NationStates Jolt Archive

No.

Absolutely not. Indeed, religion generally has a negative influence on morality: it corrupts our innate capacity to tell right from wrong, and gets otherwise decent people to support moral atrocities--like the oppression of gays and women, and the eternal damnation of non-believers.

No. In fact, the people with moral values that I respect the most generally aren't religious.

The age old question...but what do you think? :D

Personally, yes, but not in the sense of conventional religion. Yes in the sense of the universal idea of common sense. Those who have no "common sense" are seen as immoral because the majority are against them.

Nevertheless, I would agree that it seems some people with absolutely no common sense are seen as moral. :p

Religion tends to be as immoral as possible.

No you don't need to be religious to be moral, i think morality comes first then religion is created on top of that, as a sort of socialising influence, which inevitably over time becomes corrupted.
But i suppose you could argue morality does not exist at all.

I think that morality is rather higher among religious communities, but one doesn't need to be religious to be moral. But hey, what is morality anyway?

I find morality lower among the religious.
Is 3 Timewarps before the opening post any kind of record?

just as religion doesnt make you moral, neither does lack of religion make you immoral.

Personally, I love when people ask "Do you have to be religious to be moral?"

See, anybody who answers in the affirmative is then expected to support their assertion, and then they start talking about how nobody has any reason to be nice unless God tells them to. Which is basically just an admission that the believer in question has no empathy or conscience, and would totally go around raping and murdering if they could get away with it, and we're all left wondering why a person who admits to having no moral compass is presuming to tell anybody else about morality.

No, of course not. But it would be helpful if you gave a definition of what it is supposed to mean to "be moral".

Depends how you define moral.

Personally, I love when people ask "Do you have to be religious to be moral?"

See, anybody who answers in the affirmative is then expected to support their assertion, and then they start talking about how nobody has any reason to be nice unless God tells them to. Which is basically just an admission that the believer in question has no empathy or conscience, and would totally go around raping and murdering if they could get away with it, and we're all left wondering why a person who admits to having no moral compass is presuming to tell anybody else about morality.

I think that question is rather, do people have an objective reason to be moral, rather than a intuitive reason, which is where your conscience and empathy stuff comes into it.

Only an idiot would say yes.


Ill repeat. Only a total moron with no functioning brain cells would say yes.

I think that morality is rather higher among religious communities

Thats actually wrong. In the US, areas with higher amounts of religious adherance have higher crime rates.


Fail.

Personally, I love when people ask "Do you have to be religious to be moral?"

See, anybody who answers in the affirmative is then expected to support their assertion, and then they start talking about how nobody has any reason to be nice unless God tells them to. Which is basically just an admission that the believer in question has no empathy or conscience, and would totally go around raping and murdering if they could get away with it, and we're all left wondering why a person who admits to having no moral compass is presuming to tell anybody else about morality.

Oh, they have a moral compass, they just don't understand how it's separate from God. If they were compulsed by overwhelming evidence to recant their religious beliefs, their morality would probably stay the same, even though God is no longer their to justify it... Mine certainly did.

Thats actually wrong. In the US, areas with higher amounts of religious adherance have higher crime rates.


Fail.

As a reaction to or a cause of?

Thats actually wrong. In the US, areas with higher amounts of religious adherance have higher crime rates.


Fail.

Correlation does not prove causation. Areas with higher religious adherance also tend to be less educated, as well as areas with higher crime rates. After all, is it the ultra rich, ultra educated suburbs that are religious, or is the poverty stricken, crime ridden urban areas and backwoods? Your example proves nothing.

Personally, I love when people ask "Do you have to be religious to be moral?"

See, anybody who answers in the affirmative is then expected to support their assertion, and then they start talking about how nobody has any reason to be nice unless God tells them to. Which is basically just an admission that the believer in question has no empathy or conscience, and would totally go around raping and murdering if they could get away with it, and we're all left wondering why a person who admits to having no moral compass is presuming to tell anybody else about morality.

I've been there before. Its a crock of BS too. I remember coming to realization one day that I didn't need God to be nice, but rather God was using my empathy towards people, for a a greater good. I wish many other people would start thinking that way.

