-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Christian,
There is not overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking. On the contrary, it is an easily observed fact that many people do do the right thing, even when it is not in their best interest. Sure, they do not all do so. And sure, nobody always does so. But that is irrelevant. All that is necessary to establish the usefulness of morality is that a significant number of people do the right thing (when nobody is looking), a significant portion of the time.
Furthermore, even if you could establish that, from a societal point of view, morality was useless, this would still not support your thesis that, as an atheist, I should abandon my values and morals. Because as I already pointed out, if my values are a source of both pleasure and pain, then simply eliminating those values is not necessarily beneficial to me. And like I said before, you have to take the bad with the good.
Look at the world around you! It happens all the time! Are you seriously going to try to tell me that nobody ever does the right thing unless they think it is in their best interest to do so? Or are you just convinced that all of those people who do are just doing so out of a belief in heaven/hell?
Completely irrelevant. All it takes is for a small portion of the population to be immoral, to necessitate laws. Or, for a larger portion of the population to occasionally act immorally. This happens. Morality isn't perfect. That is not in dispute. But simply pointing out that it isn't perfect doesn't demonstrate that it is not effective, and thus useful.
OK. Now all you have to do is present your evidence. Simply claiming that nobody ever behaves morally when it is not in their best interest to do so, and when they think they can get away with it, isn't going to convince anybody. Remember, you have made the claim here. You are the one trying to convince us poor deluded atheists to reject our values, and become amoral sociopaths. Present your evidence.
This is a nonsense question. If the action in question is not harmful to society, or anybody else, then by definition, it is not immoral.
Of course, your cheating on taxes example is not valid, since cheating on my taxes harms society. Sure, cheating by one dollar doesn't hurt it much, but it doesn't help me much either.
No, what you are doing is perpetuating a false dilemma, by suggesting that either personal responsibility and morals can be relied on completely, with no need whatsoever for laws, or that they are completely ineffective and useless.
We need laws. Nobody is disputing that. This does not support your argument in the slightest bit.
If that idea was wrong, I would. But you have not even come close to convincing me that it is.
If you have values, then you will have morals. You started this argument by saying that we should condition away the emotional responses we have to events, because these things serve no purpose. But that means getting rid of those values. As long as you value something (human life, for example), you are going to have an emotional response to the loss of human life. You are going to feel bad when people die. And that is going to serve as a motivation to regulate your behavior. That is morality.
And if the fact that most people value human life means that, in a given period of time, fewer people are murdered than would have been if these people did not value human life (given exactly the same laws, and enforcement methods), then morality is useful. End of story.
Wrong. Society is based on the premise that some people will behave selfishly at least some of the time. That is all it takes to make things like laws and security measures necessary.
This is nonsensical. If you have values, you will have morals. If you value human life, but find yourself in a situation where you could murder somebody for 5 dollars, and get away with it, would you do so, or not?
If you would, then you clearly do not place much value on human life. If you would not, then you have morals.
And in any event, your prior argument that atheists should condition away their emotional responses, contradicts this claim, since the way you do so is by eliminating your values. The only way I am not going to have a negative emotional response when I see another human being suffer, is by no longer valuing human happiness. And as long as I do value human happiness, I am going to act accordingly (morally).
I do not agree with either of these statements. First of all, it is not impossible for me to live according to my values if society does not require it. All that is necessary is that society does not forbid it. And even if it does, I can still attempt to do so illegally. Many people in the past have done exactly that. For example, Germans who illegally sheltered Jews during World War 2. Or Americans who helped slaves escape from the Southern states in the US's past. And so on.
And second, you have not demonstrated your second point. You have merely repeated the claim over and over again.
Many parts of my own code are not required by society. For example, there are many things I could legally do, which would be to my benefit, but which I won't do because it goes against my values.
If I was the sociopath that you seem to think I should be, I wouldn't be working as a scientist for $40,000 a year. I would have started my own pseudo-scientific religion, and would probably be a millionaire by now.
I am not familiar with those studies. But what constitutes "most"? And what were the mitigating circumstances? For example, how many of those people chose not to get involved out of fear of negative consequences, such as being robbed, or blamed for the assault?
In any event, if even a significant minority of the people chose option number 2, then that establishes that morality is useful.
And what do these studies say about the effectiveness of the heaven/hell promise/threat? Given that it is almost certain that most of the subjects were Christian, apparently it either isn't much of an incentive, or they don't think they are really going to be punished or rewarded for their actions.
That is not my premise. My premise is that moral people will do the right thing. Not all people are moral, and not all people agree with what the right thing to do is.
You are not arguing that morality is useless, you are arguing that it is nonexistent!
Thus we need laws. But that does not mean that morality is useless.
The use is that I have still helped those few people. Even if the effect is slight, the World is still a better place for my having been here. That is reason enough. And of course, I am not the only one.
Huh? What does your irrational belief that God is going to protect your father from being mugged, when He clearly doesn't protect other innocent people from such harm, have to do with morality?
My proof is that I, personally, have benefited from other people helping me, even though they were not required to, and even though it was not in their best interest to do so. And I know many other people who have as well. In many of those cases I was the one doing the helping.
And if anybody at all benefits from morality in such a way, then that proves it is useful. The only question then is how useful?
And your statement that the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant to society is simply false. At best, you could try to claim that the benefit of morality is negligible. And you certainly have not done that.
Sorry, no can do. The definition of morality is not consistent with it being impossible for something to be both a moral rule, and a legal requirement.
The fact that there are situations where laws can be circumvented, renders this argument ridiculous.
And even if it were possible to enforce laws with 100% effectiveness, the fact remains that many laws start as moral rules, and then become laws when people who hold those morals demand that it do so.
On the contrary, this is an example of morality being vital to the big picture, because the only way the rule is ever going to transcend people's personal codes, is if they act on those values, and actively seek to change the laws. Without morality, there would be no reason to change the laws. The people who make the laws are not going to benefit from increased spending on education. The only way it is going to happen is if people who are not going to benefit from it, and who are not required to do it, nevertheless actively work towards changing the laws. That is morality at work.
