NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the distinction? Comprehending morality is impossible without reason, and reason is valueless without morality.

I may be inclined to believe the first part, but not so much on the second...

Rationality is basically reasoning, and reasoning may give us...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reason

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction

3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

None of those things are exclusive to a Moral stance, are they?

Regards,
Gaar

Very cliched and simplistic example:

Someone's overweight wife asks him if she is starting to get fat. He is morally justified in lying as a falsehood would spare her feelings and the truth would hurt her.

And yet the lie does not "benefit" the wife, does it?

Perhaps you wouldn't mind finding an example that "fits" YOUR premise?

Morality is all perception, what you view as detrimental to someone might not actually be detremental, what you view as wrong might not be wrong to someone else. Therefore morality cannot be absolute.

Yes, not ALL Morality is absolute, I believe I have said as much.

But I also believe there ARE SOME Moral absolutes, and until YOU can SHOW ME how ANYONE could have murder as a Morality that is not wrong I will continue to say that there are some Moral Absolutes.

Rationality is only concerned with data and logical deductions. Rationality can either be right or wrong, black or white. Therefore rationality can have absolutes.

And a thesis cannot prove an assumption, in fact theses aren't used to prove anything.

We agree a good deal towards the initial question, our disagreement stems from our view on the nature of morals.

Sorry I have to again disagree with you... There may be Moral "reasoning" that fits into a "rational" assumption, can there not?

Regards,
Gaar

And yet the lie does not "benefit" the wife, does it?

Perhaps you wouldn't mind finding an example that "fits" YOUR premise?

My point is that morality is relative, it is a point of view. Some may find it morally justifiable to lie in that situation, while you don't. Therefore, complete truth is not a moral absolute.

Yes, not ALL Morality is absolute, I believe I have said as much.

But I also believe there ARE SOME Moral absolutes, and until YOU can SHOW ME how ANYONE could have murder as a Morality that is not wrong I will continue to say that there are some Moral Absolutes.

How about infanticide? It has been practiced throughout history, and a few times was considered a moral practice by some societies.

Sorry I have to again disagree with you... There may be Moral "reasoning" that fits into a "rational" assumption, can there not?

Regards,
Gaar

Morality is never the basis for rationality. Rationality is based on facts and logic. Morality can be based on rationality, however. Take sympathy for example, we have the rational ability to deduce the pain another is going through, and we take that in to form our morality.

My point is that morality is relative, it is a point of view. Some may find it morally justifiable to lie in that situation, while you don't. Therefore, complete truth is not a moral absolute.

No actually, I believe you were saying you could find a situation where it benefited ALL to lie about it. I am still waiting for you to point out JUST ONE of these instances.

How about infanticide? It has been practiced throughout history, and a few times was considered a moral practice by some societies.

I'm not so sure I believe this, you wouldn't mind giving an example, would you?

And just to make clear... Are you trying to say that if you can find one thing that doesn't fit just one Morality then ALL Morality cannot be Absolute?

Again, that is something I find very hard to accept.

Morality is never the basis for rationality. Rationality is based on facts and logic. Morality can be based on rationality, however. Take sympathy for example, we have the rational ability to deduce the pain another is going through, and we take that in to form our morality.

Again we disagree, from the definition it may also be just the stated "reasoning" behind an action. No where does it say it has to be a rational reason, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

All rational people would give a damn, because all rational people would understand the importance of a organized, peaceful society. You are starting to sound religious, as this is the same as saying you don't like atheism because you're thinking, "Alright, were here, but who gives a damn."
Good afternoon VO
I am going to repost here something I posted on page 2 of this thread. This I believe makes my objection clear.

Our personal morality is a set of motives for us to act. If it does not bother us, make us do something, then it really is not a moral issue for us. Morality is part of motivation.

Now rationality is something completely different to this. Rationality does things like tell you that if you go outside in the rain you will get wet. This does not imply anything about your desire to get wet or stay dry. Rationality also tells us what actions are possible, and what actions will lead to what results. It is instrumental and expositional.

None of these things gets you off of your backside. What does that is your desires, your goals and aims etc. You go to university because you want something. Want, there is the key to motivation.

Now if morality can motivate us, and it has to to be morality, then it has to be based on desires and wants, not on rationality.


There is then the problem that reason simply does not motivate. That a society organised this way will be peaceful does not motivate anyone. Desiring a peaceful society motivates peoe to find means to this end. Desire, passion, moitivate.

(I am an outright atheist, so I find the idea of my sounding religious amusing :) )



I watched a television show on C-Span in which a member of the Ayn Rand institute was asked a question about an emergency situation where one would be forced to kill another in order to survive. He said that that situation is not addressed by rationality, as rationality is only concerned with when life is possible, not when it is impossible.

This goes for society as well. If there comes a situation when our actions become based on self-preservation in the physical sense, rationality, society, and laws break down. I would be unsure how to set a law that decides who dies if you are on a life raft.

But it is exactly in these critical situations that the law is most needed and most depended upon. The member of the Ayn Rand institute was being disingeneous in that rationality is always available as a standard. If you argue that one has to be in a civilized peaceful society before rationality can be used, then you are saying that that society can not be the resut of rationality. This would mean that the laws of that society have to be based on something else.

I do not believe that wants and desires represent morality. I also believe that if I looked hard enough, I could find someone who honestly doesn't care about respect.

But you may be right on this point, I will think about it.

I am looking at morality as being inherently practical. This means that it guides our actions, it says what is allowable and what is not. It moves our hand in the world. For it to be that it has to be based, in some degree on desires. It can not be a purely rational faculty. This is not to say that rationality has no role in morality, it is simply saying that rationality can not be al of morality.

Right.

Name a good, useful, but irrational law.

I may be inclined to believe the first part, but not so much on the second...

Rationality is basically reasoning, and reasoning may give us...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reason

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction

3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

None of those things are exclusive to a Moral stance, are they?

Definitions 1 and 2 here apply to the word reason, but not to the word rational. I can have irrational reasons.

- Why did you scream?
- Because I saw a spider.

It is a reason, but an irrational one. In this case it fits definitions 1 and 2, but not 3.

Rationality is not excluded by a moral stance, but there are often aspects of a moral stance that exclude rationality. The two are not equivalent.
Murder is wrong, is a moral stance position. There is no rational reasoning involved here. Just a fundamental belief concernig the value of human life.

Right.

Name a good, useful, but irrational law.

Offside in soccer, or pass interference in football? ;)

More seriously.
Firstly something that is not rational is not necessarily irrational. It is not opposed to rationality, itt simply is not based on rationality.

"All men are equal" is not rational, it is good and useful, but has no rational basis as all men are obviously not equal. It is a statement of principle, not a logical deduction.

No actually, I believe you were saying you could find a situation where it benefited ALL to lie about it. I am still waiting for you to point out JUST ONE of these instances.

Then we are simply misunderstanding each other. I asked someone to point out some moral absolutes and they said being honest. I was simply trying to point out that since there are people who can morally justify lying in certain situations you could not consider complete honesty a moral absolute.

Now if you want to break a lie down and find all of the beneficial and detremental effects to everyone involved and weigh out the justification that way, you are talking about rationality.

I'm not so sure I believe this, you wouldn't mind giving an example, would you?

Oh, Wikipedia, how I love you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide)

And just to make clear... Are you trying to say that if you can find one thing that doesn't fit just one Morality then ALL Morality cannot be Absolute?

Again, that is something I find very hard to accept.

Definition of Absolute:

[adj] perfect or complete or pure; "absolute loyalty"; "absolute silence"; "absolute truth"; "absolute alcohol"

By this definition, for something to be absolute, there must be no disagreement, it must be complete. So if one situation arises where morality is questioned or opposed, then it cannot be absolute.

Again we disagree, from the definition it may also be just the stated "reasoning" behind an action. No where does it say it has to be a rational reason, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

I am referring to intellectual rationality.

Murder is wrong, is a moral stance position. There is no rational reasoning involved here. Just a fundamental belief concernig the value of human life.

And hence the reason I believe it to be a Moral Absolute.

And thank you for making my argument for me...

No rational reasoning though? It isn't rational to say that I have a Right to Life so you have no Right to murder me?

Regards,
Gaar

Offside in soccer, or pass interference in football? ;)

More seriously.
Firstly something that is not rational is not necessarily irrational. It is not opposed to rationality, itt simply is not based on rationality.

"All men are equal" is not rational, it is good and useful, but has no rational basis as all men are obviously not equal. It is a statement of principle, not a logical deduction.

If there is absolutely no rational basis for something... doesn't mean its -crazy-, but it lacks rationality.

As for "All men are equal", it's neither a law, nor a fact, nor is it always useful, because it leads to harmful confusion "But Mom, you said all men are equal... but Billy has Down Syndrome. Do I -have- to consider his answer to my physics question to be automatically equal with Dr. Bob the Physicist?"

However, a law, "All individuals gain equal protection under the law" is fine and dandy, and is rational due to the avoidance of majority vs. minority wars that it leads to.

Try again. A "Non-rational" law.

In regards to murder, by definition its an illegal act, (Killing is not always murder, etc.). In general, a lack of killing leads to a more productive, less fearful society. Thus, it's rational.

By this definition, for something to be absolute, there must be no disagreement, it must be complete. So if one situation arises where morality is questioned or opposed, then it cannot be absolute.


Again I believe you have missed my point.

I have never said that ALL morality is Absolute, just that there ARE Moral Absolutes...

And because someone can give a "reason" they have done something, doesn't make it rational and or Moral, does it?

So perhaps you can explain how "thou shall not murder" is NOT a Moral absolute?

Regards,
Gaar

Oh, Wikipedia, how I love you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide)


So because Society has tried to RATIONALIZE murder you are saying that precludes it from being a Moral Absolute?

Just how does that work, in your mind?

The two are not mutually inclussive or exclusive, are they?

Regards,
Gaar

With murder, it's a matter of breaking the law. It is rational to obey non-harmful laws.

If you mean "Killing without what one feels is a justifiable motive..." Different.

And hence the reason I believe it to be a Moral Absolute.

And thank you for making my argument for me...

No rational reasoning though? It isn't rational to say that I have a Right to Life so you have no Right to murder me?

Regards,
Gaar

For once, I am on the same side as you. I argue that law has to be basically moral, not rational. But I have different reasons.

My right to life has no logical or necessary connection with your actions whatsoever as rights are beliefs. They are unjustified and unjustifiable statements of principle. This does not make them wrong or unimportant, but they are negotiable. Rational conclusions are not negotiable, they are right, in the sense that the reasoning is logicaly sound, or they are wrong. That is all that is possible.

My right to life is not rationally founded. It is simply a paraphrase of mureder is wrong. At one level there is a logical connection as one is simply a reformulation of the other. But there is no rational grounding for either statement.

However, this does not mean that murder is wrong, or my right to life are moral absolutes. They are contingent on the moral values of the time and place. As i posted earlier, I believe morality to be based on self interest, which leaves moral absolutes as being those things that are always to the interest of each individual. Murder is wrong does not fit in this description. Tio mafia bosses murder is often in their interest.
Respect others is probably much closer to a moral absolute.

Murder is wrong does not fit in this description. Tio mafia bosses murder is often in their interest.
Respect others is probably much closer to a moral absolute.

Because murder may be in someones "interest" it is therefore not a Morality?

So I should, Morally speaking, respect everyone, in your opinion, but I don't necessarily have to allow them to live?

How is that respecting them?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

By the way...

I couldn't disagree more with that "respect" thing.

