Obama Nails his Faith

[Dave Rogers]

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.

No, they're very much not equivalent. You should re-frame the second as:

2a) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because that would be to the benefit of society, not because God told him to.

What society claims to want, in the form of public opinion, and what is actually good for society, can at times be very different things. That, as I see it, is the basic reasoning behind representative rather than direct democracy.

Dave

 

[Rairun]

No, they're very much not equivalent. You should re-frame the second as:

2a) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because that would be to the benefit of society, not because God told him to.

What society claims to want, in the form of public opinion, and what is actually good for society, can at times be very different things. That, as I see it, is the basic reasoning behind representative rather than direct democracy.

Dave

Alright, I accept this distinction, but you still fail to address my point. Even if we managed to define what "benefiting society" actually entailed, which is a very difficult task, promoting such benefits would only be right if you as an individual decided it was. You're only begging the question by transferring authority from public opinion to the more "enlightened" perspective of learned men.

 

[slingblade]

Care to explain why? The only difference I can think of is that society exists, so it can actually attempt to punish you if you go out of line.

Yes. Other people can punish you if you go out of line.
Humans, including yourself, are social animals.

Are you serious? :| That's some heavily fascist **** right there.

Of course it is. Suppose you define society for us, then, and tell us your place in the world, if not as a member of society?

 

[YSM]

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community.

But what is good? What gives you, or any civilization on this planet for that matter, the authority to categorize something as good, or evil? Your premise that the survival and progression of our species is good is based in subjectivity, and it has weight only because the majority of people agree with you. This means that if tomorrow the majority of people suddenly thought heads was tails and tails was heads, then so be it. But surely that cannot be right? Fortunately for our species, (and coincidentally?) the majority of us do think murder, cutting in line, thievery, et cetera, are wrong without being told so by other human beings; this is called the law of nature. Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

 

[The Atheist]

Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

No, but we can derive morality from humanistic principles based on the evolutionary success.

Great to see you finally make a post!

 

[Lonewulf]

Are you serious?

Yes.

:|

>

That's some heavily fascist **** right there.

Fail.

It's reality. Society, by definition, is made up of people. You, by definition, are a person. Think about it some.

 

[Lonewulf]

But what is good? What gives you, or any civilization on this planet for that matter, the authority to categorize something as good, or evil? Your premise that the survival and progression of our species is good is based in subjectivity, and it has weight only because the majority of people agree with you. This means that if tomorrow the majority of people suddenly thought heads was tails and tails was heads, then so be it. But surely that cannot be right? Fortunately for our species, (and coincidentally?) the majority of us do think murder, cutting in line, thievery, et cetera, are wrong without being told so by other human beings; this is called the law of nature. Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

One of the few rules of humanity:

Almost everyone wants to live.

Almost everyone wants to see their children grow old.

It's one of the most universal facets of humanity. I can think of very few societies or geographical regions that has ever disagreed with this. The only question is, when should someone sacrifice their desire to live and see their children grow old?

The answer seems to be, "When it helps others do the same". At least, that's the ideal; history has shown that the ideal and the reality don't always mix.

Either way, it seems a real case of "Do Unto Others as You would have Done Unto You".

This also gets complicated when people start believing in the afterlife, of course...

 

[Rairun]

Yes. Other people can punish you if you go out of line.
Humans, including yourself, are social animals.

Agreed. At the same time, there are plenty of behaviors that are not illegal, and that benefit the individual while harming the whole. There are also plenty of people who are skilled enough to circumvent the law for their whole lives.

Of course it is. Suppose you define society for us, then, and tell us your place in the world, if not as a member of society?

I never said that we are not members of society. I said that the interests of society often don't coincide with the interests of the individual.

Fail.

It's reality. Society, by definition, is made up of people. You, by definition, are a person. Think about it some.

Fallacy of Division.

 

[Rairun]

No, but we can derive morality from humanistic principles based on the evolutionary success.