The rules come from the values. Like I said before, if you value something, you will behave accordingly.
That is exactly my point. You impose rules of behavior on yourself due to your values (your love for your children). Your adherence to those rules benefits society. I rest my case.
That is self-contradictory. If you are only following the rules because some dictator is enforcing them, then they are just another set of laws you have to follow because somebody will punish you if you don't. It is, in effect, just another legal norm.
Morals are only relevant to values. Morals are the rules you follow because you personally feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether somebody else is going to enforce those rules or not.
And that is morality. If you are doing something because it is consistent with your values, then that is morality. If you are doing something because you are compelled to by an external agency, then that is compliance.
The only way to eliminate morality is to eliminate values. As long as people have values, they will have morals. It's that simple.
What was your original point again? Do you agree that atheists are going to have values? If so, then do you agree that this necessarily implies that atheists are going to have moral codes of conduct, and that the only way to eliminate those morals would be to eliminate the associated values?
Dr. Stupid
There is not overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking. On the contrary, it is an easily observed fact that many people do do the right thing, even when it is not in their best interest. Sure, they do not all do so. And sure, nobody always does so. But that is irrelevant. All that is necessary to establish the usefulness of morality is that a significant number of people do the right thing (when nobody is looking), a significant portion of the time.
Furthermore, even if you could establish that, from a societal point of view, morality was useless, this would still not support your thesis that, as an atheist, I should abandon my values and morals. Because as I already pointed out, if my values are a source of both pleasure and pain, then simply eliminating those values is not necessarily beneficial to me. And like I said before, you have to take the bad with the good.
Look at the world around you! It happens all the time! Are you seriously going to try to tell me that nobody ever does the right thing unless they think it is in their best interest to do so? Or are you just convinced that all of those people who do are just doing so out of a belief in heaven/hell?
Completely irrelevant. All it takes is for a small portion of the population to be immoral, to necessitate laws. Or, for a larger portion of the population to occasionally act immorally. This happens. Morality isn't perfect. That is not in dispute. But simply pointing out that it isn't perfect doesn't demonstrate that it is not effective, and thus useful.
OK. Now all you have to do is present your evidence. Simply claiming that nobody ever behaves morally when it is not in their best interest to do so, and when they think they can get away with it, isn't going to convince anybody. Remember, you have made the claim here. You are the one trying to convince us poor deluded atheists to reject our values, and become amoral sociopaths. Present your evidence.
This is a nonsense question. If the action in question is not harmful to society, or anybody else, then by definition, it is not immoral.
Of course, your cheating on taxes example is not valid, since cheating on my taxes harms society. Sure, cheating by one dollar doesn't hurt it much, but it doesn't help me much either.
No, what you are doing is perpetuating a false dilemma, by suggesting that either personal responsibility and morals can be relied on completely, with no need whatsoever for laws, or that they are completely ineffective and useless.
We need laws. Nobody is disputing that. This does not support your argument in the slightest bit.
If that idea was wrong, I would. But you have not even come close to convincing me that it is.
If you have values, then you will have morals. You started this argument by saying that we should condition away the emotional responses we have to events, because these things serve no purpose. But that means getting rid of those values. As long as you value something (human life, for example), you are going to have an emotional response to the loss of human life. You are going to feel bad when people die. And that is going to serve as a motivation to regulate your behavior. That is morality.
And if the fact that most people value human life means that, in a given period of time, fewer people are murdered than would have been if these people did not value human life (given exactly the same laws, and enforcement methods), then morality is useful. End of story.
Wrong. Society is based on the premise that some people will behave selfishly at least some of the time. That is all it takes to make things like laws and security measures necessary.
This is nonsensical. If you have values, you will have morals. If you value human life, but find yourself in a situation where you could murder somebody for 5 dollars, and get away with it, would you do so, or not?
If you would, then you clearly do not place much value on human life. If you would not, then you have morals.
And in any event, your prior argument that atheists should condition away their emotional responses, contradicts this claim, since the way you do so is by eliminating your values. The only way I am not going to have a negative emotional response when I see another human being suffer, is by no longer valuing human happiness. And as long as I do value human happiness, I am going to act accordingly (morally).
I do not agree with either of these statements. First of all, it is not impossible for me to live according to my values if society does not require it. All that is necessary is that society does not forbid it. And even if it does, I can still attempt to do so illegally. Many people in the past have done exactly that. For example, Germans who illegally sheltered Jews during World War 2. Or Americans who helped slaves escape from the Southern states in the US's past. And so on.
And second, you have not demonstrated your second point. You have merely repeated the claim over and over again.
Many parts of my own code are not required by society. For example, there are many things I could legally do, which would be to my benefit, but which I won't do because it goes against my values.
If I was the sociopath that you seem to think I should be, I wouldn't be working as a scientist for $40,000 a year. I would have started my own pseudo-scientific religion, and would probably be a millionaire by now.
I am not familiar with those studies. But what constitutes "most"? And what were the mitigating circumstances? For example, how many of those people chose not to get involved out of fear of negative consequences, such as being robbed, or blamed for the assault?
In any event, if even a significant minority of the people chose option number 2, then that establishes that morality is useful.
And what do these studies say about the effectiveness of the heaven/hell promise/threat? Given that it is almost certain that most of the subjects were Christian, apparently it either isn't much of an incentive, or they don't think they are really going to be punished or rewarded for their actions.
That is not my premise. My premise is that moral people will do the right thing. Not all people are moral, and not all people agree with what the right thing to do is.
You are not arguing that morality is useless, you are arguing that it is nonexistent!
Thus we need laws. But that does not mean that morality is useless.
The use is that I have still helped those few people. Even if the effect is slight, the World is still a better place for my having been here. That is reason enough. And of course, I am not the only one.
Huh? What does your irrational belief that God is going to protect your father from being mugged, when He clearly doesn't protect other innocent people from such harm, have to do with morality?
My proof is that I, personally, have benefited from other people helping me, even though they were not required to, and even though it was not in their best interest to do so. And I know many other people who have as well. In many of those cases I was the one doing the helping.