I don't necessarily have to respect anyone, but I do have to recognize their RIGHT to LIFE, do I not?

Regards,
Gaar

As for "All men are equal", it's neither a law, nor a fact, nor is it always useful, because it leads to harmful confusion "But Mom, you said all men are equal... but Billy has Down Syndrome. Do I -have- to consider his answer to my physics question to be automatically equal with Dr. Bob the Physicist?"

However, a law, "All individuals gain equal protection under the law" is fine and dandy, and is rational due to the avoidance of majority vs. minority wars that it leads to.

Try again. A "Non-rational" law.

You know what I meant, and you rephrased it for me. Thank you.
The avoidance of majority vs minority wars is a subjective value. There is no rational reason why this is good. There is a value judgement that this is good, that is all. At the root of all systems of law you will find value judgements which can not be rationally justified. Law tends to be based on the twin pillars of justice and fairness. The first being to do with property, the second to do with treatment ofd individuals. The difficulty is to provide any rational justification for either one of these two pillars without assuming them to be good.
I am not saying that they are not good. I am simply saying that this is a non rational assessment.

So I still stand by, in your words, "All individuals gain equal protection under the law" as being good and useful but not rational in itself.

By the way...

I couldn't disagree more with that "respect" thing.

I don't necessarily have to respect anyone, but I do have to recognize their RIGHT to LIFE, do I not?

Regards,
Gaar

No, why do you have to recognise their right to life?

And on the respect thing. I meant to argue that you want to be respected, nothing more.
See one of my earlier posts here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8384314&postcount=211) in the last couple of lines. Sorry for the confusion.

I am off now to watch the UEFA CL. Will check back later.

So I still stand by, in your words, "All individuals gain equal protection under the law" as being good and useful but not rational in itself.

It's not rational to say that we should be treated equally by the Society in which we live?

I would contend that it is a much more rational stance than saying we aren't equal and should be treated differently.

Regards,
Gaar

No, why do you have to recognise their right to life?

And on the respect thing. I am arguing that you want to be respected, nothing more.

No I'm sorry, I don't really care if you respect me...

But I do care if you recognize my Right to Live!

I have to recognize their Right to Live so they will recognize that very Right for me. That, in my mind, is why it is an absolute! How could I expect something of someone else if I am unwilling to do it myself?

Regards,
Gaar

Rationality is the way to go

Good afternoon VO
I am going to repost here something I posted on page 2 of this thread. This I believe makes my objection clear.

There is then the problem that reason simply does not motivate. That a society organised this way will be peaceful does not motivate anyone. Desiring a peaceful society motivates peoe to find means to this end. Desire, passion, moitivate.

(I am an outright atheist, so I find the idea of my sounding religious amusing :) )

I never said anything about personal morality. Which is the basis for desire. In fact, I think that laws should be based on rationality if only to protect personal moralities.

Since I believe that there are no absolute moralities, then when laws are set reflecting morality then someone will be discriminated against due to their morality.

But it is exactly in these critical situations that the law is most needed and most depended upon. The member of the Ayn Rand institute was being disingeneous in that rationality is always available as a standard. If you argue that one has to be in a civilized peaceful society before rationality can be used, then you are saying that that society can not be the resut of rationality. This would mean that the laws of that society have to be based on something else.

Actually, you are correct that you still can be rational in those situations, but laws generally do not apply to these situations.

As for society, society was founded when people advanced to a point where life wasn't a constant struggle. Self-preservation will always hold prominence over society. If there is an emergency situation where people must fight to survive, laws and society will break down. That means that emergency situations should not be considered in this situation, since society and laws no longer apply.

I am looking at morality as being inherently practical. This means that it guides our actions, it says what is allowable and what is not. It moves our hand in the world. For it to be that it has to be based, in some degree on desires. It can not be a purely rational faculty. This is not to say that rationality has no role in morality, it is simply saying that rationality can not be al of morality.

I think you are interlacing values and morality here. Your values are what motivates you, but your morals are what governs your actions.

You know what I meant, and you rephrased it for me. Thank you.


Always glad to help clarify arguments. So much nicer than confusion.


The avoidance of majority vs minority wars is a subjective value. There is no rational reason why this is good.


Fairly simple rationalization.

Wars are harmful.

If I'm rich, I don't want to have my maids trying to kill me.

If I'm poor, I don't want to be involved in the storming of a rich person's mansion, and their prized collection of guard dogs.

If I'm middle class, I don't want to be caught in the crossfire.


There is a value judgement that this is good, that is all. At the root of all systems of law you will find value judgements which can not be rationally justified. Law tends to be based on the twin pillars of justice and fairness. The first being to do with property, the second to do with treatment ofd individuals. The difficulty is to provide any rational justification for either one of these two pillars without assuming them to be good.


Justice is better described as 'appeasement' and 'threat'. The notion of justice only serves to appease angry victims, and to scare people in to not doing more crimes. It is thus, quite rational.

Fairness is rational for the usual conflict-avoidance issues.


I am not saying that they are not good. I am simply saying that this is a non rational assessment.

So I still stand by, in your words, "All individuals gain equal protection under the law" as being good and useful but not rational in itself.

I find it to be one of the most rational laws in the history of civilization. Its just that we tend to not follow it.

First off, our laws are nothing but legislated morality. That's is precisely what they consist of. Otherwise, we would not have abolished slavery. Economically speaking, it was beneficial for us to have slaves. Not only that, but rationally it didn't make sense to fight a war over it that would destroy half of our nation's economic strength and cost millions to repair the damage from, not even considering the 500,000 lives that would be lost as a result, most of which would come from the young men, who should have become the backbone of the country.

Also, it would not have made sense to give women equal rights rationally, since paying them lower wages for jobs etc. was profitable. Also, the men in power rationally should have seen that it was better for them to come home to a good hot meal than come home to a message saying "Sorry, I have to work late, can you make dinner?"

Theft, murder, etc. can be rationally explained as beneficial to society. However, they originally cropped up as being moral issues, and only later did individuals such as atheists rationalize them.

Even minimum wage laws depend on morality. Is it right for the CEOs to get rich while their workers are paid $0.50 an hour? No. So we make a law. Then Clinton got into office and said, "Actually, we'll give you a bonus if you move to Mexico and India and abuse THEIR workers." Which wasn't very moral, but that's Clinton for ya.

As for the respect issue, not everyone craves respect.

I do find it -useful- in many situations, but I also -feed- off of disrespect. Last time I had a truly horrible teacher, it was for a poetry class. I ended up cussing them out in rhyme in my head. It was rather mentally stimulating, as much as I despised the class itself.

First off, our laws are nothing but legislated morality. That's is precisely what they consist of. Otherwise, we would not have abolished slavery. Economically speaking, it was beneficial for us to have slaves. Not only that, but rationally it didn't make sense to fight a war over it that would destroy half of our nation's economic strength and cost millions to repair the damage from, not even considering the 500,000 lives that would be lost as a result, most of which would come from the young men, who should have become the backbone of the country.

Also, it would not have made sense to give women equal rights rationally, since paying them lower wages for jobs etc. was profitable. Also, the men in power rationally should have seen that it was better for them to come home to a good hot meal than come home to a message saying "Sorry, I have to work late, can you make dinner?"

Theft, murder, etc. can be rationally explained as beneficial to society. However, they originally cropped up as being moral issues, and only later did individuals such as atheists rationalize them.

Even minimum wage laws depend on morality. Is it right for the CEOs to get rich while their workers are paid $0.50 an hour? No. So we make a law. Then Clinton got into office and said, "Actually, we'll give you a bonus if you move to Mexico and India and abuse THEIR workers." Which wasn't very moral, but that's Clinton for ya.

Funny how you make your argument from only one side...

Do you think the Slaves thought slavery was Moral?

You think women thought not voting and not being paid what men are was Moral?

And that you believe that theft and murder can be rationally explained to the Whole of Society kind of disturbs me...

Regards,
Gaar

First off, our laws are nothing but legislated morality.


How is a law taxing someone for the president (either party) to throw a big party morality?


That's is precisely what they consist of. Otherwise, we would not have abolished slavery.


When's the last history course you took?


Economically speaking, it was beneficial for us to have slaves.


Rationally speaking, if slavery exists, there are situations making it possible for you to become a slave. It also makes it hell for unskilled labor. Remember, class wars.


Not only that, but rationally it didn't make sense to fight a war over it that would destroy half of our nation's economic strength and cost millions to repair the damage from, not even considering the 500,000 lives that would be lost as a result, most of which would come from the young men, who should have become the backbone of the country.


We did not fight the Civil War over slavery. We fought it to keep the South from being able to grow powerful enough to beat the hell out of the North.


Also, it would not have made sense to give women equal rights rationally, since paying them lower wages for jobs etc. was profitable.


Always good to have half the population angry at you, right?

Equality is rational.


Also, the men in power rationally should have seen that it was better for them to come home to a good hot meal than come home to a message saying "Sorry, I have to work late, can you make dinner?"


Rational men notice the benefit of having two large incomes.


Theft, murder, etc. can be rationally explained as beneficial to society.


Murder is breaking the law, so its a problem of ignoring authority. It also upsets the population, who can become restless and less able to work.

Theft has a similar effect, but also alters the distribution of money.

Donald Trump does not wish to be mugged.


However, they originally cropped up as being moral issues, and only later did individuals such as atheists rationalize them.


You have it backwards. The secular reason hit first, and the religious reason was put in place to force people to listen.

Just like with the 'kosher' issue being wholly about health.

If "Carbs make baby Jesus cry", you'll end up with a bunch of low-carb Christians, without having to deal with explaining Atkins.


Even minimum wage laws depend on morality. Is it right for the CEOs to get rich while their workers are paid $0.50 an hour? No. So we make a law. Then Clinton got into office and said, "Actually, we'll give you a bonus if you move to Mexico and India and abuse THEIR workers." Which wasn't very moral, but that's Clinton for ya.

People don't like massive disparity. Disparity makes the labor force angry, and then you end up with a communist or socialist revolution.

As for Clinton, he was a politician. Morality isn't their thing, and they're not rational, just rationalizers. Big dif.

In the long term, its harmful to the country, making it an irrational action.

No, that social contract is rationality.

Altruistic morality would hold that it is wrong to steal from someone, as it would hurt that person. Rationality would dictate that it would be a poor decision, as he may retaliate.
You're nitpicking. There are different versions of the social contract. The classic version is the root of the golden rule. There is also the version of the social contract used in Kohlberg's scale of ethical cognition. That version basically states that you do not harm others because you feel a part of everyone, and everyone is a part of you. Thus, hurting others is hurting yourself. This one is difficult to understand unless you're operating on that level. I've read all the levels and don't really understand them, I've had people try to explain them to me, but they don't make sense until you operate on those levels. The highest level (that's been recorded) is the level that men like Thich Quang Duc (the classic "burning monk") operate on.

So because Society has tried to RATIONALIZE murder you are saying that precludes it from being a Moral Absolute?

Just how does that work, in your mind?

The two are not mutually inclussive or exclusive, are they?

Regards,
Gaar

No, the societies believed that murder was MORALLY acceptable when it benefits society or a family.

Morality can be based off of rationality, but in that case the morality can be broken down to rationalization. The morality is not necessary for making laws.

You're nitpicking. There are different versions of the social contract. The classic version is the root of the golden rule. There is also the version of the social contract used in Kohlberg's scale of ethical cognition. That version basically states that you do not harm others because you feel a part of everyone, and everyone is a part of you. Thus, hurting others is hurting yourself. This one is difficult to understand unless you're operating on that level. I've read all the levels and don't really understand them, I've had people try to explain them to me, but they don't make sense until you operate on those levels. The highest level (that's been recorded) is the level that men like Thich Quang Duc (the classic "burning monk") operate on.

