NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing I wonder - if you don't believe in God, then what is your concept of morality (if you have one), right & wrong, and how do you justify it (maybe that's a redundant question)?

By deciding for myself what is right and wrong, not what some wizard in the sky says is right and wrong.

Both ways are equally arbitrary - I invent my own morality, you pick the morality some other person(s) invented.

The same way you do, through an inner process where I define what seems to be the right way to behave. I just don't justify it through religion.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which may have originated with Jesus, but is still a good idea even if there's no god. Basically try to help out when you can, and don't do any unnecessary harm to others. It helps society and thus benefits everyone. Me included.

One thing I wonder - if you don't believe in God, then what is your concept of morality (if you have one), right & wrong, and how do you justify it (maybe that's a redundant question)?

Counterquestion: how do you justify morals if you are a theist ? God does not justify himself after all.

However, by defining basic rules for yourself, and deriving a consistent moral code from it. For an example, try Kant. The wonderful advantage is that you know *why* you consider something right or wrong, and do not depend on possibly contradicting commandments. Disadvantage is that the basic premisse is indeed rather arbitrary.

Oh, no, the time-slipping is back.... :rolleyes:

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which may have originated with Jesus, but is still a good idea even if there's no god. Basically try to help out when you can, and don't do any unnecessary harm to others. It helps society and thus benefits everyone. Me included.


Well put. As a side note, I do not need the threat of hell or promice of heaven to keep by my morals. I find that the treatment I receave from most people is more than enough to keep em.

Well put. As a side note, I do not need the threat of hell or promice of heaven to keep by my morals. I find that the treatment I receave from most people is more than enough to keep em.

To be fair, though, no true Christian follows that principle simply out of threat of hell; they do it because it is the right thing to do, and still would be even if they went to hell for it.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which may have originated with Jesus, but is still a good idea even if there's no god. Basically try to help out when you can, and don't do any unnecessary harm to others. It helps society and thus benefits everyone. Me included.
actually, i'm pretty shure it's originally hindu and went to buddhism which then went to judaism(or did hindu go to judaism directly?) and it was then adopted by christianity.

One thing I wonder - if you don't believe in God, then what is your concept of morality (if you have one), right & wrong, and how do you justify it (maybe that's a redundant question)?

Some things are bad. Other things aren't. I guess i am adult enough to know the difference, despite not following what was written down in a book in the desert 3000 years ago.

actually, i'm pretty shure it's originally hindu and went to buddhism which then went to judaism(or did hindu go to judaism directly?) and it was then adopted by christianity.
Wherever it came from it's good advice.

My morality has been formed through my life experiences and through some innate compulsion.

The aforesaid compulsion has undisputed utility for humans as a species, so it is little wonder we posesses it.

Well, morality is not an issue that can be described in a particularly concise manner; it's a complex and multifaceted concept that can really only be addressed via a systematic deconstruction of its underlying premises. I'll try to be as quick as I can.

The study of morality has three important parts: Morality [right and wrong], virtue [the actions by which we acheive morality], and value [the concepts upon which virtuous actions are based].

To start from the bottom, we must be prepared to denote life as the root of all value because; simply, you can't value anything if you're not alive. Likewise, any 'virtue' that fails to account for this axiomatic truth has to be self-contradictory, since anti-life is anti-value, therefore dismissing outright the possibility that any anti-life action can be 'virtuous.'

Anything we do, any action we undertake for our own good [or for anyone else's] must rely on the fact that life is the root of value. By 'life' I don't mean the guarantee of the longest life possible, nor do I mean a guarantee to the tools of life. Man alone of all creatures on the planet, survives by adapting the metaphysically given to suit his ends. Some higher animals are cabable of doing this to a rudimentary degree , but humans do it to such an extent that the difference cannot possibly be argued. To argue that the 'right to life' entails a guaranteed distribution of said adaptations amounts, essentially, to the argument that in order to survive, man [or at least, some men] must be relegated to the role of the animal, taking what is given to him by nature [or other men] without any need to make things for himself.

In order to determine if any one course of action is right or wrong, we must boil it down to a sensory level [i.e., [i]prove it] so that one can make a value-based decision. If, for example, we argue the common Utilitarian viewpoint that the 'greater good' is the sole defining purpose of morality, one needs to boil down Utilitarian virtues to a sensory level. The redistribution of labor, money, or time is necessary for the 'greater good,' since it's patently obvious that every member of society may not be able to contribute their share of production.

In making said distributions, we find that we're essentially reallocating peoples lives; since spreading labor around is impossible without redistributing one's time--without one's life [and the product of it], we quickly come to find that a Ultilitarian morality [along with most others] is anti-life and therefore anti-value and wholly immoral.

I don't mean to implicate Utilitarians specifically, it's just a handy example.

Hope that helps a bit.

I'm a secular amoralist, so at least in a general sense I don't believe in morality. What impulses of right and wrong I do have are generally instinctive or societal, not logical.