And if anybody at all benefits from morality in such a way, then that proves it is useful. The only question then is how useful?
And your statement that the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant to society is simply false. At best, you could try to claim that the benefit of morality is negligible. And you certainly have not done that.
Sorry, no can do. The definition of morality is not consistent with it being impossible for something to be both a moral rule, and a legal requirement.
The fact that there are situations where laws can be circumvented, renders this argument ridiculous.
And even if it were possible to enforce laws with 100% effectiveness, the fact remains that many laws start as moral rules, and then become laws when people who hold those morals demand that it do so.
On the contrary, this is an example of morality being vital to the big picture, because the only way the rule is ever going to transcend people's personal codes, is if they act on those values, and actively seek to change the laws. Without morality, there would be no reason to change the laws. The people who make the laws are not going to benefit from increased spending on education. The only way it is going to happen is if people who are not going to benefit from it, and who are not required to do it, nevertheless actively work towards changing the laws. That is morality at work.
The rules come from the values. Like I said before, if you value something, you will behave accordingly.
That is exactly my point. You impose rules of behavior on yourself due to your values (your love for your children). Your adherence to those rules benefits society. I rest my case.
That is self-contradictory. If you are only following the rules because some dictator is enforcing them, then they are just another set of laws you have to follow because somebody will punish you if you don't. It is, in effect, just another legal norm.
Morals are only relevant to values. Morals are the rules you follow because you personally feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether somebody else is going to enforce those rules or not.
And that is morality. If you are doing something because it is consistent with your values, then that is morality. If you are doing something because you are compelled to by an external agency, then that is compliance.
The only way to eliminate morality is to eliminate values. As long as people have values, they will have morals. It's that simple.
What was your original point again? Do you agree that atheists are going to have values? If so, then do you agree that this necessarily implies that atheists are going to have moral codes of conduct, and that the only way to eliminate those morals would be to eliminate the associated values?
Dr. Stupid
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Loki said:
Or an even better example; Catholic priests who sexually abused altar boys! They, above most other Christians, should have known best that the divine eye was on them! Yet still they sated their base desires under the gaze of, and sometimes in the house of, their Lord!
Christian, by your logic we should be able to look into the demographics of the incarcerated, and find a preponderance of atheists. Instead most studies that I have heard of show the precise opposite.
You say I've misrepresented your POV,...then you restate almost exactly the second part of what I said!? This goes to the heart of why it's so hard to debate you, your misperceptions are disturbing to the flow of debate, and end up becoming the thing that gets debated!
Okay...the Taoists would tell you that the "Tao" is within you. That in order to know "God", one must look within. By your logic Taoists should also eliminate remorse. Taoism has been around for 600 years prior to the birth of Christ...you'd think that by now they'd have adopted your logic and become a remorseless bunch of folks eh?
Another thing, what perchance is an "external" God??
God : A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -----(dictionary.com)
Is not "God" limitless? If you believe God to be limitless, then please show me the place where God is not. If there is no place that God "is not" then there is no such thing as an "external" God.
Oh? Look Christian, we have morals,...we make laws,....laws are an extension of our morals, not the other way around. Our morals inform the law.
The prisoners dilemma is a simple analytical tool which shows us how humans came to devise moral norms. How do we know what is right? We choose that which will give us a beneficial outcome. Enough beneficial outcomes become our "moral good". Moral good, given enough time to evolve ends up codified in laws and referred to as "social norms".
Again, your ability to percieve things as they are comes into question. In all my earlier replies to you I was nothing if not polite. Your assumption that I was being "condescending" is insulting to me because I was completely in earnest when I said I was glad for you. People who find joy in faith are not objects of ridicule to me. I am not an atheist. I am arguing in favor of the atheist position on this issue that you brought up because you are being decidedly unfair to them in your assumptions. Then, when people such as Stimpy point out the holes in your ideas, instead of "discard(ing) those that are lacking" as you claim above, you merely restate them and ignore how they are lacking.
Obviously you believe yourself to be superior to atheists here, and merely use the people on this forum to help you "develop your skills"........a purely selfish pursuit, wouldn't you say? What does that say of your own morals? Shouldn't you be trying to save our souls, or somesuch? Or is this logical argument of yours supposed to lead us to the conclusion that we need Jesus in order to be moral human beings?
-zilla
Christian
No matter how you were brought up, someone somewhere can push the right buttons to make you change your moral outlook on the world, no one is immune. We may think we can be like a rock to change but it’s an impossibility.
Incorrect assumption and one you keep making. You can feel bad about things without being taught just observing children will convince you of that. As I said before, you are a product of instinct and upbringing it’s the combination that defines your moral outlook not some black or white law.
No matter how you were brought up, someone somewhere can push the right buttons to make you change your moral outlook on the world, no one is immune. We may think we can be like a rock to change but it’s an impossibility.
Loki wrote:
Can you provide the evidence that this is true?
History is full of examples of this phenomenon. The time we can clearly see this principle at work is in lawlessness:
http://threehegemons.tripod.com/threehegemonsblog/id15.html
http://www.yespakistan.com/afghancrisis/lawlessness.asp
Pay special attention to these next ones:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c219.htm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/02/russia0228.htm
http://allafrica.com/stories/200301240280.html
And this is from the corporate world:
(Pay close attention to premises and assumptions used to explain the phenomena.)
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5227
In the area of microeconomics, the concept of self-interest and utility maximization is central to economic theory.
http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0106adam.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
The idea that we will act always in our best interest is inherent in microeconomic theory.
Can you offer some evidence where the people who "did the wrong thing when no one was looking" were shown to be "atheists who were taught their morals as children"?
No.
I would think that most of the examples you would bring forward are of *theists* who don't do the right thing when no one is looking.
Not so, there are links about Russia.
The gneeral looting and ransacking of the hospitals in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam - gosh, isn't that a theist state? How come this god fearing people were'nt kept in line by the invisible eye that always watches, and judges accordingly?
[atheist hat on]
Because there is no God. And it only demonstrates that morality is useless.
