Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Michael Redman said:
Agreed, but that would make it a ' learned ' and not an ' instinctual ' behavior.. Which was my point..
Agreed, but that would make it a ' learned ' and not an ' instinctual ' behavior.. Which was my point..
Michael Redman
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2001
- Messages
- 3,063
We have the system we have because it works, and those who have adopted conflicting systems have disappeared. One decides which is better by seeing that one system works, and those that operate counter to it do not. Assuming that they have essentially the same needs, the martians are going to have the same basic set of rules, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have succeeded.baggie said:
The behavior is learned to fulfil an instinctual imperative. We have to learn how to eat, but needing to eat is not learned. What, exactly, is the disagreement here?Diogenes said:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Michael Redman said:
Are you saying that we would not figure out how to eat if we did not receive some direct guidance... i.e. put a toddler in a room with food and it would starve...?
As opposed to my example above..:
At what point would the toddler ' instinctually ' start behaving nicely ?
Michael Redman said:
yes but are you sure we have explored all of "ethical possibilities" space? In biology, animals evolve. The dinosaurs were pretty optimal for their time (I am sure they lasted longer than man will) but they are not here now.
I am not really looking for new ethics personally (the old ones suit me and I am too old to change), but it is silly not to even consider the possibility there might be better ones (assuming I had a clue what they could be)
Michael Redman
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2001
- Messages
- 3,063
I said that the need to eat is inborn, but we learn eating behavior. I said nothing about whether the learning had to be directed from outside, or if we could learn on our own. (Although it is clear that an infant would likely starve to death or choke if placed in proximity to solid food, and given no help in eating.) What does that matter in this discussion?Diogenes said:
What are you talking about? Who said that it would?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Michael Redman said:
You said:
Isn't this thread about ' morals '?
What is instinctual about following ' good ' ones? ( the rules )
I contend that they are learned/programmed and not instinctual; as you seem to be stating above.
If I misunderstood you, and you don't disagree, then.... we agree..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?
The fundamental assumption of democracy is that each individual can govern himself. If you are rejecting that notion, then you have just given up on democracy. Hence my reference to fascism.
I realize that the evidence doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the proposition, but I have to believe it on faith.
(Note: The above comment about belief is a joke. Yahzi believes in nothing.)
Do you need something more?UnrepentantSinner said:
The fundamental assumption of democracy is that each individual can govern himself. If you are rejecting that notion, then you have just given up on democracy. Hence my reference to fascism.
I realize that the evidence doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the proposition, but I have to believe it on faith.
(Note: The above comment about belief is a joke. Yahzi believes in nothing.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?
All you people advocating the continued existance of social control by falsehood and deceit, simply because it is traditionally effective at providing social control, really need to reconsider the whole fascist angle.
My point was that the ends don't jusify the means.Rockon said:
All you people advocating the continued existance of social control by falsehood and deceit, simply because it is traditionally effective at providing social control, really need to reconsider the whole fascist angle.
elliotfc said:
This is where this thread has gone completely off course...
Morality is real only if the end result is something real. Successful society, happier people, satisfied people...those are not UNREAL things just because they are difficult to define or quantify....
Unreal is "everlasting life." a place in heaven or hell" "god's good graces" --there is just no evidence for those things in the real world whatsoever...they are not realistic ends.
SO the moral question of what is right or wrong can be asked scientifically but only if the question is properly refined and the terms DEFINED....
Similar question-equally incomplete;;What is the RIGHT temperature for water?
For human society's purposes- RIGHT behaviour is that behaviour that leads to the desired ends...thus Nazi behaviour could never be shown to be RIGHT because it led to war, destruction and the end of even what it was trying to achieve...a better Germany--IT DID NOT WORK...utilitarian? just reality. Fascism anywhere can be demonstrably shown to fail--it does not work to achieve what it even says it is trying to achieve--a strong statew--it is inherently weakend because it is not built on reality and real behaviour..People cannot be permanently asked to subjugate their own goals for those of the state above all--it does not work.
The religious types who claim their religion gives them morality are demonstrably dishonest...Ask them with their religion how they separate out the rela rules -(GOLDEN) from the less important ones (keeping kosher for Jews, for example) to the ones to ignore or avoid (stone adulterers, etc)...They pick and choose their rules just like nonbelievers--based on a rational assessment of the desired outcomes and the means to reach them.
We nonbelievers are just more honest about it.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Fun2BFree said:
This is very well put.... Thanks
I don't think this thread has really gone off course though..
I wonder if baggie has his (?) answer ?
Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?
If all people were parasites, then there would be no producers for them to feed on. Parasitic tendencies in your own system (ie feeding off other human's efforts) only works as long as someone in the system is producing.
It's that simple. A certain number of sociopaths - or parasites in your example - can be supported in the system. If it were, however, the default, then we would collapse rapidly with no one to provide us something to feed off.
A sociopath as you describe - someone who rejects morals as needless - would be in the same position. As an individual in a sea of moral people, he can survive. As one in a society of all parasites, there is no source to feed off.