Correlation does not prove correspondence. Areas with higher religious adherance also tend to be less educated, as well as areas with higher crime rates. After all, is it the ultra rich, ultra educated suburbs that are religious, or is the poverty stricken, crime ridden urban areas and backwoods? Your example proves nothing.

Actually, my example proves that religious communities are NOT more moral, which is exactly what you ^$&#ing said. Not my problem if you cant handle being called out.


Im not saying religion CAUSES crime, Im just saying that religion and morality do not correlate.

Correlation does not prove correspondence.
Uh... correlation MEANS correspondence.
"Correlation does not prove causation" is presumably what you meant to say.

As a baby-eating commie, I would have to say 'yes'.

Actually, my example proves that religious communities are NOT more moral, which is exactly what you ^$&#ing said. Not my problem if you cant handle being called out.


Im not saying religion CAUSES crime, Im just saying that religion and morality do not correlate.

Not really. If you were actually of the mindset to empircally test which group is more moral, you would have to place them in identical situations, with no factors varying except belief. Comparing a wealthy, educated atheist against a poverty stricken, ignorant [insert religion here] is by no means a far contest. It does prove that religion is not as overwhelmingly decisive, since poverty is capable of overcoming whatever moral advantages religion may provide (or may not provide, as the case may be), but not that atheists are either superior or equal to the morality of [insert religious belief here].

Uh... correlation MEANS correspondence.
"Correlation does not prove causation" is presumably what you meant to say.

Oh yes, thanks, I just took a math mid term and I'm a bit out of it.

Correlation does not prove causation.Not only that, it also assumes the law is just.

Actually I would only go so far as to say that you can't be moral while your religious, any spiritual or meta psychical inspiration is ultimately pulling itself away from the material conditions of reality and judging things solely on that basis. I think the most compassionate and ethical person judges thing wholly on a material basis.

Absolutely not.

One can easily be religious yet be immoral though claim moral superiority because of a personal "relationship" with a god. That somehow going to religious worship and reading a book and "following" it makes them morally upright.

You can have morality without religion but religion cannot exist without morality. Though I do question that wisdom, since it seems that some religions despite claiming to have morals produce immoral results on the world.

No.

Since when does a truly decent sort REQUIRE a bribe (heaven) or punishment (hell) as a basis for not acting like a selfish dork?

Yes. Since there is no innate capacity to tell right from wrong, there needs to be some relevant source for moral rules in order for them to carry prescriptive force. A divine source is the only one I've come across that makes any sense.

no/yes
we may nor need it today but when the religions was started they was the moral and rules of the old sociaty wish is what our ground rules and moral and etik is build apun

Yes. Since there is no innate capacity to tell right from wrong...

How do you know?

Only an idiot would say yes.


Ill repeat. Only a total moron with no functioning brain cells would say yes.
*puts on his safari hat and uses a mock Australian/British accent*

Now 'ere we have ourselves an Ad Hominem. Do any of you blokes know what an ad hominem is?

*the tourists give the safari leader a blank expression*

An ad hominem is a little bugger that attacks the person makin' an argument, rather than the argument itself.

*shoots the ad hominem with a tranquilizer dart*

Don't try this at home, mates! I'm a trained professional.

*proceeds to flip the ad hominem over*

Lookie 'ere, mates. You see this? This bugger makes a blanket statement about the people who make the argument, sayin' that anyone who makes this argument is stoopid. Now, this is perfectly reasonable IF: You attack the argument, and then show that the argument is stoopid, and that anyone who maintains this 'ere argument until it has been show otherwise to 'em are a bunch of idiots. This is not an ad hominem. But 'ere, this little bugger does it th' other way around: it only attacks the people making the argument, but never the argument itself.

Ad hominems aren't particularly dangerous if you leave 'em alone. If you see one, point it out for others to avoid. They're very intolerant creatures, unable to see the reasoning behind the other person, which makes them think they're stupid. Really, it's just a lack of their sight. Look at their small eyes! No wonder they can't see!

So, proper safety is, you just let everyone know that there's an ad hominem crawlin' by, and you stay out of its way.

*puts the ad hominem back where it was, and everyone gets back on the bus*

Next, mates, we'll be visiting Lake International Incidents!

Personally, I love when people ask "Do you have to be religious to be moral?"