[atheist hat off]
TamiO wrote:
If there is a God, then I cannot understand why he would show compassion in some cases and disregard in others. Does he not feel, like I feel. Doesn't he see the people who suffer at the hands of others and hear their prayers? How can he tune those voices out.
When you say *some cases*, isn’t now the proportion important. And how do you define what is just?
A friend recently told us of how her apartment building was broken into by a gang of men with guns; using force they burst in and plundered through the building trying doors, stealing and threatening. After all was said and done, a lady in the apartment building said "Thank God I was spared" (or something similar to that.)
So I wonder, why did God spare her and not the family down the hall?
Now, why did God spare the billions of homes everyday not broken in to. What is the proportion? Have you ever heard of the concept of *part per million* defects? How about *parts per billion or trillion*?
And if the defects did not exists, how would you know something is perfect? How do you know there is *nothing* if something does not exist?
I watched a documentary on HBO a few weeks back. One man explained he was a prisoner of the Nazi's during the war. He said they pleaded with God during their incarceration. People who prayed vigilantly, his family, his wife. All ignored by God.
I think about all this, and as I said, I don't know. I don't understand the apparent lack of compassion in God.
Until you don’t know the proportion, I think it is premature to conclude that God is not compassionate.
So I ask you again, why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?
Because He protects most elderly fathers and He has given me the wisdom to know how my father will be best protected.
There are so many things that go on in the world that it is impossible for me to know everything that happens, let alone a ratio of positive to negative. I would also have a hard time in saying what was good and what was bad, most things are closer to the middle and exist in grey areas.
If it were close to the middle, the world would be a catastrophe? I would venture to say that 99.999999999999% of things that happen in the world daily go right.
I finally arrive at the doctor's office wet and late. So now I have to sit in the waiting room, wet and cold and wait until they can squeeze me in. This is not a good day.
Sitting close to me is a man who is wet from the rain, too. He mentions that it sure is rainy today and the conversation begins. It turns out he is the owner of a prominent business and he has been looking for someone to do his website.
If I hadn't been late, if the car had not had problems, if everything that happened that morning had not happened, I would not have met a most important person in my life.
I like this story.
When my cousin/brother was killed, it was tragic. It felt like a knife in my heart. But he was an organ donor. He ended up giving sight to a blind man, a heart to someone else, a liver, etc. He death helped many many people.
So when you ask me "How many thing go right in the world compared to how many things go wrong? What is the ratio?"
I cannot answer that and I don't think anyone else can either.
But somehow you seem to know that things turn out right.
Would you agree that you have a personal understanding of the Bible?
Yes.
Nice joke too.
How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance ? How do you rationalise the punishing God with the rewarding God?
Explain the specific dissonance? Why would both together be dissonant.
I really thought that you spoke english as a first language You really do very well and I meant no insult or critique. You have done such a good job in this discussion (really everyone has) it's one of the few threads I read and post in the Religion & Philosophy section.
Thanks.
I think we are all very much the same here in this thread. We probably share many commonalities in our personal moral codes, whether we attribute them to the Bible and personal experience or just personal experience. If we weren't more the same than different, the discussion would certainly be more heated.
I think so too.
Would you say that most or all atheists are more different than the same, or more same than different?
How you mean it, I think much more alike.
Stimpson wrote:
There is not overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking.
There is overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking and *it is in their best interest no to.*
On the contrary, it is an easily observed fact that many people do do the right thing, even when it is not in their best interest.
How many is many. And how you can assert this if the system is built around the contrary premise. (that people act in their best interest. I’m referring to economic theory)
Sure, they do not all do so. And sure, nobody always does so. But that is irrelevant. All that is necessary to establish the usefulness of morality is that a significant number of people do the right thing (when nobody is looking), a significant portion of the time.
No, you need a lot more than that. You need to show that the right thing is against their best interest, that it is actually the right thing to do (what is right for me, may be wrong for somebody else) and you need to show how you know this if the premise is *nobody’s looking*. Furthermore, you would have to qualify the term *usefulness* in the same way the legal norms are useless.
To use an extreme example, garbage can be useful, but it is still garbage.
Furthermore, even if you could establish that, from a societal point of view, morality was useless, this would still not support your thesis that, as an atheist, I should abandon my values and morals.
Not your values, just your morals.
Because as I already pointed out, if my values are a source of both pleasure and pain, then simply eliminating those values is not necessarily beneficial to me. And like I said before, you have to take the bad with the good.
To enjoy your values, you don’t need to have internal rules, they can simply be preferences, guidelines, inclinations. Set rules are not required. And if your values change, then set rules would impede your enjoyment of them.
Look at the world around you! It happens all the time! Are you seriously going to try to tell me that nobody ever does the right thing unless they think it is in their best interest to do so?
You are mixing oranges and apples here. When you say someone does the right thing, you mean the right thing for them. In that case, the right thing for them is always in their best interest. If it were not in their best interest, they would not do it. Please read any economic theory that explains utility maximization. Or you can just look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
When you say it is not in your best interest to support more government funding for education because you wont get the benefit of education, you are omitting that you are getting a benefit that it greater than that. You are getting the benefit of feeling very good about your support of that.
Or are you just convinced that all of those people who do are just doing so out of a belief in heaven/hell?
Heaven and hell are not the only reward/punishments there are.
Completely irrelevant. All it takes is for a small portion of the population to be immoral, to necessitate laws.
How can you prove it is only a small portion and not the vast majority?
Or, for a larger portion of the population to occasionally act immorally. This happens. Morality isn't perfect. That is not in dispute. But simply pointing out that it isn't perfect doesn't demonstrate that it is not effective, and thus useful.
No, I’m showing you that every time there is anarchy or lawlessness, the system collapses. Where there is no State, there is chaos. So, then morality appears to work (there is an illusion) because there are social and legal norms.
OK. Now all you have to do is present your evidence. Simply claiming that nobody ever behaves morally when it is not in their best interest to do so, and when they think they can get away with it, isn't going to convince anybody.
Well, the whole capitalist system is based on this premise of self-interest. Entities whether corporations or people will seek to maximize their profit (or benefit). Period.