I know it's rather Randian of me (as in Ayn, not James) but it sure seems accurate from my perceptions.
-Chris
-Chris
baggie said:
If all people were parasites, then there would be no producers for them to feed on. Parasitic tendencies in your own system (ie feeding off other human's efforts) only works as long as someone in the system is producing.
It's that simple. A certain number of sociopaths - or parasites in your example - can be supported in the system. If it were, however, the default, then we would collapse rapidly with no one to provide us something to feed off.
A sociopath as you describe - someone who rejects morals as needless - would be in the same position. As an individual in a sea of moral people, he can survive. As one in a society of all parasites, there is no source to feed off.
I know it's rather Randian of me (as in Ayn, not James) but it sure seems accurate from my perceptions.
-Chris
-Chris
Ossai, please classify the following, in terms of morality, according the rules of "Enlightened self interest." It would be helpful if you could justify the classification.Ossai said:
Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?
Tim
I've had many debates on the idea of an 'objective' morality with my roommate, who is quite skilled at completely destroying any point I had hoped to make and sending me crying back to my philosophy books.
The conclusion I'm tempted to draw is that there is no way to defend any concept of a universal morality, but that whatever works for you, works for you.
It is well that many of the rules that allow society to flourish are the ones that many people agree are good to follow. Coincidence, or necessity? Does it matter? Whatever theory we'd put forth from this point, there is no way to test.
-Chris
The conclusion I'm tempted to draw is that there is no way to defend any concept of a universal morality, but that whatever works for you, works for you.
It is well that many of the rules that allow society to flourish are the ones that many people agree are good to follow. Coincidence, or necessity? Does it matter? Whatever theory we'd put forth from this point, there is no way to test.
-Chris
DoNotDisturb
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 21
Well, your question is exactly the reason why we have ethical philosophers that do not particularly believe in god, but try to create a system by which we can live with moral standards. Morality for atheists, (and I am one) is basically based on what I learn from my peers. In my opinion, even the ones who have a religion are doomed to some-what a life of 'immoral' acts if he/she does not decide to listen to what is being taught due to lack of good peers. Thus, I believe that peers play a major role in atheist morality.
(however, most of the time, most of the things that people tell me is moral, are derived from religion such as Catholism; my parents are Catholics.)
(however, most of the time, most of the things that people tell me is moral, are derived from religion such as Catholism; my parents are Catholics.)
Diogenes said:
not really as I doubt that in our meaningless existance there can be an absolute answer - but it is fun trying. In a sense a very closely related question (it may actually be the same question) is does life have a purpose? However this thread has been very useful for me to work out the issues (even if it gave a null answer) and I thank the contributors
Rockon
So to broadly answer your question all or none of the below could be considered moral based on the survival and advancement of the group. That isn't to say that instances of the below occur and are sanctioned by the group for the wrong reasons.
Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?
The three bolded all deal directly with and are concerned with death. (I know people die in large numbers during war but war's goal usually isn't death but the gain of or protection of resources.) Two of them deal with someone else's ability to decide on the existence of another person. The third deals with a person's right to remove themselves from society, abet in an unusual manner.
Abortion is a personal decision yet opposed by society (at least parts of) yet it is the individual that must ultimately deal with the results of the decision. If the group declares it's more capable of making that decision then the group is responsible for the outcome of the decision.
Capital punishment is nothing more than group survival. It is the only 100% effective deterrent available at this time (and I don’t' mean deterrent of other but the person being punished).
Prostitution, gambling and drug abuse are all matters that the group has deemed unstable. The group feels that the proliferation would undermine it so it has taken steps to protect itself. Now those areas where the above is legal the group, or at least a significant portion of it, has deemed that the benefits out weigh the dangers.
Ossai
Once the person includes others into their worldview and decides to group with them (ie becomes a part of society) then the group morality also plays role. At some point and in some instances the group code overshadows the individual. However in order to remain in the group with benefits the self must subsume their own want's to advance the group as a whole.
So to broadly answer your question all or none of the below could be considered moral based on the survival and advancement of the group. That isn't to say that instances of the below occur and are sanctioned by the group for the wrong reasons.
Abortion?
Capital Punishment?
Prostitution?
Gambling?
Drug Abuse?
War?
Euthanasia?
The three bolded all deal directly with and are concerned with death. (I know people die in large numbers during war but war's goal usually isn't death but the gain of or protection of resources.) Two of them deal with someone else's ability to decide on the existence of another person. The third deals with a person's right to remove themselves from society, abet in an unusual manner.
Abortion is a personal decision yet opposed by society (at least parts of) yet it is the individual that must ultimately deal with the results of the decision. If the group declares it's more capable of making that decision then the group is responsible for the outcome of the decision.
Capital punishment is nothing more than group survival. It is the only 100% effective deterrent available at this time (and I don’t' mean deterrent of other but the person being punished).
Prostitution, gambling and drug abuse are all matters that the group has deemed unstable. The group feels that the proliferation would undermine it so it has taken steps to protect itself. Now those areas where the above is legal the group, or at least a significant portion of it, has deemed that the benefits out weigh the dangers.
Ossai