The problem of an origin for a moral code applies equally to Christianity as it does to Atheism. Here's a simple path of logic: Why should I do X? Because God said so. Why should I listen to God? Because he'll burn me if I don't. Why should I avoid getting burned? Because burning hurts. Why should I avoid what hurts? Because I don't want to get hurt. Why should I do what I want? Because I have free will. Why? God said so.

Any morality can only be justified by circular logic. Chrisianity is no different.

I really don't know. For the most part, I would say that my ethics stem from the fact that I just don't like people to suffer needlessly. I don't really have a base

I really don't know. For the most part, I would say that my ethics stem from the fact that I just don't like people to suffer needlessly. I don't really have a base
Why am I not surprised.

They could use philosophical ethics the same as the greeks.

They could use philosophical ethics the same as the greeks.

The greeks actually used religious ethics for most of their existence. There's a socratic dialogue which basically points out how little sense this makes, especially in a polytheism.

Why am I not surprised.

Just in case Letila doesn't check on this thread again, I'll ask instead:
What exactly do you mean by this?

The greeks actually used religious ethics for most of their existence. There's a socratic dialogue which basically points out how little sense this makes, especially in a polytheism.
Thats basicly what i was refering to that they relised their gods were not the best rolemodles and developed other ways of determining what is right and wrong.

I'm not an athiest, of course, but I may have an idea. Everyone has an "inner voice", some form of guiding force in your life. Follow that, and your morality is complete. However, if your talking public morality, I believe that there should be one that is strictly secular, if only because no religion endorses this. I believe that it is imperitave not to try to control anyone, and not to let dependency, be it physical, chemical, mental, and even emotional and spiritual, to develope. I have my reasons for believing this.
In case you want to know, btw, I'm a Catholic. But I'm sorta at an ebb in my faith. Maybe when it comes back, I'll change my mind.

Just in case Letila doesn't check on this thread again, I'll ask instead:
What exactly do you mean by this?
I mean that given his completely contradictory morality, it doesn't surprise me that it's hardly been thought out at all. I'm actually somewhat surprised that he'd ever admit this much.

Most irritating to me is the fact that he admits he has no moral foundation, yet somehow thinks he has a leg to stand on while declaring capitalism as 'immoral.' If you're not familiar with your own morality, any right you may have had to attack anyone else's is utterly forefit. I mean, I can respect a guy who, for example, may choose [and be familiar with] something like a Utilitarian morality [which as I'm sure you've seen, I've attacked in this very thread], but this kind of epistemic leeching is just ridiculous.

How do you explain to a non-atheist that one can have morality without believing in a God?


~and i doubt i'm even an atheist

enlightened self interest.

How do you explain to a non-atheist that one can have morality without believing in a God?


~and i doubt i'm even an atheist

i find it hard. whenever ive tried it, my notions have been utterly rejected as wrong or not leading to a correct morality. (i may just know particularily obtuse believers)

the thing is

i find that while alot of people claim a moral base, few people of any stripe live up to those morals. so i end up wondering what good religious morality is if it makes you no better than anyone else.

Why am I not surprised.

I was going to go for Nietzscheanism, but I didn't have the power necessary to become an übermensch, so I just went with a gut-feeling approach to things.

I mean that given his completely contradictory morality, it doesn't surprise me that it's hardly been thought out at all. I'm actually somewhat surprised that he'd ever admit this much.

Most irritating to me is the fact that he admits he has no moral foundation, yet somehow thinks he has a leg to stand on while declaring capitalism as 'immoral.' If you're not familiar with your own morality, any right you may have had to attack anyone else's is utterly forefit. I mean, I can respect a guy who, for example, may choose [and be familiar with] something like a Utilitarian morality [which as I'm sure you've seen, I've attacked in this very thread], but this kind of epistemic leeching is just ridiculous.

What should I base my ethics on, then?

I'm a secular amoralist, so at least in a general sense I don't believe in morality. What impulses of right and wrong I do have are generally instinctive or societal, not logical.

The problem of an origin for a moral code applies equally to Christianity as it does to Atheism. Here's a simple path of logic: Why should I do X? Because God said so. Why should I listen to God? Because he'll burn me if I don't. Why should I avoid getting burned? Because burning hurts. Why should I avoid what hurts? Because I don't want to get hurt. Why should I do what I want? Because I have free will. Why? God said so.

Any morality can only be justified by circular logic. Chrisianity is no different.

That isn't why Christians adhere to a certain form of morality. At least that's not what Jesus taught.
If God created (via evolution or not) life, then it would be in your own best interests to live in a way that supported that creation. Morality is a means to exist in, as close to as possible, harmony . It is when people move away from that and via their own free will become interested only in their own self perpetuation that disharmony occurs.

That's my thought anyway :confused:

I was going to go for Nietzscheanism, but I didn't have the power necessary to become an übermensch, so I just went with a gut-feeling approach to things.
Right, and 'gut feelings' vary from person to person, so why is it a legitimate tactic to fashion policy over 'gut feelings' or 'hunches?' I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to think this way [I wouldn't want to live in a world where you couldn't], but making policy out of subjective 'feelings' is a one way ticket to ruin.