No, you really can't. Well, maybe you can derive morality from humanistic principles, since those principles are themselves moral, but you can't base them on evolutionary success any more than you can base an "ought" on an "is". I think I might even have to review my opinion that theists are misguided when they say that evolution is a religion. It certainly isn't when we are talking about science, but I didn't realize there were so many people who actually turn it into some sort of moral compass.

There are so many problems with this point of view that it's hard to even begin to untangle them. I just might, though.

 

[Travis]

Rairun, what are you attempting to do here? Get us to accept that there is no objective morality and that true anarchy is the only way to go?

 

[Rairun]

Okay, your points seem very convoluted to me, but I think I've managed to pick up a thread to untangle this:

Mutual support and care were, surely, amongst the most important survival strategies which enabled the human species to flourish instead of becoming extinct hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity came on the scene.

Although this is never quite stated here, I think that the underlying problem with all your arguments is a genetic fallacy:

1. Mutual support and care were amongst the most important survival strategies that enabled the human species to flourish, so they must enable our species to flourish now.

2. A person who did not offer support to their group back then was left to their own devices, so that must mean that a person who does not support the group today will be left alone to die in the wild.

When it comes to #1, it seems to me that you guys have associated support and care--two things that improved the individual's quality of life back then--with evolutionary success. So you must think that the evolutionary success of a species always provides a comfortable life to each member of the species. But this is patently false: there are many scenarios in which individuals lead miserable lives that increase the survivability of the group.

This is undeniable. Many other species have experienced this, and it's possible that we will soon be forced to give up certain comforts in order to survive as a species. Please, don't say that we are willing to give up comforts to see our children flourish, and that their future survival is actually a benefit to us. It may be true for some people, but many of us don't even plan to have children. Many of us just don't care whether the world explodes or not, as long as we live a happy, comfortable life while we are alive.

As a matter of fact, our ability to survive as a species could be much improved under a dystopic government, if we were willing to submit. We could grant people no individual rights whatsoever, and they would only do what improved our chances to survive as a society. You'll probably react against this, but that's only because you've already associated mutual care and support in a "feel good" way with the survival of the species. If all you care about is evolutionary success, then that's really the only reason for that reaction, and it happens to be a genetic fallacy.

Regarding #2, I'm sure you can see the absurdity of the situation. It's obviously not true that it's impossible to be a successful parasite in our society today. There are people who take advantage of others all the time and get away with it. You may say that's still immoral, but then you have to ask yourself why. Because it will harm society? Right, but why should an individual care that he or she is harming society? Oh, right, because an evolutionarily successful society makes our lives better. Oh, but wait, that was true back then, but not now...

There's no way around it. The interests of the individual are not always the same as the interests of the whole. In fact, if we are going to be rigorous here, we have say that there is no such a thing as the "interests of whole" at all. Evolution is not a guided process--it doesn't care whether a species survives or not. A species is not a conscious entity either, not in the same way an individual human being is, so it can't have any interests of its own. What we have here are some individuals who think it's pretty for their own species to survive, and who try to turn their own preferences into a moral standard. That's all there is to it.

 

[Rairun]

Rairun, what are you attempting to do here? Get us to accept that there is no objective morality and that true anarchy is the only way to go?

I'm trying to get you to accept that there is no objective morality. Period. I personally wouldn't enjoy true anarchy, but I admit that's only because of my own personal preferences. That's all it comes down to. It bothers me when people claim to be secular while keeping the self-righteous perks of religious morality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Rairun]

Just a minor correction. I said:

"2. A person who did not offer support to their group back then was left to their own devices, so that must mean that a person who does not support the group today will be left alone to die in the wild."

But it would be better if I had said:

"2. A person who did not offer support to their group back then made their group weaker, so their own survival was compromised. That must mean that a person who does not support the group today will also have their survival compromised."

Same difference, though. Our group is much larger today, so any damage an individual might cause will be mitigated. It won't really come back to haunt him, but if even it does, the consequences will be much smaller than the rewards he's already reaped.

 

[The Atheist]

No, you really can't.

A doctrine can use whatever guidelines it likes to create a moral code, as has always been the case, which is exactly why theists claim a god gave them theirs.

