be checked at the security check points in an airport (if you want to board a plane.)

Nonsense. Even POST 9-11, people are able to sidestep the security precautions. We have seen it on the news. In many airports, it's even possible to board a plane by running through the security checkpoint and boarding the plane before the guards have caught up to you. I read just such an account recently.

2. You must file a tax return

Nonsense. There are years when I have not done so.

3. You must appear in court if a warrant is issued against you.

Nonsense. I have had warrants issued that I have never served. So have many, many, many, many, many others.

4. You must follow zoning laws.

Nonsense; you read every day of zoning violations.

5. You must pay at toll booths

Nonsense. MAny people avoid paying at tollbooths.

6. You must wear clothes in public places

Nonsense. Streaking is a time-honored tradition. Not to mention nudist camps, and countries where people are less prudish than here in the states.

7. You must not make loud noises (loud music) at night in your house in a residential neigborhood.

Nonsense. I do this often.

8. You must not smoke inside buildings.

Yet I'm smoking right now. And I'll be damned if I'm going outside to do it; it's like 10 below!

9. You must not shout FIRE inside a movie theater.

I've done that, too. You've got an awful lax definition of MUST.

10. You must not carry firearms inside an airplane.

Yet many do. Odd...

Wait, you got all this next quote right:
This next part, is what MA call moral rules:
And you are wrong about this next part:

If you still think I don't get it by the end of this post, then let me know.

You don't have the option of wearing or not wearing cloths in public.

Just to TRULY prove you wrong, I've just put in a 10-second appearance on my balcony in nothing but my skin. And my earlier description of the temperature as ten below may have been generous.

I've got to agree. I can't think of ANY rule that fits your definition. Can you help clear that up some?

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.

If this is TRULY the kind of rule you mean, then you've trumped me. I think that holding to a rule like this is total and utter ridiculousness. If this is really what a moral rule has to be, then I'm glad to be free of morals.

Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.

There are situations in which this can have real consequences. And I don't mean slippery slope.

Don't commit adultery

There are situations in which this can have real consequences.

Don't fornicate, etc

I'm honestly not clear on the definition of that term. If you mean sex without marriage, there's definately situations in which that's a choice with a real world consequence.

Don't get drunk ever (just once)

If I wanted to be super pedantic, I'd say this is also an action with real world consequences. But instead I'll go back to my response to your first example; if this is really your idea of a moral rule, I'll enjoy being moral-free.

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

Untrue.

No moral rule has external consequences. This is why, to a MA, they should be useless.

Yes, while I disagree with your examples, I finally understand what you're saying. By your definition of morals, I have absolutely no need for them.

I do, however, think your definition is without merit and contrived mainly in order to put forth your argument.

-- Which it does perfectly. You're right; I have no morals. By your definition of morals, I don't ever want them, and I'm quite proud to have none.

They are inherently ridiculous, as I've said from my first post: if an action has absolutely no repercussions, then there's no reason to worry about doing it or not.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

It's a fine sunny day, and the kids want to head to the park to ride their bikes ... only time for a few quick comments.

Yes, the problem is that evidence is much harder to evaluate. People lie, (what I mean is that, they will know their moral choices had negative consequences but wont admit it)
...
Can you give me the methodology that will go past people lying?

Can you give me the methodology that will enable me to measure/detect/define the consequence for "stealing a pen from work"?

You chose the specific example. Of course not. The way the Bible teachs to education children encompasses much more than that. As a said many times, corporal punishment is just one of many tools to educate.

So if there are many tools involved, how do we separate the influence/impact of each tool on the overall result? Would you concede that perhaps striking a child is immoral? There certainly seems to be a pool of (anecdotal!) evidence to suggest that successful/well adjusted human adults are possible from a background that excludes corporeal punishment?

And the underlying principle is that children must learn consequences, you see.

Totally agree ... just not sure how *you* can be sure that coporeal punishment is valid and moral. Your argument rests on "it's moral/valid if the result/outcome is positive. It's wrong/immoral if the outcome is negative". If you strike your daughter at age 4, and have to wait until age 18 to see the result, and you admit there are many other 'tools' along the way, then how can you know? Isn't it possible that striking your daughter is wrong, but if done only a few times it has no real lasting effect, and that the happy/sad 18 year old you end up with has nothing to do with being struck at age 4? Despite your belief that it is *necessary* to strike (at appropriate times), and that failure to do so (ie, not striking, or striking too often) will have clear adverse effects, I can't see how you can possibly have measured this. But you admit your evidence is 'personal anecdotes' and 'stripture says so'. so I guess there's nothing more to be said here...

For adultery is severe problems in your marriage.

Chicken and egg, Christian - which came first. Do you commit adultery because there are problems in your marriage, or do you get problems in your marriage because you commit adultery?

I know of at least 7 people who have commited adultery - 5 are now divorced. *All* of them had severe marital problems prior to commiting adultery. At least 2 (I haven't actually asked all of them!) have said that the adultery was a consequence of the problems, not a cause. I'd have thought it's quite likely that in most cases the sequence is (a) marital issues, (b) adultery, (c) divorce.