See, anybody who answers in the affirmative is then expected to support their assertion, and then they start talking about how nobody has any reason to be nice unless God tells them to. Which is basically just an admission that the believer in question has no empathy or conscience, and would totally go around raping and murdering if they could get away with it, and we're all left wondering why a person who admits to having no moral compass is presuming to tell anybody else about morality.
You're missing the possibility that those people have a preference not to rape or murder, but they don't feel their preference should compel others, and thus don't see how it could possibly count as morality.

How do you know?
How do I know there's not a rhinoceros in the room?

I have no evidence of it. That has to be sufficient.

Furthermore, even if there is some innate capacity to tell right from wrong, you need some sort of incentive to care. If it's happening entirely within your own head, it still lacks prescriptive force.

*puts on his safari hat and uses a mock Australian/British accent*

Now 'ere we have ourselves an Ad Hominem. Do any of you blokes know what an ad hominem is?

*the tourists give the safari leader a blank expression*

An ad hominem is a little bugger that attacks the person makin' an argument, rather than the argument itself.

*shoots the ad hominem with a tranquilizer dart*

Don't try this at home, mates! I'm a trained professional.

*proceeds to flip the ad hominem over*

Lookie 'ere, mates. You see this? This bugger makes a blanket statement about the people who make the argument, sayin' that anyone who makes this argument is stoopid. Now, this is perfectly reasonable IF: You attack the argument, and then show that the argument is stoopid, and that anyone who maintains this 'ere argument until it has been show otherwise to 'em are a bunch of idiots. This is not an ad hominem. But 'ere, this little bugger does it th' other way around: it only attacks the people making the argument, but never the argument itself.

Ad hominems aren't particularly dangerous if you leave 'em alone. If you see one, point it out for others to avoid. They're very intolerant creatures, unable to see the reasoning behind the other person, which makes them think they're stupid. Really, it's just a lack of their sight. Look at their small eyes! No wonder they can't see!

So, proper safety is, you just let everyone know that there's an ad hominem crawlin' by, and you stay out of its way.

*puts the ad hominem back where it was, and everyone gets back on the bus*

Next, mates, we'll be visiting Lake International Incidents!



Even though that was worth a laugh, I stand by what I said. ;)

How do you know?

Are you saying that the ancient Hebrews didn't know murder was bad until they got the 10 commandments? That before that they thought it was fine?

I've seen this question before...
Some rather angry comments by the start of the thread here.Some people in here are anxious to hear someone say yes so they can bash the poor deluded fella.

I stick with no, definitely no need to be religious to be moral. Throughout history most religions have been the protagonists of highly immoral acts. But I wouldn't go as far as saying EVERY person who follows a religion is immoral.I'd say that a person who BLINDLY follows a religion will quite likely incur in a some immoralities. However, there are different levels of commitment to a religion all over the world which usually shield some religious people from being immoral on some issues. Tolerance is viable in all religions, if a person thinks for himself.
Resuming it all: No need to be religious to be moral, and no need to be non-religious to be moral, too.

Furthermore, even if there is some innate capacity to tell right from wrong, you need some sort of incentive to care. If it's happening entirely within your own head, it still lacks prescriptive force.


Which is more moral?


Someone who decides on his own that other human beings are equal to him, based on a sense of empathy (which is psychological) and treats them as such

OR

Someone who only is a good person because a little book tells him that whenever he does something wrong a beared man who looks a lot like Charleton Heston is wagging their finger at them saying "Your'e going to go to hell for that"


I think its pretty clear the first one is.

Which is more moral?


Someone who decides on his own that other human beings are equal to him, based on a sense of empathy (which is psychological) and treats them as such

OR

Someone who only is a good person because a little book tells him that whenever he does something wrong a beared man who looks a lot like Charleton Heston is wagging their finger at them saying "Your'e going to go to hell for that"


I think its pretty clear the first one is.

I'd say they'd be equally moral if they act the same way.

Are you saying that the ancient Hebrews didn't know murder was bad until they got the 10 commandments? That before that they thought it was fine?
No, I'm saying they had no reason to believe it was immoral before they received the 10 commandments.