I think I might even have to review my opinion that theists are misguided when they say that evolution is a religion. It certainly isn't when we are talking about science, but I didn't realize there were so many people who actually turn it into some sort of moral compass.

What would you suggest I use, a prismatic compass?

I actually figure that 4 billion years of evolution, which has successfully enabled me to sit here and debate the subject with you, is a pretty good compass for life.

Rairun, what are you attempting to do here? Get us to accept that there is no objective morality and that true anarchy is the only way to go?

It bothers me when people claim to be secular while keeping the self-righteous perks of religious morality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There is no having and eating cake. Theists aren't always wrong.

 

[Rairun]

A doctrine can use whatever guidelines it likes to create a moral code, as has always been the case, which is exactly why theists claim a god gave them theirs.

Of course, but then there is no way to distinguish which doctrine is "right". If you can't distinguish which doctrine is right, it makes no sense to say that a person other than yourself is immoral. It's just a self-important way of saying, "I don't like what you're doing."

What would you suggest I use, a prismatic compass?

I actually figure that 4 billion years of evolution, which has successfully enabled me to sit here and debate the subject with you, is a pretty good compass for life.

It is not, because it's not a compass at all. Once again, evolution has no direction nor purpose. That's your first mistake. Your second mistake is thinking evolutionary forces are static, and that what was good for our survival as a species yesterday is good for our survival as a species today. Your third mistake is thinking that what is good for a species (in terms of survival) is good for the individual members of that species (in terms of quality of life). Your fourth mistake is thinking there is a common objective individuals can work towards. There is not.

There is no having and eating cake. Theists aren't always wrong.

What can I say? In this case they are. You can read the reasons above.

By the way, you've ignored all the points I've made so far. Your last post didn't address a single one of them. You just repeated that evolution is a good moral compass. You didn't explain why.

 

[The Atheist]

Of course, but then there is no way to distinguish which doctrine is "right". If you can't distinguish which doctrine is right, it makes no sense to say that a person other than yourself is immoral. It's just a self-important way of saying, "I don't like what you're doing."

Very good!

That's why we need to have a moral code, although the meaning of "moral code" is a bit pointless, since nobody cares about broken morals, so we have laws which enforce a moral code by default.

It's all actually quite simple.

It is not, because it's not a compass at all.

Yes, I do know that, which is why I was taking the piss.

You do realise a compass gives a direction only? It doesn't give position, latitude or distance from the pole.

Once again, evolution has no direction nor purpose. That's your first mistake.

Sorry, mate, but to have made that mistake, I would have had to have said that evolution has a direction or a purpose.

I didn't.

I merely pointed out that evolution has created humans and we have evolved into our current society. We are what we are, and I'd rather argue about realities. Pity you don't.

Please respond to what I'm saying, not what you'd like me to say.

Your second mistake is thinking evolutionary forces are static, and that what was good for our survival as a species yesterday is good for our survival as a species today.

Unfortunately, I didn't say that either, so that's 0 mistakes, so far.

Why on earth do you bother responding if you don't even read what I've said?

Aside from doubts that anyone could accurately tell what is required for our continuing success and survival, it's not even all that analogous to morals. As I said, it's useful as a starting point (the compass, geddit?). We can be 100% certain that we have evolved the ability to determine both our and our planet's future. Starting from that point, we create a morality, because as you did manage to notice, the alternative is anarchy, which would just be more of a nuisance than it's worth.

Your third mistake is thinking that what is good for a species (in terms of survival) is good for the individual members of that species (in terms of quality of life).

We seem to have entered bizarro world, because I haven't said that anywhere either. As my own take is simply "the greatest good of the greatest number", I wouldn't say it.

Next time, please do at least try to stay on track, there's a good chap. This constant attacking of things I haven't said is all a bit tedious.

Your fourth mistake is thinking there is a common objective individuals can work towards. There is not.

Now we've gone from bizzaro world to telepathy! You know what I'm thinking. Have you considered applying for the MDC?