What should I base my ethics on, then?
I can't answer that. The ethics of other individuals is not within my pervue to dictate. If you would prefer to stick to your existing set of ethics, more power to you. I would just prefer, as a point of fact, that we all stop assuming our 'gut feelings' are a legitimate guide for what other people should be doing.

i find it hard. whenever ive tried it, my notions have been utterly rejected as wrong or not leading to a correct morality.



can't they realize you are not trying to convert them?

What is good for you, doing no harm to others, is good for you.

Why I seek to do no or little harm to others might not be the same reasoning
as you.
So what?

I am thus immoral?

Right, and 'gut feelings' vary from person to person, so why is it a legitimate tactic to fashion policy over 'gut feelings' or 'hunches?' I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to think this way [I wouldn't want to live in a world where you couldn't], but making policy out of subjective 'feelings' is a one way ticket to ruin.

I can't answer that. The ethics of other individuals is not within my pervue to dictate. If you would prefer to stick to your existing set of ethics, more power to you. I would just prefer, as a point of fact, that we all stop assuming our 'gut feelings' are a legitimate guide for what other people should be doing.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I can't seem to find any real base. I can't seem to find any real reason for anything to be ethical or not.

I think the explanations for morals lie in biology.

That isn't why Christians adhere to a certain form of morality. At least that's not what Jesus taught.
If God created (via evolution or not) life, then it would be in your own best interests to live in a way that supported that creation. Morality is a means to exist in, as close to as possible, harmony . It is when people move away from that and via their own free will become interested only in their own self perpetuation that disharmony occurs.

That's my thought anyway :confused:

Your logic still applies to my argument: Why should I do X? Because it lets you exist in harmony? Why do I want that? Because its what you're designed to do. Why should I do what I'm designed to do? Because it will make you happier. Why should I try to achieve happiness? Because I like it. Why should I do what I like? (Your answer here, but I'll guess you don't have one)

You can't base a normative claim off of an empirical one, and the only claims we can test are empirical. Neither group has any basis for morality.

To say morality should only be confined to the individual is ridiculous. If your morality can only govern what you can eat, drink, sleep or feel, it is more or less useless to society as a whole. Leaving these decisions to the individual is not only an easy way out of the overall problem, it is weak insofar as it only places freedom to choose this as its value, and freedom in and of itself is not a virtue.

Societal interactions is what morality should mainly be concerned with. The problem is are we worthy to decide this? If so who decides this, and how will these morals be enforced? Morality without some will or power behind it is equally meaningless to society.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I can't seem to find any real base. I can't seem to find any real reason for anything to be ethical or not.

There isn't one. All you have to do is make up your own arbitrary one and make sure it allows cultural imperialism so you can apply it to others.

Or just not deal with morality except to show others are hypocritical. That's how I do it.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I can't seem to find any real base. I can't seem to find any real reason for anything to be ethical or not.
Well, to be honest there are any number of moralities out there that will validate your politics. Most of them strike me as variants of Utilitarianism, which is why I chose them for my opening example on the first page.

That said, if you can't find a 'base,' as it were, that suggests to me that the uppermost parts are probably swaying dangerously. I don't mean to tell you that your feelings are invalid, just that it's impossible to develop a consistent morality based solely around them. Emotions are not a valid device by which we discern the nature of reality, therefore a proper morality is impossible to devise with them as your only guide. A lot of people mistake this for an anti-emotion viewpoint, but I cast no aspersions on eating or drinking by denying that they are not means of cognition; the same applies to feeling.

For example, it's completely possible to be a 'charitable' Objectivist, so long as you recognize that helping folks fits snugly within your structure of values, and doesn't supercede the right for other people to make the same value decisions. To be totally honest, I'm not completely abhorrent of the concept, but I take a hard line approach against it here to prove a point. I just don't think it should be forced is all.

To start from the bottom, we must be prepared to denote life as the root of all value because; simply, you can't value anything if you're not alive.

What if I sacrifice myself for the good of someone else? As you say, I'm not alive to value anything; so what value do I see from that act of morality?

There isn't one. All you have to do is make up your own arbitrary one and make sure it allows cultural imperialism so you can apply it to others.

Or just not deal with morality except to show others are hypocritical. That's how I do it.

I mean, after hearing about Nietzsche's critiques of ethics, I realize now that he has a point. Try as I might, it's as though there is no floor beneath me and I have simply been feigning belief in an ethic. Despite all that, though, there really is no reason I can find not to follow the will to power directly.

What if I sacrifice myself for the good of someone else? As you say, I'm not alive to value anything; so what value do I see from that act of morality?
If you sacrifice yourself for the good of someone else, you're acknowledging by virtue of your value system that the lives of others are worth more than your own. Therefore, it's not a sacrifice, it's either a trade or a gain.

EDIT: A sacrifice, for clarification, is giving something up for an item of lesser value. You'd only be sacrificing yourself if their lives were worth less than yours.

And yes, you're obviously alive when you make the decision. That's all that really matters.