For running over someone, I don't know.

I've admited that I can't see any guaranteed penalty for this scenario. You agree you cannot define a penalty either - you just believe there will be some sort of (clearly proscribed, but as yet unknown) penalty.

It can be, yes. Of course Loki it cannot be too

So the consequences of an immoral act like "lying to your wife about how attractive the neighbor's wife is" might a toothache? But not all toothaches are the result of lying to the wife?

Can you list *any* immoral acts for which you have discovered an illness/disease consequence (I'm curious to see what they might be)?

On the contrary, I believe that if there is no God, immoral behavior stacks the deck well in favor of you. Most crimes go unpunished by the human hand. Most people get away with illicit behavior from human laws.

Perhaps this is the core of the issue - if you asked me to raise my son in such a way that he as totally immoral (perhaps amoral would be more correct?), I probably could. In other words, he cared *only* for himself, and paid not regard to anyone else, including me. I guess that's possible - there may be some genetic issues (some behaviours are "hard wired" into humans) that can't be undone, but let's assume for the moment that it *is* possible to raise a child to be 100% self-absorbed. I'd agree that for such a person, immoral behaviour probably results in advantages for them - since many immoral acts involve personal advantage at another's loss (that's almost a definition of immoral!).

But the point, Christian, is that I am not such a person, and neither is my son. If human society is to prosper/survive it needs to raise moral citizens - so we teach this to our children. If I am raised a moral citizen, then moral behaviour *is* in my best interests. The presence/absense of a god does not change this.

 

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Christian ....

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.
Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.
Don't commit adultery
Don't fornicate, etc
Don't get drunk ever (just once)

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

No moral rule has external consequences. This is why, to a MA, they should be useless. [/B]

Moral rules without external consequences are often called Phobias.

Are Phobias the inherent part of your definiton of Morals? Frankly, I don't consider lack of phobias as negative to my character.

 

[Fun2BFree]

Christian --it should be apparent that given enough time you would hang yourself with your own hypocrisy:

by Christian:

It is much simpler and more precise. Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences. Following the rule will lead to the specified results. It is a very prescriptive process. Just like the laws of nature.

then Christian wrote:

There are many moral rules.

Don't think impure thoughts.
Don't masturbate to virtual child porn.
Don't commit adultery
Don't fornicate, etc
Don't get drunk ever (just once)

None of these, it of themselves have external consequences.

No moral rule has external consequences

let us look again at these two Chrisitan quotes:

No moral rule has external consequences

Depending on the moral rule, braking it brings specific consequences

Which is it? Moral rules do or do not have consequences? And by consequences you have earlier agreed to stay in the REAL observable world. You claim I have no examples yet you have been given many--anything killing people- stealing, lying all of these are immoral in circumstances when they lead to more unhappiness and destruction---it all depends on the consequences--it all has to do with the goal..the end result the consequences..that is a Materialist viewpoint not a spiritual one...

If you think impure thoughts what is the consequence? If you say that it will eventually lead to some EXTERNAL CONSEQUENCE SOME ACTION which we agree is bad (leads to failure of our species to carry on in happiness and comfort) then the BAD MORALITY is in that action--not in the impure thoughts--UNLESS IMPURE thoughts routinely are part of the process that ends in external consequences...Rain can lead to floods which can kill off huge numbers of people and shatter lives and communities...but RAIN is not bad. Floods are bad. Immoral behaviour is the same..you have to look at it as I said with my example of water...what is the right temperature for water? What is the RIGHT behaviour for a given situation? What IS the consequence in both situations is exactly the laws of NATURE that will determine -since human nature is so complex it is not so simplistic as I spank kids, my kids turn out OK as I determine therefore spanking is good...that would not qualify for a kindergarten science experiment --it is foolish magical thinking that the laws of nature would be so easily discernible to an individual...we are lousy judges of what is going on as you yourself said..we tend to go too easy on ourselves (as you have in believing your terrible hypocritical self-contradicting statements)--so external, independently verifiable results/consequences--they are VITAL and can only be understood in a MATERIALIST way--not spiritual...
So examples of immoral behaviour---stealing -even if you are not caught--because the very fabric of our society it's stability is founded on property rights and security...disturbing that fabric will lead to our downfall--it is measureable, believable, material...not spiritual....Cheating on wife- if it leads to our downfall it is immoral--I think it is debateable if it leads to enough damage in this real world to call it immoral--which is why they stopped making it illegal--it just is not that big of deal to a lot of people..not big enough to worry about. It is between two or three people not the whole of society to worry about. It is consequences that effect society's survival that are moral questions. God has NOTHING to do with it--though the dudes who made him up go a few things right (killing is bad) and a lot wrong (eating shrimp and pork is really not bad)--how is it we know that one rule is good and the other is pretty silly for most of us who ignore Kosher laws???Oh yeah, that handy dandy tool that is strictly gounded in the Material world--REASON!

 

[Christian]

Guys, a lot of stuff to address, I will get to it later today. Hang on.