Remember, you have made the claim here. You are the one trying to convince us poor deluded atheists to reject our values, and become amoral sociopaths. Present your evidence.
No, don’t reject your values, just your morals.
This is a nonsense question. If the action in question is not harmful to society, or anybody else, then by definition, it is not immoral.
Stimpson, it is immoral to have thoughts of dismembering babies? Is it immoral to derive pleasure from thinking of decapitating children?
Of course, your cheating on taxes example is not valid, since cheating on my taxes harms society. Sure, cheating by one dollar doesn't hurt it much, but it doesn't help me much either.
Well, how about the previous examples.
No, what you are doing is perpetuating a false dilemma, by suggesting that either personal responsibility and morals can be relied on completely, with no need whatsoever for laws, or that they are completely ineffective and useless.
No, I’m saying that *all* the formal systems (entities) there are in the world, do not rely on them at all. The reliability comes from external controls.
If you have values, then you will have morals.
This is not true. I can value very much chocolate cake (I love it), carrot cake even more. I don’t have any set rules regarding eating them. Sometimes, I eat them, some times I don’t, and sometimes I might eat a lot of them.
And I can be ethical (because I have values) and be immoral because I’m ethical.
You started this argument by saying that we should condition away the emotional responses we have to events, because these things serve no purpose.
This is false. I did not say this. I said that you should condition away remorse. And you should.
And if the fact that most people value human life means that, in a given period of time, fewer people are murdered than would have been if these people did not value human life (given exactly the same laws, and enforcement methods), then morality is useful. End of story.
How do you know fewer people are killed because we value human life? All history shows that the stronger the State in protecting lives, the fewer die. Why do you think that the stiffest penalties in the penal system are for murder and the like? Why do you think those types of crimes are the most aggressively investigated and prosecuted?
If there is a case where we can point to punishment as a deterrent for action is in the case of murder.
There are more than 1 million (1.4???) abortions in the US yearly. You know how humans rationalize this practice. Why do you think there are so many? Aren’t there any other alternatives that can be used?
Evidence you say. We don’t have to look any further than this website. (a skeptic website, a whole lot of atheists here). Why is it that the rules have been set? Why is it that people can’t use profanity anymore?
Wrong. Society is based on the premise that some people will behave selfishly at least some of the time. That is all it takes to make things like laws and security measures necessary.
No, societies are based on the premise that all people are trying to maximize their benefit. Societies that do not hold this premise collapse (e.g. USSR).
This position is held by Nobel price winners. (in this case the appeal to authority is valid) Read Friedman, and the like.
Here a link on selfishness:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/self.htm
And from this link:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/frey2.html
This is nonsensical. If you have values, you will have morals.
Not true.
If you value human life, but find yourself in a situation where you could murder somebody for 5 dollars, and get away with it, would you do so, or not?
No, because it goes against God’s laws and human law.
[atheist hat on]
Besides, the risk is too high Stimpson. Plus, if one is not accustomed to killing people, the trauma of doing so can last a life time. Completely goes against our best interest. And the consequences for doing something like this would be devastating for me in the future.
[atheist hat off]
If you would, then you clearly do not place much value on human life. If you would not, then you have morals.
There is also another contradictory thing about your viewpoint. According to your definition of morality, there is no way not to be immoral. According to you, everyone is generally moral. Or is your position that people generally hold values they disregard? How can one hold a value one disregards?
And in any event, your prior argument that atheists should condition away their emotional responses, contradicts this claim, since the way you do so is by eliminating your values. The only way I am not going to have a negative emotional response when I see another human being suffer, is by no longer valuing human happiness. And as long as I do value human happiness, I am going to act accordingly (morally).
According to you, morality has nothing to do with other people’s happiness, it has everything to do with you living according to your values (which does not necessarily translates to other’s happiness). If a person doesn’t value human happiness, then how can he or she be immoral by disregarding it?
I do not agree with either of these statements. First of all, it is not impossible for me to live according to my values if society does not require it. All that is necessary is that society does not forbid it.
Obviously Stimpson.
And even if it does, I can still attempt to do so illegally. Many people in the past have done exactly that. For example, Germans who illegally sheltered Jews during World War 2. Or Americans who helped slaves escape from the Southern states in the US's past. And so on.
Yes, but none of these activities can be sustained if the system is not changed. If Hitler or the South had succeeded, it would have been impossible to live illegally. What luck that good triumphs over evil.
And second, you have not demonstrated your second point. You have merely repeated the claim over and over again.
I’m presenting lots of arguments and evidence which you seem to minimize or ignore.
Many parts of my own code are not required by society. For example, there are many things I could legally do, which would be to my benefit, but which I won't do because it goes against my values.
You are stating you act against your best interest because it goes against what you value most, that is a contradiction. I hope you can see that.
If I was the sociopath that you seem to think I should be, I wouldn't be working as a scientist for $40,000 a year. I would have started my own pseudo-scientific religion, and would probably be a millionaire by now.
Well, seems to me, that (according to your own definition of morality) you are being immoral by making less money than you could.
Wouldn’t you agree that with more money at your disposal, you could pursue more of the things you value (helping others, education, legitimate research, etc.)?
So being able to and not doing it, isn’t that immoral in your book?
I am not familiar with those studies. But what constitutes "most"? And what were the mitigating circumstances? For example, how many of those people chose not to get involved out of fear of negative consequences, such as being robbed, or blamed for the assault?
Whatever the circumstances, Stimpson, the point is they acted according to their best interest. You would say, according to their values. But can you understand that that second phrase is misleading?
Implicit in *my best interest* is the circumstances that make it so. It is not a set point. Consider that sometimes killing someone can be in someone’s best interest.
You don’t value human life the same. If you did, you would not have been in favor of the war in Iraq. Or am I missing something here?
In any event, if even a significant minority of the people chose option number 2, then that establishes that morality is useful.
Why would it? Secular morality is a set of rules that can’t be verified. All we know for sure, is that the people who chose #2 did so out their best interest.
And what do these studies say about the effectiveness of the heaven/hell promise/threat? Given that it is almost certain that most of the subjects were Christian, apparently it either isn't much of an incentive, or they don't think they are really going to be punished or rewarded for their actions.