If you sacrifice yourself for the good of someone else, you're acknowledging by virtue of your value system that the lives of others are worth more than your own. Therefore, it's not a sacrifice, it's either a trade or a gain.

EDIT: A sacrifice, for clarification, is giving something up for an item of lesser value. You'd only be sacrificing yourself if their lives were worth less than yours.

And yes, you're obviously alive when you make the decision. That's all that really matters.

He's asking about the act's ramifications in your value system, not his own.

I think the explanations for morals lie in biology.
Do you mean that morals should be determined by biology, or that morals are somehow a substitute, or perhaps an excuse, for something biological? You ask me dumb questions all the time, so now, it is my turn.

He's asking about the act's ramifications in your value system, not his own.
And the really cool part is that the same answer applies. If you choose to trade your life for the lives of others, you've ovbiously decided at some point that $PERSON is morally more valuable than yourself. I don't see why my answer would change in any instance.

I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, but to each his own.

EDIT: and now that I read this again, I'd tend to think that if he wanted to ask about my value system, he'd ask me what the ramifications of me [Melkor] sacrificing my life would be. Then it would become an invalid question, as he'd be dictating to me a hypothetical course of action that I'd probably never take.

Do you mean that morals should be determined by biology, or that morals are somehow a substitute, or perhaps an excuse, for something biological? You ask me dumb questions all the time, so now, it is my turn.
No, I mean that so far I as I can ascertain, the explanation for the existence of morals is biological.

I mean, after hearing about Nietzsche's critiques of ethics, I realize now that he has a point. Try as I might, it's as though there is no floor beneath me and I have simply been feigning belief in an ethic. Despite all that, though, there really is no reason I can find not to follow the will to power directly.

Even will to power has no real basis as an ethical system. Nothing does. If you want to debate your system you might want to choose one based on its logical coherency, though. If you're interested I would suggest the philosophy of John Rawls, a lot of his stuff seems to just make sense.

If you sacrifice yourself for the good of someone else, you're acknowledging by virtue of your value system that the lives of others are worth more than your own. Therefore, it's not a sacrifice, it's either a trade or a gain.

EDIT: A sacrifice, for clarification, is giving something up for an item of lesser value. You'd only be sacrificing yourself if their lives were worth less than yours.

And yes, you're obviously alive when you make the decision. That's all that really matters.

Well, for the record, I know what a 'sacrifice' is.

Mmmm, but unfortunely what you're saying contradicts your position of Objectivism. If what I've done doesn't matter when I'm dead, then how can there be any true moral worth in my act?

Even will to power has no real basis as an ethical system. Nothing does. If you want to debate your system you might want to choose one based on its logical coherency, though. If you're interested I would suggest the philosophy of John Rawls, a lot of his stuff seems to just make sense.

How is the will to power baseless, though?

And the really cool part is that the same answer applies. If you choose to trade your life for the lives of others, you've ovbiously decided at some point that $PERSON is morally more valuable than yourself. I don't see why my answer would change in any instance.

I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, but to each his own.

Except you use your value system to imply that spreading life around, even if it increases the prescence of life, is wrong. That seems to imply that your value is Deontological and thus that a sacrifice of any degree of life is unacceptable. Otherwise you would be Utilitarian.

If this interpretation is way off, please tell me.

Well, for the record, I know what a 'sacrifice' is.

Mmmm, but unfortunely what you're saying contradicts your position of Objectivism. If what I've done doesn't matter when I'm dead, then how can there be any true moral worth in my act?
Wait, when did I say an Objectivist would or should 'sacrifice' himself for the good of others? Is that even what you're saying? I can't say as I fully understand just what you're trying to do with this line of questioning.

Except you use your value system to imply that spreading life around, even if it increases the prescence of life, is wrong.

RED FLAG! I didn't say 'spreading life around,' I said spreading the product of life around. The only way you can 'spread life [itself] around' is by fucking like rabbits.

That seems to imply that your value is Deontological and thus that a sacrifice of any degree of life is unacceptable. Otherwise you would be Utilitarian.

If this interpretation is way off, please tell me.
Well, I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, so I can't be sure. This thread is starting to get a bit nebulous.

Wait, when did I say an Objectivist would or should 'sacrifice' himself for the good of others? Is that even what you're saying? I can't say as I fully understand just what you're trying to do with this line of questioning.

You said that if someone with your value system valued others over themself, they should sacrifice themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhuman_animals_ethics

So you know of a refutation of the will to power, Vegas-Rex?

RED FLAG! I didn't say 'spreading life around,' I said spreading the product of life around. The only way you can 'spread life [itself] around' is by fucking like rabbits.


Well, I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, so I can't be sure. This thread is starting to get a bit nebulous.

The point is you would classify spreading the product of life around as wrong even if the end result created more life or higher quality life. This implies that to you life and its products are sacrosanct and thus even if you get more life (or higher value life) you still should not sacrifice life to get it. Thus under your value system self-sacrifice is bad.

Objectivism (your version) is Ayn Rand, right? I'm fairly sure she's pretty definite about self-sacrifice being wrong.