I am not nitpicking. There are different social contracts, but "I won't kill you, if you don't kill me" is a rational contract. You analyze what is best for you and you compromise in order to protect your best wishes. "I won't kill you because it would hurt you and hurting people is wrong," is a moral contract.

For once, I am on the same side as you. I argue that law has to be basically moral, not rational. But I have different reasons.

My right to life has no logical or necessary connection with your actions whatsoever as rights are beliefs. They are unjustified and unjustifiable statements of principle. This does not make them wrong or unimportant, but they are negotiable. Rational conclusions are not negotiable, they are right, in the sense that the reasoning is logicaly sound, or they are wrong. That is all that is possible.

My right to life is not rationally founded. It is simply a paraphrase of mureder is wrong. At one level there is a logical connection as one is simply a reformulation of the other. But there is no rational grounding for either statement.

However, this does not mean that murder is wrong, or my right to life are moral absolutes. They are contingent on the moral values of the time and place. As i posted earlier, I believe morality to be based on self interest, which leaves moral absolutes as being those things that are always to the interest of each individual. Murder is wrong does not fit in this description. Tio mafia bosses murder is often in their interest.
Respect others is probably much closer to a moral absolute.

Existence is the only true rational absolute we have. It is the one thing that we can be sure of. That means that existence is the only thing that we can know has value. Laws should be a rational extension of the right to exist and experience.

No, the societies believed that murder was MORALLY acceptable when it benefits society or a family.

Morality can be based off of rationality, but in that case the morality can be broken down to rationalization. The morality is not necessary for making laws.

Sorry, but again I believe you are wrong...

Society now has RATIONALIZED that Abortion is Lawful, that doesn't mean I don't find it Morally wrong.

Again, Society may RATIONALIZE things that don't necessarily follow their Morals, the very reason I have said I believe Rationalization rather than Morals should be the basis for our Laws. Not everyones Morals are the same, are they?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, but again I believe you are wrong...

Society now has RATIONALIZED that Abortion is Lawful, that doesn't mean I don't find it Morally wrong.

Again, Society may RATIONALIZE things that don't necessarily follow their Morals, the very reason I have said I believe Rationalization rather than Morals should be the basis for our Laws. Not everyones Morals are the same, are they?

Regards,
Gaar

Even though abortion is not infanticide, most of the abortion debate revolves around morality questions.

But we completely agree, I don't know why you are arguing with me. I say that there are no absolute moralities because morality is all perception and unique to every person.

You manage to argue with me and then agree with in the same post.

Funny how you make your argument from only one side...

Do you think the Slaves thought slavery was Moral?

You think women thought not voting and not being paid what men are was Moral?

And that you believe that theft and murder can be rationally explained to the Whole of Society kind of disturbs me...

Regards,
Gaar
Dumbass. You are truly a fool. I said that our laws WERE based on morality. Because of this, we abolished certain things. I said that if you looked at them rationally, then there would be no need to get rid of them, with the exceptions of crimes such as theft and murder, which destabilize the nation.

However, since your reading comprehension skills roughly equal that of a gerbel, you go ahead and post away.

Sincere Regards,
Ace

Dumbass. You are truly a fool. I said that our laws WERE based on morality. Because of this, we abolished certain things. I said that if you looked at them rationally, then there would be no need to get rid of them, with the exceptions of crimes such as theft and murder, which destabilize the nation.

However, since your reading comprehension skills roughly equal that of a gerbel, you go ahead and post away.

Sincere Regards,
Ace

And I say they shouldn't be BASED in Morals because of the VERY REASON I have cited! NOT EVERYONES MORALS ARE THE SAME!

Something about that YOU don't get?

So because I point out the fallacy in YOUR argument you say I lack comprehension?

Perhaps you might like to address the question I asked of the differing Morals BEFORE you go on your rant?

Laws MUST be derived from the Rights given in the Constitution! If they do not uphold or try to subvert the Constitution in any way they are not supposed to be able to make that Law.

Regards,
Gaar

But we completely agree, I don't know why you are arguing with me. I say that there are no absolute moralities because morality is all perception and unique to every person.

You manage to argue with me and then agree with in the same post.

No we don't.

I believe there are Moral absolutes, you do not.

I believe that Life is a Moral Absolute. If you say that someone can say that murder is ok because they can "rationalize a reason" for doing it, I will say that that reasoning will have nothing to do with Morals.

Regards,
Gaar

No we don't.

I believe there are Moral absolutes, you do not.

I believe that Life is a Moral Absolute. If you say that someone can say that murder is ok because they can "rationalize a reason" for doing it, I will say that that reasoning will have nothing to do with Morals.

Regards,
Gaar

No one can rationalize murder within a society. If murder becomes rationalized society will break down.

Through utilitarianism, murder can be morally justified.

1. How is a law taxing someone for the president (either party) to throw a big party morality?

2. When's the last history course you took?

3. Rationally speaking, if slavery exists, there are situations making it possible for you to become a slave. It also makes it hell for unskilled labor. Remember, class wars.

4. We did not fight the Civil War over slavery. We fought it to keep the South from being able to grow powerful enough to beat the hell out of the North.

5. Always good to have half the population angry at you, right?

6. Equality is rational.

7. Rational men notice the benefit of having two large incomes.

8. Murder is breaking the law, so its a problem of ignoring authority. It also upsets the population, who can become restless and less able to work.

9. Theft has a similar effect, but also alters the distribution of money.

10. Donald Trump does not wish to be mugged.

11. You have it backwards. The secular reason hit first, and the religious reason was put in place to force people to listen.

12. Just like with the 'kosher' issue being wholly about health.

If "Carbs make baby Jesus cry", you'll end up with a bunch of low-carb Christians, without having to deal with explaining Atkins.

13. People don't like massive disparity. Disparity makes the labor force angry, and then you end up with a communist or socialist revolution.

14. As for Clinton, he was a politician. Morality isn't their thing, and they're not rational, just rationalizers. Big dif.

15. In the long term, its harmful to the country, making it an irrational action.

1. Any law can be twisted after it is made. You oguth to study law more. The original intent rarely stands. I work for a lawyer. You might want to think about that.

2. Well, besides scoring a 5 on the AP exam in my senior year, I'd say last year.

3. In the US, when we abolished slavery, it was impossible for a white man to be enslaved. You are exceedingly ignorant. Class wars mean nothing. I live in the south, and the poorer classes were the ones who fought in that war, not the rich guys who actually owned 1000+ slaves each. And the southerners were mostly volunteers. 3/4 actually.

4. If you believe that, then you are a fool. We refused to give up slavery, and when you insisted on it, and elected that fool Lincoln, we decided we'd had enough. You then engaged in a war of aggression on southern soil, in the process destroying a couple hundred years of heritage in Sherman's march to the sea. Don't even waste my time arguing about the Civil War. I happen to be something of a history buff, being from Tennessee originally.

5. Sorry, but all women weren't feminists. Most were happy with where they were. The feminists made up a small minority. Just as the Patriots were a minority in the American colonies when they decided to take on the Recoats.

6. Equality is not rational. Equality forces you to give up profits, and if the subdued group is entirely unable to change their position, then you are safe. Don't make assumptions.

7. No, rational men notice the benefit of having their kids raised by their mother, and not by a nanny.

8. I specifically stated that those things COULD be rationally explained. Why did you bother to go into detail? It wasn't an issue...

9. Same.

10. Same.

11. Debatable, and your claim is unsupportable. We could argue about this forever, but again its not really important.

12. Again, although this comment was written in a rather non-sensical way, not worth arguing about.

13. Wrong. Telling people they are better than someone else makes them happy. Look at the Germans with the Jews, or poor whites in the south with the blacks. You are historically ignorant.

14. Really, he wasn't rational, but merely a "rationalizer?" I suppose that would explain why you voted for him? Because he was amoral?

15. Unsupported, because slavery could have gone on forever without a successful slave revolt. Meanwhile, when they were freed crime rates shot up and "race riots broke out across the north and west of the country over the issue.

No one can rationalize murder within a society. If murder becomes rationalized society will break down.

Through utilitarianism, murder can be morally justified.

And yet YOU were the one who pointed out infanticide, which you said they rationalized by saying it was ok if a Mother couldn't afford it, didn't you?!?!

I know you tried to say it was a Moral issue but the fact that you gave their "reasoning" suggests that it was rationalized, does it not?

And again, because "utilitarianism" rationalizes a reason for murder doesn't make it Morally acceptable, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

And yet YOU were the one who pointed out infanticide, which you said they rationalized by saying it was ok if a Mother couldn't afford it, didn't you?!?!

I brought it up to point out that murder can be morally justified. Under my argument for rationalization it is not justified.

I know you tried to say it was a Moral issue but the fact that you gave their "reasoning" suggests that it was rationalized, does it not?

And again, because "utilitarianism" rationalizes a reason for murder doesn't make it Morally acceptable, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

No, utilitarianism is a morality that states that the whole is more important than the individual. It is not a rational justification.

Just a note to say calm down everyone. This thread was doing very very well in avoiding flaming etc, particulalry considering the nature of the subject. So, please, everyone take a few deep breaths and go back to discussing the issues without adding insults.

Just a note to say calm down everyone. This thread was doing very very well in avoiding flaming etc, particulalry considering the nature of the subject. So, please, everyone take a few deep breaths and go back to discussing the issues without adding insults.

Yes, it seems that a lot of people have come on to this thread and started throwing around "You're wrongs" and that tends to get people riled. Examine people's arguments, make counterpoints, and do NOT attack ideologies, and we should have a good discussion.

I am not nitpicking. There are different social contracts, but "I won't kill you, if you don't kill me" is a rational contract. You analyze what is best for you and you compromise in order to protect your best wishes. "I won't kill you because it would hurt you and hurting people is wrong," is a moral contract.
Both are means of ariving at a moral decision.

Dumbass. You are truly a fool. I said that our laws WERE based on morality. Because of this, we abolished certain things. I said that if you looked at them rationally, then there would be no need to get rid of them, with the exceptions of crimes such as theft and murder, which destabilize the nation.

However, since your reading comprehension skills roughly equal that of a gerbel, you go ahead and post away.

Sincere Regards,
Ace
Laws are ALWAYS based on morals, it's simply a matter of how those morals are arrived at.

And I say they shouldn't be BASED in Morals because of the VERY REASON I have cited! NOT EVERYONES MORALS ARE THE SAME!

Something about that YOU don't get?

So because I point out the fallacy in YOUR argument you say I lack comprehension?

Perhaps you might like to address the question I asked of the differing Morals BEFORE you go on your rant?

Laws MUST be derived from the Rights given in the Constitution! If they do not uphold or try to subvert the Constitution in any way they are not supposed to be able to make that Law.

Regards,
Gaar


Please, please stop using capitals for every fifth word or so! :rolleyes: It's so depressing... :gundge:

Oh, and calm down people, the start was way better. Probably because there were different people there (espec. not "Regards, Gaar" :) )

And more to point, though I'm going to sleep now anyway, if you read through the posts, you can see that proper morality begets rationality and vice-versa. So quit arguing, it's not as if you'll actually persuade anyone anyway... :p

Both are means of ariving at a moral decision.

No, both are means of arriving to a decision. The moral decision would be to consider what is the best way to treat someone, the rational decision would be the best decision to protect yourself.

snip

Please delete that second sentence, it could be a nail in the coffin for this thread.