By the way, you've ignored all the points I've made so far.

Apart from the totalitarian world you incorrectly described as dystopian, I didn't think you said anything worth mentioning. You're full of generalisations, assertions and as we see above, straight-out straw people.

 

[Rairun]

..

 

[Rairun]

[whole post]

I'm sorry for assuming those were actually your views. When you quoted arthwollipot and said, "beautifully put," I thought you shared his opinions on this matter. I also admit to misreading your post to YSM. Anyway, I still think I made valid points, because others here have said quite openly that what is good for society is good for the individual. I just mistook you for one of them.

Honestly though, even if we don't actually disagree here, I still can't see why you initially said you can base humanistic values on evolutionary success. Since it was a short comment, it sounded like you were making bolder claims than you really were. Now that you've explained your position, I'm left wondering why you even said it in the first place. I mean, it's obvious that every single thing we do is a result of evolution. In that sense, all behavior is based on evolutionary success. It's just a truism, and I don't see why it's even worth mentioning in the context of this discussion.

Nor do I see how you can think arthwollipot expressed a beautiful truth when he said that Obama should help people because that's the right thing to do. Obama will either help people because that's what he wants to do, or he won't because that's not what he wants. "Because that's the right thing to do" is no justification at all, because he will only think it's right if he's already inclined to do it in the first place, or if he's been convinced that there is in fact an external source of morality.

***

To be completely fair here, arthwollipot hasn't quite said that what is good for society is good for the individual, like lonewulf and slingblade have. But his posts did seem to point to the idea that morality exists without the individuals and institutions that enforce it, while paradoxically not having any external basis. If I'm not mistaken, that could only be true if all individuals intrinsically had the same communal values, in which case what is good for society would indeed be what is good for each individual.

 

[politas]

If a President acted in exactly the manner that is defined by the fictional Christ's parables and teachings, few of us would find a problem with his actions even though we know there is no god.

Depends on the parables and teachings he followed. Jesus is not exactly a consistent character; a bit bipolar, perhaps. At least he isn't as outright malevolent and hateful as Yahweh, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Agreed. At the same time, there are plenty of behaviors that are not illegal, and that benefit the individual while harming the whole. There are also plenty of people who are skilled enough to circumvent the law for their whole lives.



I never said that we are not members of society. I said that the interests of society often don't coincide with the interests of the individual.



Fallacy of Division.

Mayhaps it appears as a fallacy to you, but I don't see it as such.

However, I'm not entirely sure how one could state that one would want to live in a society that treated them poorly, or wanted to kill them.

Naturally, there are times when an individual needs to give up something to the society; taxes are one example, volunteering or even drafting into the military, when their services are utterly required, is another.

You called my idea "fascist". All of the fascists I can think of (Mussolini, Hitler, etc.) did a great amount of damage to a great amount of their population, while only favoring one particular part of that population for arbitrary reasons. What was done wasn't done for society, but for corrupt ideals, bad science, bad history ("Aryans out of Atlantis! Mwahahahaha!"), or personal gain.

Furthermore, other ideologies that claim to be "for the people", such as communism, has almost always done the most harm possible to the greatest amount of the population; Cambodia, Vietnam, Mao in China, the Soviet Union, etc.

Thus, the people that make up those societies, rarely want to cling to such ideals for long. The Soviet Union collapsed from economic pressure, as well as individual desire to just not stay with it, as it wasn't serving the population. Fascist regimes under Hitler and Mussolini may have remained stable, but I find that hard to believe, especially given how many assassination attempts were made against Hitler, including by some other members of the Nazi party.

So Fascism, which is what you called my statement, is not my idea of an example of a healthy society.

EDIT: I should give a bit more face time to China, but I find that an intriguing exception, as it has eastern culture, history, and values. It's hard to compare Western ideals with the more Confucius-based Eastern culture... somehow, the government structure of China has remained stable for quite a long time; it's growing more capitalist, but the government structure itself is more or less staying the same.

I admit that I'm no expert on China overall, so I'll leave the rest to the experts.