I don't need some sky being watching over everything I do in order to be moral. I do good things because I believe them to be right, not because I'm afraid of some omnipotent presence.

Aren't all morals arbitrary? Our morality is based solely on what people tell us from a young age. Whether or not that person was a religious figure is unimportant.

You said that if someone with your value system valued others over themself, they should sacrifice themselves.
Ummm.... now I'm confused. Someone with my value system wouldn't value the lives of others above his own, and reviewing my posting history here, that implication doesn't seem to appear.

What I said was that if someone [not me!] chooses to 'sacrifice' himself in such a fashion [lets use a soldier flinging himself onto a grenade], then the decision has been made that his life is of equal or lesser value to that of everyone else's. I can't speak for the remainder of folks who follow my philosophy, but it's not a course of action I'd be likely to take.

I suppose what Anarchy meant by that statement would have been something along the lines of such a 'sacrifice' would be pro-life on virtue of the fact that it keeps life from ending, no? I'm kind of lost here.

No, I mean that so far I as I can ascertain, the explanation for the existence of morals is biological.
Yes. All human thought stems from biology, with the development of our brains and the separation of the id into the ego, and the ego into the superego. Society itself is really a clever biological quirk.

The point is you would classify spreading the product of life around as wrong even if the end result created more life or higher quality life. This implies that to you life and its products are sacrosanct and thus even if you get more life (or higher value life) you still should not sacrifice life to get it. Thus under your value system self-sacrifice is bad.

Objectivism (your version) is Ayn Rand, right? I'm fairly sure she's pretty definite about self-sacrifice being wrong.
Correct. I'm an orthodox Objectivist.

The whole discussion of self-sacrifice assumes that the person committing the act possesses an entirely difficult value structure from mine, making it difficult for me to judge the reasoning behind his actions. I can still try though, if you'd like.

You can't base a normative claim off of an empirical one, and the only claims we can test are empirical. Neither group has any basis for morality.

Why shouldn't we attempt to test normative claims? and, what are normative claims in relation to morality?
Unless we think we already know everything there is to know.


I'm a secular amoralist, so at least in a general sense I don't believe in morality. What impulses of right and wrong I do have are generally instinctive or societal, not logical.

I agree in most part with this statement.
I really just disagree with your circle of logic as applied to Christianity.

Morality will always be empirical as humanity changes to survive/continue to exist.

So you know of a refutation of the will to power, Vegas-Rex?

I'm not too familiar will the will to power, so I don't know the difference between it and simple self-servingness (if there is one). I can easily refute self-servingness: Why do you do X? It benefits me. Why should I benefit myself? Because it would make me happy. Why should I be happy? Because I want to be happy. Why should I do what I want? (No, I can't think of a logical reason either)

Like I said, you can't base morality on empirical claims because morality always involves a claim of should, which cannot be tested empirically. All basis of human knowledge is empirical. Therefore, all morality is ultimately baseless.

Correct. I'm an orthodox Objectivist.

The whole discussion of self-sacrifice assumes that the person committing the act possesses an entirely difficult value structure from mine, making it difficult for me to judge the reasoning behind his actions. I can still try though, if you'd like.

The point is you answered a question as to what your system thought about self-sacrifice with an answer as to what their system might think about self sacrifice. That's the only reason we're confused. You should have just answered Anarchy's original post by saying the action he proposed was immoral.

The point is you answered a question as to what your system thought about self-sacrifice with an answer as to what their system might think about self sacrifice. That's the only reason we're confused. You should have just answered Anarchy's original post by saying the action he proposed was immoral.
Ah, I see. Well, I think the confusion stemmed in part from the fact that his example was kind of vague. In certain situations [like, say, when death can't possibly be avoided--if a grenade appears in your foxhole and there's no time to get out, for instance] it might not actually be immoral. In a social context, however, this concept is generally exemplified by wealth redistribution programs, which we do hold are immoral. I didn't really have that much to work with. Morality, like any other aspect of reality, is completely contextual and the facts pertatining to it require an examination of its surroundings.

I see what you're saying now, I think. Thanks.

Ah, I see. Well, I think the confusion stemmed in part from the fact that his example was kind of vague. In certain situations [like, say, when death can't possibly be avoided--if a grenade appears in your foxhole and there's no time to get out, for instance] it might not actually be immoral. In a social context, however, this concept is generally exemplified by wealth redistribution programs, which we do hold are immoral. I didn't really have that much to work with. Morality, like any other aspect of reality, is completely contextual and the facts pertatining to it require an examination of its surroundings.

I see what you're saying now, I think. Thanks.

Ya velcome. Now all I have to do is convine Letila to be something entertaining, and this thread will be complete.

I'm not too familiar will the will to power, so I don't know the difference between it and simple self-servingness (if there is one). I can easily refute self-servingness: Why do you do X? It benefits me. Why should I benefit myself? Because it would make me happy. Why should I be happy? Because I want to be happy. Why should I do what I want? (No, I can't think of a logical reason either)

Like I said, you can't base morality on empirical claims because morality always involves a claim of should, which cannot be tested empirically. All basis of human knowledge is empirical. Therefore, all morality is ultimately baseless.