Please, please stop using capitals for every fifth word or so! :rolleyes: It's so depressing... :gundge:

Depressing? I would say you place WAY too much emphasis on the way a word is written and not its content.

Oh, and calm down people, the start was way better. Probably because there were different people there (espec. not "Regards, Gaar" :) )

Nice of you to single me out, even though I haven't called anyone names here, as several others have done.

And more to point, though I'm going to sleep now anyway, if you read through the posts, you can see that proper morality begets rationality and vice-versa. So quit arguing, it's not as if you'll actually persuade anyone anyway... :p

Nice of you to TELL US what to believe, or perhaps that is just YOUR OPINION on the matter?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Don't respond Carmogan.

And more to point, though I'm going to sleep now anyway, if you read through the posts, you can see that proper morality begets rationality and vice-versa. So quit arguing, it's not as if you'll actually persuade anyone anyway... :p

Really?

So rationality, as a Being wishing to propagate the species, would say that I should have sexual relations with as many females of my species as I possibly can in order to generate as many offspring as I can...

But my Morals say I should choose just one mate for life.

Perhaps you could tell me how these two things "beget" one another?

Thanks in advance,
Gaar

VO. I think this thread is unrescuable at the moment and as such I will leave it as it is. I thank you and the others who discussed reasonably, without resorting to attacking the poster rather than the post, for what has been a good thread.

I have no doubt that we will discuss other issues in the future. It has been a pleasure

:)

No, both are means of arriving to a decision. The moral decision would be to consider what is the best way to treat someone, the rational decision would be the best decision to protect yourself.
Go study ethics before you try to argue something you don't understand. Seriously, you're arguing with a definition and you look pretty dumb right about now. Ignorance is forgivable, but being ignorant and feining knowledge is just arrogant and makes you look dumb.

VO. I think this thread is unrescuable at the moment and as such I will leave it as it is. I thank you and the others who discussed reasonably, without resorting to attacking the poster rather than the post, for what has been a good thread.

I have no doubt that we will discuss other issues in the future. It has been a pleasure

:)

I hope you are incorrect, but 300 good posts is more than I could have dreamed of.

Go study ethics before you try to argue something you don't understand. Seriously, you're arguing with a definition and you look pretty dumb right about now. Ignorance is forgivable, but being ignorant and feining knowledge is just arrogant and makes you look dumb.

Enlighten me instead of being an ass.

Enlighten me instead of being an ass.
I already did, and you sat there and argued with it. Further, I'm not going to waste any more time on someone who ignores definitions in favor of making up his own and throwing around ad hominems. Have a nice day.

I already did, and you sat there and argued with it. Further, I'm not going to waste any more time on someone who ignores definitions in favor of making up his own and throwing around ad hominems. Have a nice day.

I concur...

It seems some believe it is ok to just skip over an explanation in favor of just calling someone names, without addressing the merits of their argument.

Regards,
Gaar

I already did, and you sat there and argued with it. Further, I'm not going to waste any more time on someone who ignores definitions in favor of making up his own and throwing around ad hominems. Have a nice day.

That's fine, this thread is dying, and I don't like being called ignorant, so good day.

Also, I wasn't calling you an ass, I said that you were behaving like an ass.

EDIT: And I did address your post about the social contract incorrectly.

I don't think that rationality is opposed to or excludes moral considerations. Rationality only requires the use of reasoning rather than prejudice or instinct. It does not mean that the person making the decision must think only of themselves, in opposition to a moral system where people think of others.

If I was making a decision that I regarded as rational concerning whether or not to introduce a law then I would try to consider morality as well as enforceability, economic factors, expense and so on. Thinking these through I would try to arrive at a rational decision. The presence of morality in my reasoning does not make my decision irrational.


Law should be based on rationality, and morality will be a part of the reasoning.

That's fine, this thread is dying, and I don't like being called ignorant, so good day.

Also, I wasn't calling you an ass, I said that you were behaving like an ass.

Enlighten me instead of being an ass.


No, it says right there that you think he is "being" an ass, not "behaving" like one...

Regards,
Gaar

I don't think that rationality is opposed to or excludes moral considerations. Rationality only requires the use of reasoning rather than prejudice or instinct. It does not mean that the person making the decision must think only of themselves, in opposition to a moral system where people think of others.

If I was making a decision that I regarded as rational concerning whether or not to introduce a law then I would try to consider morality as well as enforceability, economic factors, expense and so on. Thinking these through I would try to arrive at a rational decision. The presence of morality in my reasoning does not make my decision irrational.


Law should be based on rationality, and morality will be a part of the reasoning.

Very well said.

Bravo!

That's fine, this thread is dying, and I don't like being called ignorant, so good day.
You are ignorant because you are uninformed. I even went out of my way to say that there is nothing wrong with being ignorant of something. I have great respect forr those who are ignorant, admit it and then cure themselves of their ignorance. My problem is being ignorant in something while feining knowledge in it. Savvy? Let's move on now, shall we.

Secular law is, I believe, based on rationality more than on morality. (Unless of course you are Kantian, when there is no difference). The example of theft, as given by Ut-Jor, is a good example for the discussion. Theft is illegal because society depends upon the stability of possesion. Rationality does not discard the effects of an act and look just at the act itself. If theft were legal, then there would be no basis for almost any part of legal society. Why would anyone work. Some I suppose would do so for the pleasure of working, but beyond this, why bother. You want something, steal it. Eventually no one makes anything and society collapses. That is one rational reason to outlaw theft.

A moral reason would be something like you would not want people to steal from you, so you should not steal from them. This is not rational in itself. It only becomes rational when there is a final end included.

you have provided great insight into why an increase in government-taken-and-given welfare leads to higher unemployment rates; if you're living off someone else, why work?

hehe

You are ignorant because you are uninformed. I even went out of my way to say that there is nothing wrong with being ignorant of something. I have great respect forr those who are ignorant, admit it and then cure themselves of their ignorance. My problem is being ignorant in something while feining knowledge in it. Savvy? Let's move on now, shall we.

I would also like to move on. But first I would like to apologize for my "being an ass" comment, I got overly defensive. Secondly, I completely ignored the social contract argument, altogether, and didn't respond to it.

Give me a little bit and I will respond to it in full.

I may be inclined to believe the first part, but not so much on the second...

Rationality is basically reasoning, and reasoning may give us...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reason

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction

3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

None of those things are exclusive to a Moral stance, are they?

Regards,
Gaar
For implementing laws? Yes, they are. Every law must ultimately come down to, "You can't do X because it's wrong," or, "You must do X because it's right." If they're, instead, "You can't do X because trees have leaves," that has nothing to do with rationality or morality.

Vynnland:

I am reading up on this Social Contract Theory and I found this:

"According to Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests."

Does this mean that Hobbes thought that the social contract was a rational decision?

Also this argument is about making the laws, not the deciding whether to obey them or not.

I would also like to move on. But first I would like to apologize for my "being an ass" comment, I got overly defensive. Secondly, I completely ignored the social contract argument, altogether, and didn't respond to it.

Give me a little bit and I will respond to it in full.
Cool, I admire your appology and await the fruits of your research patiently. :cool:

Vynnland:

I am reading up on this Social Contract Theory and I found this:

"According to Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests."

Does this mean that Hobbes thought that the social contract was a rational decision?

Also this argument is about making the laws, not the deciding whether to obey them or not.

Let's start from the beginning. Ethics is the umbrella that morals fall under. Ethics is the study of morality and how morality is formed. Morality is the code that one constructs for oneself to live by. Every "right" and "wrong" that I think are so, come from the moral code I have constructed for myself. The moral code I construct does not always look like another person's moral code. For example, Thomas Hobbes said that once we create government, it has absolute soverignty and you HAVE to submit to it. John Locke said that government should be submitted to only so long as it protects the rights of its citizens, and if it ever fails at that, it ought to be abolished. These men constructed different moral codes for themselves and wrote philosophies and treatises that directly conflict with each other. This is what happens in Congress and Parliment. Men with different moral codes get together and try to construct a moral code for the rest of their countrymen to live by. EVERY law is a moral code. In order for a law to be passed, it must be rationalized and agreed upon by at least a majority of congress/parliment, the president/prime minister, and the reviewing of the highest federal court. ALL of these men must rationalize this new moral code one way or another. They may use solid or fallicious rationalization, but it is rationalization none the less.

Onto the social contract and Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes has the first of the two concepts of the social contract. It was also the first, as far as formally being called a social contract. It's basically an application of the golden rule. This is what many believe to be the origin of law. The first laws were written because one caveman worked hard to find some nuts and berries. If another caveman decides to hit the first caveman over the head and take his nuts and berries, what's to stop him? The tribe deciding that no one will take anyone else's nuts and berries without permission. The same goes with killing, adultery, and all the basic crimes.

The second social contract came along when Lawrence Kohlberg decided to try to measure moral development. He focuses on the utility and individual rights in a society and how those are protected by the whole. At this point, one upholds laws because they are good, rather then "because it's the law". This is where many individuals will decide upon civil disobedience as a means of protest against an unjust law. This is generally seen as societal responsibility. This might be the "social altruism" that was earlier referenced. I'm not positive considering I don't completely understand what exactly was meant by "social altruism", but that's what it sounds like to me.

OK, I gave you an earful. I'll stop for now. Besides, my fingers are tired. :cool:

Let's start from the beginning. Ethics is the umbrella that morals fall under. Ethics is the study of morality and how morality is formed. Morality is the code that one constructs for oneself to live by. Every "right" and "wrong" that I think are so, come from the moral code I have constructed for myself. The moral code I construct does not always look like another person's moral code. For example, Thomas Hobbes said that once we create government, it has absolute soverignty and you HAVE to submit to it. John Locke said that government should be submitted to only so long as it protects the rights of its citizens, and if it ever fails at that, it ought to be abolished. These men constructed different moral codes for themselves and wrote philosophies and treatises that directly conflict with each other. This is what happens in Congress and Parliment. Men with different moral codes get together and try to construct a moral code for the rest of their countrymen to live by. EVERY law is a moral code. In order for a law to be passed, it must be rationalized and agreed upon by at least a majority of congress/parliment, the president/prime minister, and the reviewing of the highest federal court. ALL of these men must rationalize this new moral code one way or another. They may use solid or fallicious rationalization, but it is rationalization none the less.

First, on which side do you fall of this argument, moral law or rational law?

It seems to me from your post that you find them indistinguishable, you say that every law is a moral code, but then you say that they are rationally derived, am I right?

Do you believe that it is not possible for a law to be solely rationally derived?

Onto the social contract and Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes has the first of the two concepts of the social contract. It was also the first, as far as formally being called a social contract. It's basically an application of the golden rule. This is what many believe to be the origin of law. The first laws were written because one caveman worked hard to find some nuts and berries. If another caveman decides to hit the first caveman over the head and take his nuts and berries, what's to stop him? The tribe deciding that no one will take anyone else's nuts and berries without permission. The same goes with killing, adultery, and all the basic crimes.

From what I read, Hobbes supported my thought process that the decision to join society and exist under its laws was a rational decision made with self-interest in mind, which is exactly the point I was trying to make when you said I was nitpicking.

While I tend to agree more with Locke's vision of nature than Hobbes, I prefer Hobbes justification for morals, as Locke derives all morals from God.