But, we don’t know the consequences of their actions. They broke the code and the consequences are not heaven or hell, they are future ones on earth.
That is not my premise. My premise is that moral people will do the right thing. Not all people are moral, and not all people agree with what the right thing to do is.
That is not your premise at all. Your premise is that people will act according to their values. And what is the right thing to do? You are introducing an external element (an objective standard) Who sets the standard? How do you know your values will lead you to do the right thing?
The use is that I have still helped those few people. Even if the effect is slight, the World is still a better place for my having been here. That is reason enough. And of course, I am not the only one.
This is not necessarily true. Your effect must be of a particular size to make any difference. We do use the term negligible for some reason.
Huh? What does your irrational belief that God is going to protect your father from being mugged, when He clearly doesn't protect other innocent people from such harm, have to do with morality?
It has all to do. We follow these principles because God dispenses justice based on following them. (like protecting our elderly parents)
My proof is that I, personally, have benefited from other people helping me, even though they were not required to, and even though it was not in their best interest to do so. And I know many other people who have as well. In many of those cases I was the one doing the helping.
You are attributing benefits to morality that do not necessarily apply. If people associate great pleasure to helping others, that doesn’t mean they are moral.
I know what you are going to say, that they feel pleasure of helping others demonstrates that they valued helping others, thus that is moral because they are acting according to their values. What if the valued sticking it to everybody. Would they be moral then if the did indeed started sticking it to everybody?
[atheist hat extremely on]
And you says immorality does not contribute to society. Being immoral many times contributes much more than being moral.
[atheist hat off]
And if anybody at all benefits from morality in such a way, then that proves it is useful. The only question then is how useful?
This is faulty logic. People benefit all time by tragic incidents, that does not mean they are necessary.
And your statement that the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant to society is simply false. At best, you could try to claim that the benefit of morality is negligible. And you certainly have not done that.
I’m stating that morality is unnecessary or useless. That from morality you can derive benefits does not disprove it is necessary or useful. As I stated before and excuse the comparison, we can find trash useful, that says more about us than trash. Trash is still trash.
Sorry, no can do. The definition of morality is not consistent with it being impossible for something to be both a moral rule, and a legal requirement.
But don’t you see that the distinction becomes irrelevant. Whether you follow the rule because of your value or you follow them because of the law, you are obligated to follow it.
And is it impossible for you to see that an ethical rule can be immoral, or that an immoral act can be the right thing to do?
The fact that there are situations where laws can be circumvented, renders this argument ridiculous.
Not circumvented, broken. If you break the law it is totally different than if you break a moral law. It is irrelevant if you believe something legal is immoral if you get caught and punished for it.
And even if it were possible to enforce laws with 100% effectiveness, the fact remains that many laws start as moral rules, and then become laws when people who hold those morals demand that it do so.
No, for atheists, they start with social norms. Remember evolution. Animals have social norms, moral norms come with higher cognitive thinking.
On the contrary, this is an example of morality being vital to the big picture, because the only way the rule is ever going to transcend people's personal codes, is if they act on those values, and actively seek to change the laws. Without morality, there would be no reason to change the laws.
Without values there would be no reason to change the laws. In other words, if it wasn’t for the best interest the people involved, the laws would not change.
The people who make the laws are not going to benefit from increased spending on education. The only way it is going to happen is if people who are not going to benefit from it, and who are not required to do it, nevertheless actively work towards changing the laws. That is morality at work.
The people who make the laws are interested in getting reelected, they will do whatever is necessary for that end. People who go to vote (very few indeed) do so because they are interested in the issues at hand. That is the system at work.
The rules come from the values. Like I said before, if you value something, you will behave accordingly.
When I act according to my values, that is not necessarily morality. I can value eating dinner every night. If I skip a dinner, it does not mean I’m being immoral.
That is exactly my point. You impose rules of behavior on yourself due to your values (your love for your children). Your adherence to those rules benefits society. I rest my case.
I don’t impose rules on myself to love my children. My wife would kill me if she thought I love her because I have set rules for myself to love her. You are confusing terms here. My strong inclinations for something and my subsequent natural actions (as an effect of my strong inclinations [what I value]) are not rules (maybe there are some natural principles involved, but that is not morality)
It is absurd to say I love my children because I’m moral as it would be absurd to say my love for chocolate is a moral act.
That is self-contradictory. If you are only following the rules because some dictator is enforcing them, then they are just another set of laws you have to follow because somebody will punish you if you don't. It is, in effect, just another legal norm.
Remember. It is you who adheres to the definition that morality is *living according to your values*. To me morality is following God’s code. And just like a legal code, it is objective. I’m either doing a legal act or not.
Listen to what I’m saying, a standard is only useful if it is set at a fixed point.
Morals are only relevant to values. Morals are the rules you follow because you personally feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether somebody else is going to enforce those rules or not.
The problem with your definition is that you can never be immoral. You can always change what you value or what you think is the right thing to do. This is why I say your standard is unnecessary, is the same as having no standard at all.
And no, I’m not arguing that it is non-existent. Yes, you have moral rules, I’m sure. They exist. But, they don’t serve the purpose of norm systems. Norms are normative. Standards show where we are with respect to it. When you say you are being moral, your standard is your values, but your values are movable.
And that is morality. If you are doing something because it is consistent with your values, then that is morality.
Evidently not, Stimpson. If someone values killing people and does, he is not moral.
If you are doing something because you are compelled to by an external agency, then that is compliance.
I don’t agree. I say morality is simply following the standard. Rules are standard. Either I’m overweight or not. If the particular % of body fat is there, then I am. If I break the moral code, then I am immoral. For it to have any meaning, it has to be external.
And please, I keep repeating myself because I believe I’m showing self-evident reasoning.
The only way to eliminate morality is to eliminate values. As long as people have values, they will have morals. It's that simple.
This is not true. I have given you examples (specific examples) why this is not true.
I can have many values and eliminate morality.
I will give you more. A lawyer must value the system and respect its rules of procedure and must put them above his morality.