The will to power is more accurately described as "might makes right", really. Apparently, he argued that it was part of a natural order.

"How do you explain morality as an atheist?"

The hell with that! The more important question is, "How do you explain morality TO an atheist???" :D

The will to power is more accurately described as "might makes right", really.

Ok. In that case (from yet another guess, but I think I've learned about Nietzche): Why should I do X? Because you can. Why should I do what I can? Because then society becomes great. Why should society be great? (Not sure he answers this).

You'll always get to a point where you have to stop.

"How do you explain morality as an atheist?"

The hell with that! The more important question is, "How do you explain morality TO an atheist???" :D

Or even more important: How do you explain morality to a non-atheist?

Morality is very simple to codify: "Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do." Easy enough to say, but to understand completely, that's another matter entirely. Everyone knows E=mc^2, but that does not mean everyone can build an atomic bomb.

When it comes to determining morals, one cannot go about it logically. The speed at which one can string thoughts together does not provide enough reasoning power to answer such questions. As far as the bandwidth of consiousness goes, an optomistic estimate is 16 bits per second. At that rate, one would be dead before they even came up with a complete understanding of one moral value, let alone all of them. In order to create morals, they have to be created intuitively, which means analyzing quantities of information on an unconsious level, so when someone asks you "why do believe x?" and you reply, "I just do.", that's why.

As far as which morals to choose, a "cause and effect" approach would be the best way to validate them. If taking certain actions gets one closer to the goal they wish to achieve, then their morals are the right ones. If they are creating pain, suffering, and frustration, then it may be a good time to change course.

Ok. In that case (from yet another guess, but I think I've learned about Nietzche): Why should I do X? Because you can. Why should I do what I can? Because then society becomes great. Why should society be great? (Not sure he answers this).

You'll always get to a point where you have to stop.

Nietzsche's Will to Power does not give a damn about society.
He assaults all religious moralities as a hinderance to great men.

I do this so I become great.

He constantly asks, "Why should I hold in higher esteem acts done for others over acts done for myslef?"

The will to power is more than "Might makes Right"
Nietzsche does not equate might with power.
As for it being a morality, I'm not sure you could call it that.

"The world itself is the will to power, and nothing more! And you yourself are the will to power, and nothing more!"

"The highest form of the will to power is to not only be at peace with what was and what is, but to want what was and what is repeated for all eternity."

Make of it what you will, I'm still trying to figure it out.

The same way all people do, they look at the world and take in information and decide what makes sense. My morality has not changed from when I was an atheist to when I was Wiccan to now when my spirituality is defined but unnamed. I was never a Christian because some aspects of Christian morality didn't make sense to me. So I gravitated toward spirituality that said what I already thought. Everyone does this, and that's why some people stay with their home religion all their life and others don't.

[snip]
He constantly asks, "Why should I hold in higher esteem acts done for others over acts done for myslef?"
[snip]

Answer: fecundity. When one benefits one's self, one can only create greater value based on what efforts one can make. When one benefits others, one can create greater value based not only on their efforts, but the efforts of others.

This, of course, assumes that others are willing to create greater value, which is why self-sacrifice is not a good idea. No sense in degrading your own life in elevating someone else's. That's not a creation of value as much as a transferrance of value, often resulting in a gain of nothing, or less.

Answer: fecundity. When one benefits one's self, one can only create greater value based on what efforts one can make. When one benefits others, one can create greater value based not only on their efforts, but the efforts of others.

This, of course, assumes that others are willing to create greater value, which is why self-sacrifice is not a good idea. No sense in degrading your own life in elevating someone else's. That's not a creation of value as much as a transferrance of value, often resulting in a gain of nothing, or less.

Fecundity:
1. The quality or power of producing abundantly; fruitfulness or fertility.
2. Productive or creative power: fecundity of the mind.

He was also against altruism and I'm sure "self-sacrifice."
Fecundity seems to be a word he would like.

He viewed any sort of co-operation as automatically hindering one's creative forces. If one has to make a powerpoint or other presentation, this is apparent. However, I don't look down on the practice.

To start from the bottom, we must be prepared to denote life as the root of all value because; simply, you can't value anything if you're not alive. Likewise, any 'virtue' that fails to account for this axiomatic truth has to be self-contradictory, since anti-life is anti-value, therefore dismissing outright the possibility that any anti-life action can be 'virtuous.'

Why wouldn't you be able to instead define "quality of life" or "happyness" instead of just the biological fact as the root of everything, and value the whole as more important than the individual ? (as in the unitarian "more happyness in the world = good" for instance).

Why wouldn't you be able to instead define "quality of life" or "happyness" instead of just the biological fact as the root of everything, and value the whole as more important than the individual ? (as in the unitarian "more happyness in the world = good" for instance).

Because if I did, I'd be a Utilitarian and not an Objectivist. Happiness is the purpose of virtue, not its standard. If happiness were the standard of virtue, there would be no moral recourse for my neighbor taking a shit on the hood of my car if it makes him happy.