The second social contract came along when Lawrence Kohlberg decided to try to measure moral development. He focuses on the utility and individual rights in a society and how those are protected by the whole. At this point, one upholds laws because they are good, rather then "because it's the law". This is where many individuals will decide upon civil disobedience as a means of protest against an unjust law. This is generally seen as societal responsibility. This might be the "social altruism" that was earlier referenced. I'm not positive considering I don't completely understand what exactly was meant by "social altruism", but that's what it sounds like to me.

OK, I gave you an earful. I'll stop for now. Besides, my fingers are tired. :cool:

Alright, I read a little on Kohlberg and I understand where you are coming from, and I can't say that I disagree with his hierarchy of morals, and I am not sure what to say about them. It does make sense to me that someone would choose to obey the laws due to morality. So I guess I would say that there are two types of social contracts, but that opinion isn't much different than the one I had before going out and reading about this.


I do know that we are mainly discussing people's justification for obeying the laws and not the justification for the laws themselves.

1. Any law can be twisted after it is made. You oguth to study law more. The original intent rarely stands. I work for a lawyer. You might want to think about that.


Which has absolutely no effect on whether it was based on morality or on rationality.


2. Well, besides scoring a 5 on the AP exam in my senior year, I'd say last year.


High school then, eh? Try college history by a moderate teacher (I've had them try to tell me to IGNORE the documentary on their favorite president when it noted bad things... making excuses, etc.)


3. In the US, when we abolished slavery, it was impossible for a white man to be enslaved.


Not in to looking ahead, are ya?

We're talking long term here.


You are exceedingly ignorant.


Which has WHAT effect on the rationality vs. morality thing...? I can be a space alien clown for all it matters. Stick to the arguments.


Class wars mean nothing.


I'm glad to hear that Russia never had a so-called communist revolution.


I live in the south, and the poorer classes were the ones who fought in that war


They weren't the slaves. And how often do rich people fight for themselves?


not the rich guys who actually owned 1000+ slaves each. And the southerners were mostly volunteers. 3/4 actually.



Yep. Just like Hitler stayed where it was safe.



4. If you believe that, then you are a fool. We refused to give up slavery, and when you insisted on it, and elected that fool Lincoln, we decided we'd had enough.


If you think Lincoln was anti-slavery, pally boy, you're the fool.


You then engaged in a war of aggression on southern soil, in the process destroying a couple hundred years of heritage in Sherman's march to the sea.


Yes, the Union did. I wasn't alive back then. Do you think we did all of that for justice?


Don't even waste my time arguing about the Civil War. I happen to be something of a history buff, being from Tennessee originally.


Being from Tennessee does not equate to being a history buff. If you think the Civil War was about slavery, you've failed to convince me.


5. Sorry, but all women weren't feminists.


And all colonists weren't in to the idea of seperating from England. Most weren't, in fact.


Most were happy with where they were.


True. Still are. Many people enjoy being treated like lesser beings. Subs are all over the place.


The feminists made up a small minority.


Which did a hell of a lot.


Just as the Patriots were a minority in the American colonies when they decided to take on the Recoats.


Yay, you DO know -some- history!


6. Equality is not rational. Equality forces you to give up profits, and if the subdued group is entirely unable to change their position, then you are safe. Don't make assumptions.


We're talking rational on a society level, not an individual level. Society, however, is beneficial to the individual, thus, society is rational to have. Some idiots just like to rock the boat for temporary personal gain, not seeing that many generations ahead. Rome had that bad habit.


7. No, rational men notice the benefit of having their kids raised by their mother, and not by a nanny.


Rational men don't think the options are binary.

Both people can raise a child, the mother or father can stay home for awhile while the other supports, in whatever manner they choose. And, when the kids are at school, mommy can bring in money to help put the kids in a better situation.

In my family, dad and mom both worked. As such, we were Upper middle class. We had acres, horses, and so forth, half an hour from one of the most expensive areas in California. To this day, while my folks help me with college, they think of a few thousand dollars as no big deal, and my mom isn't working at nearly as good a job as she did when I was growing up.

Don't know how you would feel, but I kind of like being 'in the money'.


8. I specifically stated that those things COULD be rationally explained. Why did you bother to go into detail? It wasn't an issue...


<insert rude joke here>


9. Same.

<worse>

10. Same.

<really bad one involving crude humor>

11. Debatable, and your claim is unsupportable. We could argue about this forever, but again its not really important.


True, history is hard to verify. My point was, however, that all of that is rational. The moral aspects are just good for enforcing it.


12. Again, although this comment was written in a rather non-sensical way, not worth arguing about.


If you can't argue with it, admit it. If you can, do. It's a perfectly valid argument. I just have a strange sense of humor.


13. Wrong. Telling people they are better than someone else makes them happy. Look at the Germans with the Jews, or poor whites in the south with the blacks. You are historically ignorant.


Long term.

Consider these assertions:

Happy people don't revolt.

Neutral people don't revolt.

Angry people DO revolt.


14. Really, he wasn't rational, but merely a "rationalizer?" I suppose that would explain why you voted for him? Because he was amoral?


What the FUCK are you talking about? I was in grade school when Clinton got voted in, and I was a Republican until the moment I heard the words "Axis of Eval", at which point I just said 'screw it, all sides are stupid'.


15. Unsupported, because slavery could have gone on forever without a successful slave revolt. Meanwhile, when they were freed crime rates shot up and "race riots broke out across the north and west of the country over the issue.

You'd have revolts up until you started tweaking their chemicals, at which point other countries would freak out and thwack you.

Slavery also had no benefits for the North, or for unskilled laborers. Not -all- lower classes are going to forever forget that the slaves are taking their jobs.

you have provided great insight into why an increase in government-taken-and-given welfare leads to higher unemployment rates; if you're living off someone else, why work?

hehe

Yes that is a conclusion that can be drawn from the rational defence of laws against theft. This is one of the reasons why I do not think that laws should be based on rationality, but have to be, instead, in tune with the morality of the country so governed.

This can be managed in small, low population fairly homogeneous societies (European states), or in any totalitarian states where there is an official ideology to be followed (China, NK). A large pluralistic state (USA, Brazil, Mexico) has a big problem.

In the smaller states the legal code generally follows one or other specific moral code, which is then justified post hoc by rationalisation. The political thinking of both Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan and John Locke in his Two Tretises of Government are perfect examples of this process. In the totalitarian state the law follows a specific set of principles, even if these are nothing more than the personal beliefs of the dictator. No rationality is needed, although at times rationalisation is added by obedient academics that dare not challenge the status quo.

Now a large pluralistic state. Here there is no one agreed moral code to base the laws on. At the time of the founding fathers the population was small enough that some common basis could be established. This set a constitution and an initial package of laws that were loosely based on protestant Christian morals, with the added influence of Rousseau and Locke pushing the social contract view. The basis of protestantism combines well with social contract thinking as it places the relationship of the individual to the state on the same basis as his or her relationship with God. No intermediaries, direct involvement.
Time passes and more immigrants arrive. These include a good number of catholics, a few calvinist. Then more exotic immigrants arrive and there is Umbanda and Shinto and Tãoism to be dealt with. The USA can do this because it already has a basic legal structure. No new law can be contradictory to an existing law. Rational thought can guide which new laws are needed as the basic underlying principles, derived from a moral stance, are already there. The nature and culture of the state already exists.

Should laws be based on rational though or on moral stances?
To set a statute book going it has to be based on a single moral stance. No amount of rational thought can tell you if monogamy or polygamy are correct. They both have advantages and disadvantages for society. A moral stance can select between these.
Once the book is going, and the country starts to grow and develop, then rational thought can be used to justify new laws. Or even to scrap old ones as they no longer "fit" the culture. But the bootstraping of a legal system depends on moral values.

I have not addressed the problem of value conflicts except in passing. What I think about this is that countries are founded by people with similar moral values. If, over time a schism develops in a country over these types of values then secessionist movements appear. Traces of this can be seen in the US (East coast vs West coast) and Brazil (South & South East vs the rest) and it can be seen most clearly at the moment in Taiwan. The basic moral conflict divides the country at a very deep level. This need not be explicitly religious, but it is alway ideological.

First, on which side do you fall of this argument, moral law or rational law?

I'm for anything rationally derived. All morals are rationally derived, but not every individual does that process. Many, if not most, simply inherit their morals. However, if you go back far enough, they were made by someone who rationalized them.



Modern law in industralized nations, it is pretty safe to say that most every law is rationalized. I may or may not like the rationalization, but they generally are. Since laws are rationalized, and laws come from morals, laws are forced to be both rationally and morally derived. Congress won't accept, "This law is right because it is," as a good "pro" argument for a bill.

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination]From what I read, Hobbes supported my thought process that the decision to join society and exist under its laws was a rational decision made with self-interest in mind, which is exactly the point I was trying to make when you said I was nitpicking.

Gotcha.

While I tend to agree more with Locke's vision of nature than Hobbes, I prefer Hobbes justification for morals, as Locke derives all morals from God.

Locke was into "nature's god", which was an undefined god with undefined attributes. It was basically saying that, "I guess there's a god, but I don't know squat about it." However, I agree that I don't like the idea of "inheriting rights from a god."

I'm for anything rationally derived. All morals are rationally derived, but not every individual does that process. Many, if not most, simply inherit their morals. However, if you go back far enough, they were made by someone who rationalized them.


As far as I have discovered to date, there is only one philosopher who would agree with you here, Mr. Immanuel Kant. His achievements in the realm of moral philosophy are to be applauded, but unfortunately all he did manage was to produce a schemata for morality, into which any set of basic beliefs could be plugged.
Act only in such manner that you would have it become a universal law, allows absolutely anything. All it says is that if it is OK for you to do it, it is OK for others.

The rest of moral philosophy has concerned itself with what it is to be god, and why we should be good. Morality, in these terms does not derive from rationality, it derives from beliefs.

No, I can't see who man either has dignity or value without God. If evolution is true, then I am no better than a dolphin, chimp, or dog. I am just a cosmic accident, with no value whatsoever.


Too bad that's such a common cop-out as personal integrity goes.
Consider: What weight would your soul (presumably saved) have anyway if you never had anything to weigh it against? Your own suffering? Consider that whatever "dignity" ascribed to you by whatever your god is is only worth as much compassion and understanding as you have the faculty for? Consider that i mean this in the sense of civility with humans and other species. If you start from a base worth of mechanical value, then there are already certain attributes you have in excess of the creatures mentioned, and you are also lacking in others. To be more precise, it is an issue of the integrity of your judgment, the weight of your soul, to make the best decisions you can.
Seriously, you might bother reading up on evolution as well, i'm not under the impression you understand it. There isn't anything that "god" ordained anywhere specifically prohibiting the mutability of species. Genesis only "covered" the first initiation of species and not subsequent familial lineage. That's a different argument though.

I'll hit this in reverse order.

God does not have rights in the traditional sense of the word. He has free will, but that does not automatically confer rights. Also, when there is only one of Him, do rights even apply? Rights govern interaction among beings on the same level. God is in the position of the earthly government, which has powers and responsibilites rather than rights.