How else could a lawyer be able to defend a serial killer or a child molester.
What was your original point again? Do you agree that atheists are going to have values? If so, then do you agree that this necessarily implies that atheists are going to have moral codes of conduct, and that the only way to eliminate those morals would be to eliminate the associated values?
You are technically wrong here. I can site many examples of values that don’t translate to morality.
Rikzilla wrote:
Or an even better example; Catholic priests who sexually abused altar boys! They, above most other Christians, should have known best that the divine eye was on them! Yet still they sated their base desires under the gaze of, and sometimes in the house of, their Lord!
It makes one wonder if they truly believe someone is watching and will dispense justice. It does not say anything about the existence of God. It can only suggest what these people believe. To me, even though they are legally protected (the priests), they will suffer God’s punishment.
Christian, by your logic we should be able to look into the demographics of the incarcerated, and find a preponderance of atheists. Instead most studies that I have heard of show the precise opposite.
We should not be able to look anywhere because the atheist population is infinitesimal. Statistically speaking, the atheist population would be of no use for these types of demographic studies.
And consider that in the population of people who say they believe in a God of justice, those who don’t really believe it.
You say I've misrepresented your POV,...then you restate almost exactly the second part of what I said!? This goes to the heart of why it's so hard to debate you, your misperceptions are disturbing to the flow of debate, and end up becoming the thing that gets debated!
Yes, because your wording is misleading. When you use the word incapable you are implying by definition capacity. What you are trying to attribute to my argument is that I’m saying that atheists should not have the capacity to feel remorse. This is *totally* different from saying that atheists should get rid of that unnecessary feeling. If you can’t see the difference, I’m sorry.
I think you statement is unfair. I’m doing most of the talking and most importantly, I’m the one with the burden of proof. I think the topic is complex and this is why it is hard to get points across.
Okay...the Taoists would tell you that the "Tao" is within you. That in order to know "God", one must look within. By your logic Taoists should also eliminate remorse. Taoism has been around for 600 years prior to the birth of Christ...you'd think that by now they'd have adopted your logic and become a remorseless bunch of folks eh?
No, absolutely not. To Taoist remorse can be a step to find *the way* (an external force). And this idea of the internal compass is not exclusive to Taoists. The Romans considered that divine reason was planted in the conscience of humans. That by looking within, we could find this script.
Another thing, what perchance is an "external" God??
God : A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -----(dictionary.com)
Is not "God" limitless? If you believe God to be limitless, then please show me the place where God is not. If there is no place that God "is not" then there is no such thing as an "external" God.
Clearly, your definition of limitless is different from the one I understand. In your interpretation, I am God. This clearly is not what I would understand as limitless.
Oh? Look Christian, we have morals,...we make laws,....laws are an extension of our morals, not the other way around. Our morals inform the law.
I will show you specifically why your view is wrong.
How do we arrive at ethical norms? Are ethical norms the same as moral norms? If not, do we create legal norms from ethical norms?
If you can answer those, then you we see why laws are not necessarily an extension of moral laws.
The prisoners dilemma is a simple analytical tool which shows us how humans came to devise moral norms. How do we know what is right? We choose that which will give us a beneficial outcome. Enough beneficial outcomes become our "moral good". Moral good, given enough time to evolve ends up codified in laws and referred to as "social norms".
No, the prisoner’s dilemma is an analytical tool that shows how people maximize their utility. It is primarily used to show economic principles at work. The same ones I’m using to support my position. Here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PrisonersDilemma.html
Again, your ability to percieve things as they are comes into question. In all my earlier replies to you I was nothing if not polite. Your assumption that I was being "condescending" is insulting to me because I was completely in earnest when I said I was glad for you.
This is the definition I have of condescending:
And this one of patronizing:
So when you tell me in a very nice way to open my mind to other possibilities and perceptions, if I really wish to understand others, I take that as condescension.
But, if that was not your intent, I apologize for the misinterpretation.
People who find joy in faith are not objects of ridicule to me. I am not an atheist. I am arguing in favor of the atheist position on this issue that you brought up because you are being decidedly unfair to them in your assumptions.
Again I ask you, what are the unfair assumptions? I have responded to your allegation that I’m being unfair, but if I am, please let me see where.
Then, when people such as Stimpy point out the holes in your ideas, instead of "discard(ing) those that are lacking" as you claim above, you merely restate them and ignore how they are lacking.
No, I’m making rebuttals. And he, in turn, answers them. If I kept repeating myself and not bringing different points and arguments to the discussion, this thread would not be this long and the responses would not be as lengthy. (from both sides)
Obviously you believe yourself to be superior to atheists here, and merely use the people on this forum to help you "develop your skills"........a purely selfish pursuit, wouldn't you say?
There is nothing wrong (at least in my book) to point out a logical flaw or a wrong idea. There is nothing wrong with saying I’m right you are wrong in this idea and here is why.
I would not only say it is an absolutely selfish pursuit but I would add that that is what makes a forum work. Imagine how boring this place would be if Stimpson spent the time he does in here in trying to make government spend more on education. [terrible lousy joke]
Anyway, why would you conclude from my selfishness that I feel superior?
What does that say of your own morals? Shouldn't you be trying to save our souls, or somesuch?
No, I should not. There is nothing I could say to you that would convince you. Yes, what does that say about my morals?
Or is this logical argument of yours supposed to lead us to the conclusion that we need Jesus in order to be moral human beings?
If you make the connection, I think it is not a bad one.
Chance wrote:
Incorrect assumption and one you keep making. You can feel bad about things without being taught just observing children will convince you of that.
Because I observe children all the time, I can conclude that this stuff is learned. If you really want to convince yourself, ask any kindergarten teacher. Or you can read any book on the subject of imparting principles on children. Or, you can have children and find out. (if you don’t already have some)
No matter how you were brought up, someone somewhere can push the right buttons to make you change your moral outlook on the world, no one is immune. We may think we can be like a rock to change but it’s an impossibility.
You would be supporting my case. The only way to prevent this button pushing is by having external bilateral norms.