The very notion that a person must have a reigion, or particularly, a christian to know anything about or possess morality, is absurd and arrogant in the extreme.

God does not give you morals, your mother does.
Morals are taught to a child from thier parents, or adult role models.

Ask any child what it means to be a good person, and they will give you a very simple answer.
"Be nice to people."

If you then ask them who taught you that, they will probably tell you "Mommy or Daddy".

Morality has nothing to do with God, or any ofther mythological diety.
It comes from a decent upbringing, and examples.

Its not something you can learn about "praying" or in church.

If god made a person a moral one., the catholic church wouldnt be responsible for so many cases of sexual abuse.

Hmmm...

If you're an atheist, you do good things because it makes you like doing good things and feel better about yourself.

If you're a theist, you do good things to please an old guy in the sky and hopefully get into heaven later.

Which is the most selfish, and the most moral?

*Note: The above is a generalization used only to exemplify the stupidity of the original question*

Some things are bad. Other things aren't. I guess i am adult enough to know the difference, despite not following what was written down in a book in the desert 3000 years ago.

But don't you find it interesting that the things you find good and bad co-incide with that book's writings, probably to the tune of 90% or more?

Hawkintom']But don't you find it interesting that the things you find good and bad co-incide with that book's writings, probably to the tune of 90% or more?

Well i wouldn't say "90% or more". To pick some random examples:- I don't think i should honour my father or mother if they haven't set an example worth honouring (luckily mine have). I don't think i should have no other god by Jehovah - well, i do kinda, in the sense i have no other god, but no Jehovah either :). I don't think i shouldn't eat certain foods. I don't think menstruating women are unclean. I don't think homosexuals are sinners. In fact, i think the Judeo-Christian-Muslim thing with regards to sexuality is massively backward, *even for the time*.

Now, the things i do agree are bad - murder, rape, lying, theft. They aren't exactly hard things to work out. It's not like that book was the first to notice they were bad either...

Well i wouldn't say "90% or more". To pick some random examples:- I don't think i should honour my father or mother if they haven't set an example worth honouring (luckily mine have). I don't think i should have no other god by Jehovah - well, i do kinda, in the sense i have no other god, but no Jehovah either :). I don't think i shouldn't eat certain foods. I don't think menstruating women are unclean. I don't think homosexuals are sinners. In fact, i think the Judeo-Christian-Muslim thing with regards to sexuality is massively backward, *even for the time*.

Now, the things i do agree are bad - murder, rape, lying, theft. They aren't exactly hard things to work out. It's not like that book was the first to notice they were bad either... Still, everyone has different views of right and wrong. "If I determine the truth with my own mind, then what a small truth it is!" said someone.

In a social context, however, this concept is generally exemplified by wealth redistribution programs, which we do hold are immoral. I didn't really have that much to work with. Morality, like any other aspect of reality, is completely contextual and the facts pertatining to it require an examination of its surroundings.It's not really a moral standard though, is it? I mean, an objectivist in poverty and receiving aid through such redistribution wouldn't find the system to be an immoral one because it benefits them; they can find themselves reasonably emotionally justified in that they end up with as much as the people they took from and can therefore not be identified as one of those who took money from the rich, so ultimately such an action can only be beneficial to the recipient individual and therefore morally just.


Incidentally, my own moral code as an agnostic/christian/buddhist/systemist ( ^^; ) is based on experience and raw empathy. My situation has been an unpleasant one in the past, and if there's any chance that my actions can influence another living thing for the better and to prevent the past reoccurring, then I'll live to make it easier for those around me as best I can.

I want the world to be a better place for others like me to be born into and live in as a result of my existence. If I can do that, no matter what degree of hardship or eternal torment might lie in wait for me on the road, I will consider my life of value. In that I find purpose, and in acting on that purpose I find fulfilment.

Which is why statements like "You're only justified if there's an afterlife" offend me so much. What I have experienced in people is far more real than what you or I have in God, and I refuse to allow the obvious to be overridden in favour of the possible.

Generally my morals are libertarian or utilitarian. Or just doing what suits me. Whatever. :p

Hawkintom']But don't you find it interesting that the things you find good and bad co-incide with that book's writings, probably to the tune of 90% or more?

Off course, most of those books also share 90% with each other.

Fecundity:
1. The quality or power of producing abundantly; fruitfulness or fertility.
2. Productive or creative power: fecundity of the mind.

He was also against altruism and I'm sure "self-sacrifice."
Fecundity seems to be a word he would like.

He viewed any sort of co-operation as automatically hindering one's creative forces. If one has to make a powerpoint or other presentation, this is apparent. However, I don't look down on the practice.

He wasn't against altruism per se, just the enforcement of altruism by social dogma. Jesus, for instance, was described by Nietzsche as an overman, and Jesus was highly altruistic. But Jesus created his own rationale for why he should be altruistic, rather than just blindly following conventions of the day. This was what Nietzsche prized.

He wasn't against altruism per se, just the enforcement of altruism by social dogma. Jesus, for instance, was described by Nietzsche as an overman, and Jesus was highly altruistic. But Jesus created his own rationale for why he should be altruistic, rather than just blindly following conventions of the day. This was what Nietzsche prized.