I agree that human life and experiance is a valuable thing, but based on what? If it's just an agreed-on thing, then the whole issue of right and wrong just goes out the window. We're back to mutually agreed non-killing. But outside of that, people have no inherent value based on an atheistic worldview.
Uhm EXACTLY where is it stated that god has "free will"? Certainly it's an assumption, but the principle of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't necessarily equal free will. Given, omniscience would mean seeing all (even if not interpreting correctly) - and thus giving the assumption of option and/or choice ... although you could also argue that if that included the expanse of time then there would essentially be no real choice (that would be the refinement of being THE god). Omnipotence, however, would by its very nature procure the issue of the most possible right to doing whatever was in it's power, assuming god itself wasn't subscribing to a yet-higher structure (like aforementioned time) - i think Einstein had something interesting to say about that.
Historically speaking there are very many revered individuals who were capable of appealing to reason amongst each other that did not have to subscribe to any specific theistic view so much as a rational and/or sensible one. Ones you may even agree with. Ones that, bless you, you may even consider to have enough integrity of their own that they not require being specifically pleasing- or inspired by- god-driven. Of course i'm going to hear about who has converted more people successfully (and in the same breath the zealotry involved) but i would turn that around to qualify what kind of compassionate circumstances they would allot for anyone that didn't subscribe to their view.

But why should it matter? In an atheistic worldview, my life is meaningless anyway, so what difference does it make what my experiences are, or if I have them?
This isn't much of an argument.
Not being an atheist, unless you were one, means you don't actually know what the value of things are in a worldview of an atheist - you don't know at all what qualifies an atheist's worldview unless you are one.
To be fair, it may simply be that you are confused to the meaning of "atheist", and have posted it in place of the term you actually mean, being "nihilist."
So you don't keep on in said confusion, here:

OED: atheism
Belief that god does not exist.
-also being "a-": negative prefix ... "theism": belief in gods or a god
-thus: nonbeliever in gods or a god

: nihilism
Rejection of all religious and moral principles.
-also being "nihilist": skeptic, doubter or cynic
-thus: one who holds equal lack of value for intrinsic and extrinsic adherence

In what dictionary does it state, exactly, that atheism is qualified by a meaningless life? I know many atheists who would kill to protect their own, as well as sire newborns for the good of their clan, obviously believing in some worth of life, and by proxy, worth of their own.
Now if YOU place no living value on someone who doesn't share your worldview doesn't mean you're anywhere near being right, just bigoted and self-deluded. Surely you can see past that myopia.

Essentially, I'm asking how it is possible for my life to have value when I am nothing more than a cosmic accident. My life has meaning to me, but not to anyone else, or to the world in general.
That idea to some degree allots that everyone may have the same interests, generally, and therefore people can already take actions on mutual value judgments.
And as for your life only having meaning to you, then why bother replying or posting anything? Obviously you mean enough for people to speak in respect to you on other posts and on this post, and to establish dialogue.
What else do you want, a smooch? ;)
Just keepin' egos in check here ...

That seems too cold and overly analytical to me, to the point where we seem to be talking about machines instead of men.

You give your own life meaning, the universe doesn't give it to you. You offer society meaning by contributing to it with your own life.
The whole of humanity benefits from societies benefiting from the meaning you've given your own life.

It's all a web, and we're all hoplessly, for better or worse, interconnected.
There is no meaningful society without the individual meaningful life.
Excellent post.

True, we are talking about machines. From what I understand, an atheistic worldview does turn everyone into a machine, if we follow it to it's logical conclusion.

As for meaning, how can I give it meaning? If there is no value in the first place, as everything is just an accident, then where does meaning come from?
Au contraire, an atheistic view REQUIRES individual responsibility of the soul/morality/judgment - and all the shortcomings and accomplishments and appreciations therefore are majorly the result of choice and interpretation, requiring sound judgment to have more appreciable an outcome. Just about direct opposite of your theory (understanding) of atheism. Given, if a person already doesn't feel any value is necessary to them, then it may appear to them as well as others that they are relatively automaton in nature. I've already stated the obvious difference between an atheist and a nihilist so be concise, if you would.
You might consider weighing to pain yourself something - not necessarily emotional but physical as well, and give yourself a value judgment on that.
You may find yourself able to give yourself meanings that are close enough to home that you can't argue them away.

As well ... your ability to interpret things accurately will obviously carry more value than your inability to do so accurately. Attempt to act (free choice again) on the information you have and interpret the consequences.

This is goint to be long, but hopefully you'll read it anyway.

Too bad that's such a common cop-out as personal integrity goes.
Consider: What weight would your soul (presumably saved) have anyway if you never had anything to weigh it against? Your own suffering? Consider that whatever "dignity" ascribed to you by whatever your god is is only worth as much compassion and understanding as you have the faculty for? Consider that i mean this in the sense of civility with humans and other species. If you start from a base worth of mechanical value, then there are already certain attributes you have in excess of the creatures mentioned, and you are also lacking in others. To be more precise, it is an issue of the integrity of your judgment, the weight of your soul, to make the best decisions you can.
Seriously, you might bother reading up on evolution as well, i'm not under the impression you understand it. There isn't anything that "god" ordained anywhere specifically prohibiting the mutability of species. Genesis only "covered" the first initiation of species and not subsequent familial lineage. That's a different argument though.

I'm no biologist, but I am farly well read, and I know more about evolution than the average guy on the street. Hopefully that's enough for the current discussion.

As for an objective standard to judge myself against, that standard is God and His purposes for me. That is where human dignity comes from in the first place. It's a pretty standard belief for all of Christianity. It's that objective standard that seems to be lacking in an atheistic worldview.

Uhm EXACTLY where is it stated that god has "free will"? Certainly it's an assumption, but the principle of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't necessarily equal free will. Given, omniscience would mean seeing all (even if not interpreting correctly) - and thus giving the assumption of option and/or choice ... although you could also argue that if that included the expanse of time then there would essentially be no real choice (that would be the refinement of being THE god). Omnipotence, however, would by its very nature procure the issue of the most possible right to doing whatever was in it's power, assuming god itself wasn't subscribing to a yet-higher structure (like aforementioned time) - i think Einstein had something interesting to say about that.
Historically speaking there are very many revered individuals who were capable of appealing to reason amongst each other that did not have to subscribe to any specific theistic view so much as a rational and/or sensible one. Ones you may even agree with. Ones that, bless you, you may even consider to have enough integrity of their own that they not require being specifically pleasing- or inspired by- god-driven. Of course i'm going to hear about who has converted more people successfully (and in the same breath the zealotry involved) but i would turn that around to qualify what kind of compassionate circumstances they would allot for anyone that didn't subscribe to their view.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. But as for God having free will, the Bible makes a few references to God choosing what He is doing. If you want something better, I can't give it to you , as I can't give an argument for God or His attributes from reason alone.

This isn't much of an argument.
Not being an atheist, unless you were one, means you don't actually know what the value of things are in a worldview of an atheist - you don't know at all what qualifies an atheist's worldview unless you are one.
To be fair, it may simply be that you are confused to the meaning of "atheist", and have posted it in place of the term you actually mean, being "nihilist."
So you don't keep on in said confusion, here:

OED: atheism
Belief that god does not exist.
-also being "a-": negative prefix ... "theism": belief in gods or a god
-thus: nonbeliever in gods or a god

: nihilism
Rejection of all religious and moral principles.
-also being "nihilist": skeptic, doubter or cynic
-thus: one who holds equal lack of value for intrinsic and extrinsic adherence

In what dictionary does it state, exactly, that atheism is qualified by a meaningless life? I know many atheists who would kill to protect their own, as well as sire newborns for the good of their clan, obviously believing in some worth of life, and by proxy, worth of their own.
Now if YOU place no living value on someone who doesn't share your worldview doesn't mean you're anywhere near being right, just bigoted and self-deluded. Surely you can see past that myopia.

Although I'm a Christian, as a philosophy major at a secular university, I am fully aware of both the atheistic and nihilistic views, and the differences of such. However, what I don't see is how an atheist can't be anything other than a nihilist and still be consistant with his worldview. Lacking an absolute source of value, I don't see how value can be based on anything other than taste, and hence having no real value at all.

That idea to some degree allots that everyone may have the same interests, generally, and therefore people can already take actions on mutual value judgments.
And as for your life only having meaning to me, then why bother replying or posting anything? Obviously you mean enough for people to speak in respect to you on other posts and on this post, and to establish dialogue.
What else do you want, a smooch? ;)
Just keepin' egos in check here ...

What I'm trying to do is take things to their logical conclusion. Other people have meaning to me as a Christian, but I don't see how that could be the case under certain worldviews. As for what I meant by my life having meaning to myself, I mean that I would prefer to continue to live rather than not. It has no bearing on if my life, or yours, having value. If that is the case, what is really wrong with me killing you? You wouldn't like it, obviously, but how could you tell me that it was wrong? You might tell me that it's not in my own best interest, as you might kill me instead. But that just tells me that it's not a smart idea, not that it's wrong.

Au contraire, an atheistic view REQUIRES individual responsibility of the soul/morality/judgment - and all the shortcomings and accomplishments and appreciations therefore are majorly the result of choice and interpretation, requiring sound judgment to have more appreciable an outcome. Just about direct opposite of your theory (understanding) of atheism. Given, if a person already doesn't feel any value is necessary to them, then it may appear to them as well as others that they are relatively automaton in nature. I've already stated the obvious difference between an atheist and a nihilist so be concise, if you would.
You might consider weighing to pain yourself something - not necessarily emotional but physical as well, and give yourself a value judgment on that.
You may find yourself able to give yourself meanings that are close enough to home that you can't argue them away.

As well ... your ability to interpret things accurately will obviously carry more value than your inability to do so accurately. Attempt to act (free choice again) on the information you have and interpret the consequences.

How can I be held responsible if I have no free will? Given where things have been going in physics, biology, and psychology over the past couple of decades, I don't see how I have free will. That's what I mean when I say that we're making people into machines. Everything seems to be degenerating into a determanistic universe.

As for an objective standard to judge myself against, that standard is God and His purposes for me. That is where human dignity comes from in the first place. It's a pretty standard belief for all of Christianity. It's that objective standard that seems to be lacking in an atheistic worldview.

Although I'm a Christian, as a philosophy major at a secular university, I am fully aware of both the atheistic and nihilistic views, and the differences of such. However, what I don't see is how an atheist can't be anything other than a nihilist and still be consistant with his worldview. Lacking an absolute source of value, I don't see how value can be based on anything other than taste, and hence having no real value at all.

What I'm trying to do is take things to their logical conclusion. Other people have meaning to me as a Christian, but I don't see how that could be the case under certain worldviews. As for what I meant by my life having meaning to myself, I mean that I would prefer to continue to live rather than not. It has no bearing on if my life, or yours, having value. If that is the case, what is really wrong with me killing you? You wouldn't like it, obviously, but how could you tell me that it was wrong? You might tell me that it's not in my own best interest, as you might kill me instead. But that just tells me that it's not a smart idea, not that it's wrong.

1) You need to ask yourself "What gives God value/meaning". If one entity (a human) cannot assign value to itself, how can another do so to itself? Humans assign value to things on a daily basis. That value is subjective, but that subjective view is usually the only thing important to us, peer pressure aside.

2) Most of the value/meaning stuff is a result of evolution. Valuing something results in behaviors to preserve it. Those that value useful resources survive better. Valuing your children increases your helping them survive.

3) I realize this sounds farcicle, but consider: What is the value of value, what is the meaning of meaning? Why value? Why assign meaning?

4) Under my view (I won't speak for other atheists), right and wrong don't exist beyond the self any more than value does. The 'smart' thing is how I work, combined with the lovely effects of evolution (Both actual evolution and social evolution). I have evolved from other organisms to be somewhat inciteful in to the nature of other organisms, but to have a violent side when needed. Society around me has evolved to nurture that inciteful side, while my violent side is channeled in to self defense. This is around because it increases overall species survival.