Christian
You have concluded incorrectly, or failed to understand what you are seeing. There is a point in a child’s life (about 4 if memory serves) where they are able to empathise and it is at this point they realise that lying is a possibility, which they soon put into practice. Note that they do not have to be taught this. They are however taught that lying is not something to aspire too. As they mature they soon realise that lying can produce unfavourable repercussions (this can be experience or taught) thus leading to remorse. Note the complex mix of instinctive behaviour and learned behaviour.
and
3 children (now all grown).
You have concluded incorrectly, or failed to understand what you are seeing. There is a point in a child’s life (about 4 if memory serves) where they are able to empathise and it is at this point they realise that lying is a possibility, which they soon put into practice. Note that they do not have to be taught this. They are however taught that lying is not something to aspire too. As they mature they soon realise that lying can produce unfavourable repercussions (this can be experience or taught) thus leading to remorse. Note the complex mix of instinctive behaviour and learned behaviour.
and
So if a saint has his buttons pushed and becomes corrupt supports your case how? The most steadfast are not immune, some belief systems (or world view) may afford some protection but it’s not infallible. Explain how my statement supports your case. Better yet provide some hypothetical examples.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Christian,
Thanks for the links, but I think we are talking about different concepts here.
You seem to be saying (via the links) that it's cleary true that all people, in the absence of some strong external framework, will apply the principle "what's good for me is right, and to hell with the rest of you".
What I am saying (building on what I think Stimpy was saying) is that *if* a person is raised with an external framework that teaches the necessity for morals, and the rewards that come from such behaviour, then these people will be moral more often than not.
I'd suggest that your links fail to establish your case on 5 different grounds :
1. There is little or non discussion of the "moral upbringing" of the people in each of these situations. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about "how effective" various moral systems might be. Unless you are trying to say "see - every case I find is the same outcome. Therefor we can tentatively conclude the 'moral input' is irrelevant".
2. The links do not so in any way that the overwhelming majority of people behave poorly. If anything, in each case it seems to showing that a small number of people engaged in immoral behaviour can have a large effect on the majority of people. Witness the worldwide results of the actions of 19 men on September 11.
3. The links do not show that, even amongst the "lawless", that morality has collapsed totally - simply that some behaviours have become 'acceptable' to those committing them. A dealer may have little trouble selling drugs, yet still find it morally reprehensible to assualt his own daughter.
4. SHort term versus - long term outcomes. Even if someone acts immorally, they may seek at some stage in the future to 'make amends', because they know they acted incorrectly. The links say nothing about any tendency for people to seek to correct an error.
5. The links you have chosen seem to be examples of "extreme" environments in which people suddenly find themselves.
In particular, the lack of suitable law enforcement seems a common theme.
Is this your point, then? That if we take a 'normal/moral' person and place them into a dog-eat-dog situation then they start behaving like ... well, a dog? See #2 above - I'm not prepared to concede this point on the evidence you've presented so far.
Some? Yes.
All? No.
Yet even if I agree with this point, it's not really what is being presented to you. What is being proposed is "how and why would a normal/moral person behave in a well constructed society?". If you want to discuss "how people behave in situations where society is in turmoil?" then I suggest we better start another thread.
Now, from your links ...
Thanks for the links, but I think we are talking about different concepts here.
You seem to be saying (via the links) that it's cleary true that all people, in the absence of some strong external framework, will apply the principle "what's good for me is right, and to hell with the rest of you".
What I am saying (building on what I think Stimpy was saying) is that *if* a person is raised with an external framework that teaches the necessity for morals, and the rewards that come from such behaviour, then these people will be moral more often than not.
I'd suggest that your links fail to establish your case on 5 different grounds :
1. There is little or non discussion of the "moral upbringing" of the people in each of these situations. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about "how effective" various moral systems might be. Unless you are trying to say "see - every case I find is the same outcome. Therefor we can tentatively conclude the 'moral input' is irrelevant".
2. The links do not so in any way that the overwhelming majority of people behave poorly. If anything, in each case it seems to showing that a small number of people engaged in immoral behaviour can have a large effect on the majority of people. Witness the worldwide results of the actions of 19 men on September 11.
3. The links do not show that, even amongst the "lawless", that morality has collapsed totally - simply that some behaviours have become 'acceptable' to those committing them. A dealer may have little trouble selling drugs, yet still find it morally reprehensible to assualt his own daughter.
4. SHort term versus - long term outcomes. Even if someone acts immorally, they may seek at some stage in the future to 'make amends', because they know they acted incorrectly. The links say nothing about any tendency for people to seek to correct an error.
5. The links you have chosen seem to be examples of "extreme" environments in which people suddenly find themselves.
In particular, the lack of suitable law enforcement seems a common theme.
Is this your point, then? That if we take a 'normal/moral' person and place them into a dog-eat-dog situation then they start behaving like ... well, a dog? See #2 above - I'm not prepared to concede this point on the evidence you've presented so far.
Some? Yes.
All? No.
Yet even if I agree with this point, it's not really what is being presented to you. What is being proposed is "how and why would a normal/moral person behave in a well constructed society?". If you want to discuss "how people behave in situations where society is in turmoil?" then I suggest we better start another thread.
Now, from your links ...
The first link clearly lays the blame for the breakdown in behaviour on a lost of social cohesion.
The second lays the blame for much of the violence on religious in-fighting.
This link lists'amorally' as a factor in lawlessness, but places it within a larger pciture of a society in which such concerns were not part of the fabric.
The lawlessness exists because the law is not working. Okay!
A small ruling elite has usruped the rule of law for their own purposes. This in no way suggests that the vast majority of Zimbabweans have become immoral.
Enron happened because the culture of the ruling elite encouraged it.
Despite the fact that you want to use a theory of economics as if it was a fact, even if we assume this to be true, it isn't the full story. From the economic link...
"beneficial to all". Smith claims that acting in your own economic self interest is also acting in a way that is beneficial to all. This is disputed by other economists ( gather), but if true it simply shows again that the individual's benefit and societies benefit are linked.
Okay, so you have no *direct* evidence.
Okay, now try answering with your theist hat on.