Do you know if Nietzsche praised anyone who held a conventional morality, but did not follow it blindly?

He wrote much on Wagner, but most of these I have not read.

I think it's a waste of time to answer a question asked by someone who simply can't imagine a system of ethics that doesn't involve a god.

Frankly, he just won't understand.

One thing I wonder - if you don't believe in God, then what is your concept of morality (if you have one), right & wrong, and how do you justify it (maybe that's a redundant question)?

Morality has nothing to do with a god.

It's not really a moral standard though, is it? I mean, an objectivist in poverty and receiving aid through such redistribution wouldn't find the system to be an immoral one because it benefits them; they can find themselves reasonably emotionally justified in that they end up with as much as the people they took from and can therefore not be identified as one of those who took money from the rich, so ultimately such an action can only be beneficial to the recipient individual and therefore morally just.

Except that an Objectivist accepting welfare checks would be contradicting his own principles, and thus, wouldn't be an Objectivist. I lived on my own for about a year on roughly $600 a month, and when I lost my job, you know what I did? I moved to a new city and got one. Did I go to the welfare office and plead for a handout? No. We don't do that shit, and we don't do it for a damn good reason.

Furthermore, we don't justify our morality based on emotions. We justify our morality on the facts of life and how to discover them: on reason and reality, not emotionalism and hunches. We also don't contend that everything that benefits the individual is morally correct: since collecting welfare is tantamount to taking money from someone else's paycheck, we don't view the practice as very justifiable. Sounds to me like someone needs to read up on Objectivism before coming to conclusions like these.

Incidentally, my own moral code as an agnostic/christian/buddhist/systemist ( ^^; ) is based on experience and raw empathy. My situation has been an unpleasant one in the past, and if there's any chance that my actions can influence another living thing for the better and to prevent the past reoccurring, then I'll live to make it easier for those around me as best I can.
That's fine, but the key thing to remember here is that 'raw empathy,' and the impetus for it, is hardly universal and varies drastically from individual to individual. Our personal feelings, no matter how strong they are, cannot be applied to society as a whole no matter how hard you try, thus the idea that they are a valid barometer for what should and shouldn't become state policy is laughably ridiculous at best.

I want the world to be a better place for others like me to be born into and live in as a result of my existence. If I can do that, no matter what degree of hardship or eternal torment might lie in wait for me on the road, I will consider my life of value. In that I find purpose, and in acting on that purpose I find fulfilment.
That's fine if it floast your boat; but the problem I have with most people who think this way is that they demand that I live up to the same standard. Most people seem to think that because I have a certain amount of resources, I'm somehow morally obligated to give a share of them away. Bollocks to that.

Which is why statements like "You're only justified if there's an afterlife" offend me so much. What I have experienced in people is far more real than what you or I have in God, and I refuse to allow the obvious to be overridden in favour of the possible.
Agreed.

He wasn't against altruism per se, just the enforcement of altruism by social dogma. Jesus, for instance, was described by Nietzsche as an overman, and Jesus was highly altruistic. But Jesus created his own rationale for why he should be altruistic, rather than just blindly following conventions of the day. This was what Nietzsche prized.

What was Jesus's rationale?

What was Jesus's rationale?

Reason and logic Nietzsche also held with suspicion. These could also be hinderances to acheivements of great men.

I don't think Nietzsche held Jesus in high esteem becuase of the logical reasons and arguments for doing what he did, but rather the enormous will behind the man: I am God.

Reason and logic Nietzsche also held with suspicion. These could also be hinderances to acheivements of great men.

I don't think Nietzsche held Jesus in high esteem becuase of the logical reasons and arguments for doing what he did, but rather the enormous will behind the man: I am God.
I am the walrus, I am the eggman, coo coo cachoo.

Reason and logic Nietzsche also held with suspicion. These could also be hinderances to acheivements of great men.

I don't think Nietzsche held Jesus in high esteem becuase of the logical reasons and arguments for doing what he did, but rather the enormous will behind the man: I am God.

Of course if you read Nietzsche's writings he says that there has never been a living ubermensch(overman). He said that one had to be created and raised into an ubermensch. But due to biases in thinking it is increadibly hard to do.

Now I am aware that this sounds like the words of a nazi(his words were in fact used for nazi propaganda), but Nietzsche believed in a higher moral man, not a higher biological one. The ubermensch would be a man who would form his principles without the bias of scoiety or religion.

Of course if you read Nietzsche's writings he says that there has never been a living ubermensch(overman). He said that one had to be created and raised into an ubermensch. But due to biases in thinking it is increadibly hard to do.

Now I am aware that this sounds like the words of a nazi(his words were in fact used for nazi propaganda), but Nietzsche believed in a higher moral man, not a higher biological one. The ubermensch would be a man who would form his principles without the bias of scoiety or religion.

Some people think he's anti-semetic (he didn't much like the Jewish religion) but if they could see what he wrote about Germans, man...
Harsh