I'm an atheistic agnostic. Even if deities existed, their views would only count in as much as the views of my peers count. I value myself because I bring myself endorphine rushes, and satisfy my interests and curiosities. I also value myself because I value a number of other individuals, and treat them in a manner which makes me more valuable to them (IE: I try my best to make their lives more full of endorphine rushes and fulfilled curiosity). They have value to me because they provide similar effects towards myself.

To others, they have no value, and thus, those others have no value to me, unless they effect other things I value (Endorphine rushes, etc).

My life has value because I assign it value, and people who I value assign value to it.

How can I be held responsible if I have no free will? Given where things have been going in physics, biology, and psychology over the past couple of decades, I don't see how I have free will. That's what I mean when I say that we're making people into machines. Everything seems to be degenerating into a determanistic universe.

Because blame leads to altered reactions which are determined to be beneficial. Evolutionary forces determined that beings would survive better by working towards benefit. Blame is an act to increase benefit, or at least minimize detriment, which is determined to mean more success for us and thus the genes and ideas that lead to the 'blame' act.

Why blame? Because it works.

1) You need to ask yourself "What gives God value/meaning". If one entity (a human) cannot assign value to itself, how can another do so to itself? Humans assign value to things on a daily basis. That value is subjective, but that subjective view is usually the only thing important to us, peer pressure aside.

2) Most of the value/meaning stuff is a result of evolution. Valuing something results in behaviors to preserve it. Those that value useful resources survive better. Valuing your children increases your helping them survive.

3) I realize this sounds farcicle, but consider: What is the value of value, what is the meaning of meaning? Why value? Why assign meaning?

4) Under my view (I won't speak for other atheists), right and wrong don't exist beyond the self any more than value does. The 'smart' thing is how I work, combined with the lovely effects of evolution (Both actual evolution and social evolution). I have evolved from other organisms to be somewhat inciteful in to the nature of other organisms, but to have a violent side when needed. Society around me has evolved to nurture that inciteful side, while my violent side is channeled in to self defense. This is around because it increases overall species survival.

I'm an atheistic agnostic. Even if deities existed, their views would only count in as much as the views of my peers count. I value myself because I bring myself endorphine rushes, and satisfy my interests and curiosities. I also value myself because I value a number of other individuals, and treat them in a manner which makes me more valuable to them (IE: I try my best to make their lives more full of endorphine rushes and fulfilled curiosity). They have value to me because they provide similar effects towards myself.

To others, they have no value, and thus, those others have no value to me, unless they effect other things I value (Endorphine rushes, etc).

My life has value because I assign it value, and people who I value assign value to it.

1) For what gives God meaning, I don't know. But I still think that he is qualified to give humans meaning and value. When I build something, I am qualified to give it value as it's creator. That is the position that God is in. Another human is not in the position to give me or humanity in general value.

2) Okay, so we value something in order to keep myself alive and keep the species going. That sounds fine until we start thinking about if the species as a whole has any value. From an evolutionary standpoint, the human race has no more value than that of T-Rex. When we die off, will it really matter? As far as the universe is concerned, no. So if keeping the species going doesn't matter, then what does?

3) This almost sounds as bad as Zeno's old question of where place is. Value is useful to us as humans because it then helps us to determine what is worth paying attention to in life. It's affected by many things. As C.S. Lewis points out in one example, suppose that a person lives for 70 years on average, but he lives in a society that lives for 1000 years, like Rome. Obviously, society means more than the person, and hence society would have more right to control that person's actions. On the other hand, let's say that the society lasts 1000 years, but people (souls) are immortal. Then the individual is more important, and society is muchmore constrained. The value in value is that it defines things for us and gives us principles to judge actions and policies.

4) That sounds pretty consistant, but what I'm trying to say is that society cannot say that your violent side is "wrong." It can only say that it doesn't like your violent side. So when another society comes along that likes your violent side, you are then free to use it however you like. That is, assuming that there is free will. Think Athens vs. Sparta.

So you assign value based on pragmatic concerns? Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but have you taken it to it's logical conclusion? Starving children in the Sudan have no value because they are no use to you. Personally, I can't stomach that sort of conclusion.

Because blame leads to altered reactions which are determined to be beneficial. Evolutionary forces determined that beings would survive better by working towards benefit. Blame is an act to increase benefit, or at least minimize detriment, which is determined to mean more success for us and thus the genes and ideas that lead to the 'blame' act.

Why blame? Because it works.

So you can do things to me to affect my future behavior, but you can't call what I did wrong. You still can't hold me ethically responsible. I had no power over my actions. I was only following my genes, or programmed behavior, or whatever scheme you follow.

Guilt trip is useful. The feeling of guilt is one of nature's ways of making you treat others kindly.

I don't believe in right or wrong as some mystical thing. Only "Wrong for me" and "Right for me", in that Wrong creates a situation that is detrimental, and Right creates a situation that is beneficial.

Nice and rational. Also works rather well if you're not a sociopath.

Oh, by the way, your usage of "I" negates its own existance.

Your determined features ARE you. Just like any item, living or no.

How does a person a classify himself as an athiest agnostic?
I find it interesting, i.e I do not believe in the existence of a diety despite my not being committed to a belief that the diety does or does not exist.

Guilt trip is useful. The feeling of guilt is one of nature's ways of making you treat others kindly.

I don't believe in right or wrong as some mystical thing. Only "Wrong for me" and "Right for me", in that Wrong creates a situation that is detrimental, and Right creates a situation that is beneficial.

Nice and rational. Also works rather well if you're not a sociopath.

Oh, by the way, your usage of "I" negates its own existance.

Your determined features ARE you. Just like any item, living or no.

But why bother treating people nicely? Just to avoid guilty feelings? Those guilty feeling arose for a reason, according to evolutionary theory, just like using looks to establish mating prefereneces. What's the point of guilty feelings? And why should I bother paying attention to them anyway?

What exactly do you mean by negating my own existance? If I am my determined features, I still exist.

1) I have no positive belief towards any deities. Until I see evidence of them, I refuse to arbitrarily believe they exist. Further, certain deities, those of which are logically impossible, I am certain do not exist. This is where you get "Atheistic"

2) I do not rule out the possibility of what we would call deities (though the term I prefer is "Effing Powerful Wizard with Spiffy Qualities"), just as I cannot rule out the existance of a natural law that, due to our lack of study, is dubbed 'supernatural'. That is, I do not deny that it is POSSIBLE, that a being named Zeus, who has a wife called Hera, which screws anything that moves, and which can alter its cellular composition through a use of a series of laws we have not yet discovered, to allow for turning in to different forms, and which has as a friend who has invented a technology that creates electrical javelins in the shape of lightning bolts, which the Zeus entity can safely hold, and uses to attack people on its home planet. None of it defies the rules of logic, we just don't have evidence that it exists, nor do we have evidence that would allows for these abilities. Thus, "Agnostic".

It works for me. Especially useful since my friends include a pagan, a Catholic Daoist (Something like that..), and a Buddhist.

But why bother treating people nicely? Just to avoid guilty feelings? Those guilty feeling arose for a reason, according to evolutionary theory, just like using looks to establish mating prefereneces. What's the point of guilty feelings? And why should I bother paying attention to them anyway?

What exactly do you mean by negating my own existance? If I am my determined features, I still exist.

I'm not a sadist. I don't enjoy causing pain to others. Evolution shoved that in to me, and society reinforced that.

Guilty feelings allow for the success of the species. Violence wastes calories and other resources.

You should pay attention to them because people will kick the crap out of you if you don't. That's why we have police. They kick people who don't respond to guilt trips.

Even sociopaths tend to respect laws to avoid getting the crap kicked out of them.

--

It's no different than the Biblical system (Hell=Crap Kick). It just works much faster, and is proven to exist in so far as anything can be proven.

Christian morals are based around, "I want God to be happy" (Guilt trip), and "I don't want God to kick the crap out of me" (Crap Kick)

I'm not a sadist. I don't enjoy causing pain to others. Evolution shoved that in to me, and society reinforced that.

Guilty feelings allow for the success of the species. Violence wastes calories and other resources.

You should pay attention to them because people will kick the crap out of you if you don't. That's why we have police. They kick people who don't respond to guilt trips.

Even sociopaths tend to respect laws to avoid getting the crap kicked out of them.

--

It's no different than the Biblical system (Hell=Crap Kick). It just works much faster, and is proven to exist in so far as anything can be proven.

Christian morals are based around, "I want God to be happy" (Guilt trip), and "I don't want God to kick the crap out of me" (Crap Kick)

Honestly, I do what is right for two reasons: doing what is right is in my own best interest, like changing the oil in my car is in my car's best interest, and because I want to make God happy, like I would want to make my (future) wife happy. Guilt has nothing to do with it.

But back to your point. You're saying that guilty feelings are here to stop me from doing things that are detrimental to the species, right? As I mentioned earlier, since the species doesn't matter in the end, why bother? For the cops, I might avoid doing things that will get me put in prison, but then they have no basis for the laws to put me in prison since the species doesn't matter.

Honestly, I do what is right for two reasons: doing what is right is in my own best interest, like changing the oil in my car is in my car's best interest, and because I want to make God happy, like I would want to make my (future) wife happy. Guilt has nothing to do with it.


How would you feel if you made them unhappy?

I feel guilty if I make people I care about unhappy, so I avoid it. I get endorphine rushes from making them happy, so I do it as much as possible.

I would assume you want to make God happy and your wife happy because it gives you endorphine rushes, yes? Same system.

It all benefits you thanks to the way evolution has set up our reactions.


But back to your point. You're saying that guilty feelings are here to stop me from doing things that are detrimental to the species, right?


Yep. Members of the species who adopted guilt feelings were more likely to help their relations survive, and the group prospered more than groups where guilt didn't exist. There are always exceptions, but on average, being good neighbors works better than being bad neighbors. Guilt even works when we would be benefitted by being jerks; evolved things tend to have flaws like that, though I personally am glad for them, in this case.


As I mentioned earlier, since the species doesn't matter in the end, why bother?


Because, unless you train yourself to be a sociopath, it will make you feel bad to be mean to them. I don't have very happy feelings towards most of humanity. I'm even avoiding reproduction because I would feel guilty about putting a child in to this world. However, I have this habit of being nice to people. It gives me endorphine rushes. I may even think to myself "This person who I am helping is a worthless pile of cells", I'll still smile and try to be nice unless they're jerks to me or others. I have no reason to eliminate a way to get endorphine rushes (And since it makes people who notice me being nice like me more, I can get a whole HOST of endorphine rushes in the long run.)

It's much easier and beneficial to be a nice person, even if you DO dislike people. If you like them, there's even more benefit.


For the cops, I might avoid doing things that will get me put in prison, but then they have no basis for the laws to put me in prison since the species doesn't matter.

The individuals of the species want endorphine rushes. They don't care why they want endorphines, they only care that they want them. Call it an addiction if you will.

Consider it. Drugs don't 'matter'. But take them away from someone who enjoys them, they'll, that's right, kick the crap out of you, or give you puppy dog eyes to try and evoke your guilt reaction.

It's so disgustingly simple it's funny, or so I find.

Anywho, I'm going to bed, otherwise I'll feel like shooting myself in the morning.

As shooting yourself would eliminate any possible endorphine rushes I could get from you, I'll say goodnight and encourage you to rest well.

And when you come back, GIVE ME ENDORPHINES.

:D

1) You need to ask yourself "What gives God value/meaning". If one entity (a human) cannot assign value to itself, how can another do so to itself? Humans assign value to things on a daily basis. That value is subjective, but that subjective view is usually the only thing important to us, peer pressure aside.
1) For what gives God meaning, I don't know. But I still think that he is qualified to give humans meaning and value. When I build something, I am qualified to give it value as it's creator. That is the position that God is in. Another human is not in the position to give me or humanity in general value.
I do not think that being the creator of something gives you any priveleged position in regard to determining the value of that thing. I would argue that it is the opposite as the creator will have a vested interest in placing a positive value on the product. Think of parent's attitudes to their children, often it is a case of he or she can do no wrong. To attribute value to something does require knowledge of that thing, but to do so well requires some critical perspective as well.
Why though are you not in a position to give value to yourself? Does your own self opinion mean nothing when you come to decide what is the right or wrong thing to do in any given circumstance? Many people do this badly, and we have arrogance and dejection as a result, but remember that to attribute value knowledge is required. To attribute moral value knowledge of intent is required, and the only one who has that knowledge is yourself. (Unless you have a consequentialist view of morality.)


2) Most of the value/meaning stuff is a result of evolution. Valuing something results in behaviors to preserve it. Those that value useful resources survive better. Valuing your children increases your helping them survive.
2) Okay, so we value something in order to keep myself alive and keep the species going. That sounds fine until we start thinking about if the species as a whole has any value. From an evolutionary standpoint, the human race has no more value than that of T-Rex. When we die off, will it really matter? As far as the universe is concerned, no. So if keeping the species going doesn't matter, then what does?
The universe does not have a moral position. It is not a living thing with desires and preferences. To attribute a value to a species requires that there is some purpose to the universe, some final goal. The value of an individual is determined by the final goal of the survival of the species, so the value of the species is determined by what? The religious perspective, with its externally imposed values implicitly includes a purpose for the universe, but his is never explained. God created the universe is asserted, but why he did this is left untouched.
Looking at the traditional thinking on this (Aristotle, Aquinas) the end in itself, that end which is not a means to some other end, is happiness not survival. How this is to be achieved varies (philosophical meditation, belief in god), but it is the touchstone to determine if something has value. Does this act or thing bring happiness, if so it is good, if not it is not good in itself. Happiness is something that is a property of individuals. It makes no sense to ask if the species Homo SApiens is happy, or if the universe is happy. Value and morality are inherently limited to the individual perspective.

3) I realize this sounds farcicle, but consider: What is the value of value, what is the meaning of meaning? Why value? Why assign meaning?
3) This almost sounds as bad as Zeno's old question of where place is. Value is useful to us as humans because it then helps us to determine what is worth paying attention to in life. It's affected by many things. As C.S. Lewis points out in one example, suppose that a person lives for 70 years on average, but he lives in a society that lives for 1000 years, like Rome. Obviously, society means more than the person, and hence society would have more right to control that person's actions. On the other hand, let's say that the society lasts 1000 years, but people (souls) are immortal. Then the individual is more important, and society is muchmore constrained. The value in value is that it defines things for us and gives us principles to judge actions and policies.
Value is valuable because it helps us, as individuals choose between possible actions. I think we can all agree on that (except the hard determinists, who wil be thinking that this whole thread is a waste of time). Why does something that is longer lasting have more meaning? Meaning to who, to what? C. S. Lewis pointed out a fallacy here, but not one that he recognised as a fallacy. If I need to house a large population in a small space, but in that space is an old, run down decrepit farmyard barn from the 18th century, does this barn have more value than the comfort of the people who would be housed there if I were to destroy it. It is longer lasting, so, according to Lewis it has more meaning. The argument that people have to have immortal souls to give them meaning is simply a non starter. Comfort does not have an immortal soul, but it has more meaning than a much longer lasting physical structure.

4) Under my view (I won't speak for other atheists), right and wrong don't exist beyond the self any more than value does. The 'smart' thing is how I work, combined with the lovely effects of evolution (Both actual evolution and social evolution). I have evolved from other organisms to be somewhat inciteful in to the nature of other organisms, but to have a violent side when needed. Society around me has evolved to nurture that inciteful side, while my violent side is channeled in to self defense. This is around because it increases overall species survival.
4) That sounds pretty consistant, but what I'm trying to say is that society cannot say that your violent side is "wrong." It can only say that it doesn't like your violent side. So when another society comes along that likes your violent side, you are then free to use it however you like. That is, assuming that there is free will. Think Athens vs. Sparta.
Society can say that his or my or your violent side is wrong. Biut only within that society. When societies clash (Athens vs Sparta) what is clashing is the set of values that the societies hold. Otherwise there is no clash involved, just a meeting. The same applies to religion though. Attributing the values externally, to a God, is a belief. When a conflicting belief is encountered there is a dispute as to what is "wrong". Just shifting the source of right and wrong from the secular values to the religious values of a society does nothing to avoid this clash.

I'm an atheistic agnostic. Even if deities existed, their views would only count in as much as the views of my peers count. I value myself because I bring myself endorphine rushes, and satisfy my interests and curiosities. I also value myself because I value a number of other individuals, and treat them in a manner which makes me more valuable to them (IE: I try my best to make their lives more full of endorphine rushes and fulfilled curiosity). They have value to me because they provide similar effects towards myself.

To others, they have no value, and thus, those others have no value to me, unless they effect other things I value (Endorphine rushes, etc).

My life has value because I assign it value, and people who I value assign value to it.
So you assign value based on pragmatic concerns? Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but have you taken it to it's logical conclusion? Starving children in the Sudan have no value because they are no use to you. Personally, I can't stomach that sort of conclusion.


How did you get pragmatism from what Incenjucarania said? He said that his values depended upon how things made him feel. (A little indirectly by referring to endorphines etc.) This is not establishing what is right by what is useful in any way. Something can be of no direct practical use, but still make you feel god. Causing a frightened and miserable child to smile does this for most people. No advantage is gained except feeling good, but this is enough. If acting in such a way as it makes you feel good is pragmatism then we are all pragmatists, even yourself. The starving children in Sudan have value, because they affect how the person feels.
Almost everything in this world has value. That 2 + 2 = 4 however does not have value. It does not make you feel good or bad, it just is. That if you go outside in the rain you wil get wet does not have value. Getting wet does, the logical rational deduction of the cause does not. Laws have value, they make you feel god or bad, hence they have to be moral.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...
What is Caesar's?

What is Caesar's?

When you go to Caesar's Palace, they take your money. You know. Either you lose at blackjack or lose at the slots or the house takes a rake. So, basically, money is Caesar's.

But, as a side note, shouldn't there be a companion thread titled:

Basis for Morals: Rationality or Something Else?

But, as a side note, shouldn't there be a companion thread titled:

Basis for Morals: Rationality or Something Else?

That should have been the title of this thread.

1) For what gives God meaning, I don't know. But I still think that he is qualified to give humans meaning and value. When I build something, I am qualified to give it value as it's creator. That is the position that God is in. Another human is not in the position to give me or humanity in general value.


But can't OTHER beings give that item value? And can't it still be valueless to others? This line of argument just suggests that God is without value and meaning. And even then, still won't have value and meaning for others. Rocks do not value you. Toads do not value you. Only people, and, according to your books, a deity, and perhaps some pets and such, value you. But no deity assigns that value in regards to them; I, for instance, value you as an example of a Christian with a level head who can discuss this topic without acting insane. I highly value that trait, in fact. But had I never known you, your value to me would have been nil, aside from, perhaps, a fellow tax source. (Mind you, this is indivdual value. I value society as a whole for various benefits)


2) Okay, so we value something in order to keep myself alive and keep the species going. That sounds fine until we start thinking about if the species as a whole has any value. From an evolutionary standpoint, the human race has no more value than that of T-Rex. When we die off, will it really matter? As far as the universe is concerned, no. So if keeping the species going doesn't matter, then what does?


It will matter to -us-. Rocks don't give a hoot. This is why people get creeped out by antisocials and loners and hermits. It's abnormal to not seek being valued by others. But to the universe? No. It won't matter. The universe is a bunch of matter. We're just organisms. But I don't really care what Mars thinks about me, I care about what my family and friends think about me. And, above all, what I think about me.

Seriously, think about it. Even if a deity DID make the universe, the universe is mostly non-sentient. Most of the universe doesn't care about the deity. My clock radio doesn't care about any gods.


3) This almost sounds as bad as Zeno's old question of where place is. Value is useful to us as humans because it then helps us to determine what is worth paying attention to in life. It's affected by many things. As C.S. Lewis points out in one example, suppose that a person lives for 70 years on average, but he lives in a society that lives for 1000 years, like Rome. Obviously, society means more than the person, and hence society would have more right to control that person's actions. On the other hand, let's say that the society lasts 1000 years, but people (souls) are immortal. Then the individual is more important, and society is muchmore constrained. The value in value is that it defines things for us and gives us principles to judge actions and policies.


A society of immortals would still be more important than the individual immortal, because there's more of them. Best to make everyone happy, but more is still more. Society doesn't cease to exist, besides, it just changes forms. If people are immortal, they will usually have SOME sort of society, just that the fads may change.


4) That sounds pretty consistant, but what I'm trying to say is that society cannot say that your violent side is "wrong."


Wrong doesn't exist. It's a tool used to key in to guilt. Right and wrong are essentially "I feel good about my action" and "I feel bad about my action". It's just easier to explain to a child.


It can only say that it doesn't like your violent side.


Exactly. It says "That's wrong" to make me not want to do it, just in case I'm not afraid of physical threats.


So when another society comes along that likes your violent side, you are then free to use it however you like. That is, assuming that there is free will. Think Athens vs. Sparta.


This is why there are armies and soldiers. At home, they may be the nicest people you'll ever meet. But placed in a situation where they are encouraged to blow people up, they'll do it. Their guilt is more conditional than a pacifist's.


So you assign value based on pragmatic concerns? Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but have you taken it to it's logical conclusion? Starving children in the Sudan have no value because they are no use to you. Personally, I can't stomach that sort of conclusion.

1) Guilt feelings.

2) A happier world has benefits to me on several levels. Seeing people smile gives me endorphine rushes. In fact, after I broke up with my ex girlfriend, I took up the habit of going "Awww, how sweet" whenever I saw a couple holding hands, and it gave me endorphine rushes. However, you'll notice that many people find something easy to ignore if its not local.

3) Sudanese children growing up can benefit me in the long run, if they create a new trading nation. Them being in squallor has absolutely no benefit to me.

Remember, evolution makes me care about people via endorphine rushes, and my pragmaticism is very long-term.

What is Caesar's?

It is a Biblical Reference to Government...

How did you get pragmatism from what Incenjucarania said? He said that his values depended upon how things made him feel. (A little indirectly by referring to endorphines etc.) This is not establishing what is right by what is useful in any way. Something can be of no direct practical use, but still make you feel god. Causing a frightened and miserable child to smile does this for most people. No advantage is gained except feeling good, but this is enough. If acting in such a way as it makes you feel good is pragmatism then we are all pragmatists, even yourself. The starving children in Sudan have value, because they affect how the person feels.


Actually, I -would- and -do- argue that every conscious, intended action is inherently pragmatic, or, if people can remember its not a dirty word, selfish. Endorphine rush seeking, and whatever chemical causes guilt avoiding, is based on the self. Altruism is selfish, in its own interesting way. Martyrdom is selfish, provided you're willingly getting slain.

The only problem is that some people try to eliminate the guilt emotion to become sociopathic, and to focus on more sadistic methods of gaining endorphines (Since violence also causes endorphine rushes, appearantly so you can ignore pain and fear), thus becoming dangerous (that is, lessening the endorphine rushes of others). This is why people usually avoid pragmatic views, because people can override it once they know about it.