Prior to that, they may have preferred not to murder people, and they might have had pragmatic reasons not to murder people, but that doesn't mean they thought it was immoral (or even that they had any idea what morality was).

Which is more moral?


Someone who decides on his own that other human beings are equal to him, based on a sense of empathy (which is psychological) and treats them as such

OR

Someone who only is a good person because a little book tells him that whenever he does something wrong a beared man who looks a lot like Charleton Heston is wagging their finger at them saying "Your'e going to go to hell for that"


I think its pretty clear the first one is.
My problem here is that the second guy is more rational. The first has no reason to believe that other humans are equal to him. He certainly doesn't have any cause to argue that they should think other humans are equal to them.

But the Charlton Heston devotee at least has some cause to believe these moral truths are real and matter.

Your question presupposes the existence of morality, and then goes on to insist that the first guy has awareness of morality. I'm not willing to concede either of those points.

I've seen the claim that the divine is essential for morality. I've never heard any pursuasive argument or seen any evidence that suggests that it is true. It is usually forwarded by proponents of religion, so it is a FAITH STATEMENT. "Jesus died for you" and "you need God in your heart to be moral" are the same caliber of statement and arguing against it just as futile.

No, you do not have to be religious to be moral. Proof is the many, many perfectly moral people in the world who are not religious. Their existence answer the question.

Personally, I love when people ask "Do you have to be religious to be moral?"

See, anybody who answers in the affirmative is then expected to support their assertion, and then they start talking about how nobody has any reason to be nice unless God tells them to. Which is basically just an admission that the believer in question has no empathy or conscience, and would totally go around raping and murdering if they could get away with it, and we're all left wondering why a person who admits to having no moral compass is presuming to tell anybody else about morality.

Wow. Just my thoughts, really... That sums up what I'm thinking whenever I read another thread on the topic.

The first has no reason to believe that other humans are equal to him.
He had the best reason: because it's true.
But the Charlton Heston devotee at least has some cause to believe these moral truths are real and matter.
No, he has no cause to believe any of it.

The problem with religion based morality is that it is dependent on the revealed truth from a god or similar authority. Deny the legitimacy of the revelation or of the god and the morality has no basis. If I am not a believer in christianiy, islam, mormonism etc etc, then their morality can have no validity for me.

Similarly, the problem with reason based morality is that everybody reasons differently. Therefore other peoples' morality can have no validity for me.

Mmm.. So where were we?

Since there is no innate capacity to tell right from wrong

Yes, there is. There is human reason, and even if you don't accept the arguments there most human beings still pretty clearly possess a strong intuitive sense of right and wrong.

A divine source is the only one I've come across that makes any sense.

A divine source makes no sense whatsoever. God telling me to do something is not a reason to do it.

Furthermore, even if there is some innate capacity to tell right from wrong, you need some sort of incentive to care.

No, you don't. If you are rational, you recognize the binding force of "right": that in making a decision, in asking yourself what you should do, you can never rationally say that you should do what you know you should not (what is not right.)

Everyone doesn't. But some seem to think that they do, and if religion is the only thing keeping them from being total sociopaths then I'm not going to object.

Furthermore, even if there is some innate capacity to tell right from wrong, you need some sort of incentive to care. If it's happening entirely within your own head, it still lacks prescriptive force.
I don't know about you, but I have incentive to care about what's going on in my own head. My own thoughts and/or feelings are pretty much central to how I choose to act. I don't really need somebody to convince me to give a shit about my own opinions.

I don't know about you, but I have incentive to care about what's going on in my own head. My own thoughts and/or feelings are pretty much central to how I choose to act. I don't really need somebody to convince me to give a shit about my own opinions.

But how do you know you should care about what you care about? Clearly you shouldn't listen to your own gut when making gut decisions. :p

Since there is no innate capacity to tell right from wrong,

And this would be an example of precisely the kind of person I was talking about.

Seriously, if YOU happen to lack an innate capacity for telling right from wrong, get yourself checked.


there needs to be some relevant source for moral rules in order for them to carry prescriptive force. A divine source is the only one I've come across that makes any sense.
A divine source provides precisely squat.

1) You first have to define your "divine source" and distinguish it from all the other "divine sources" that other humans propose. This means you are personally selecting the very force which you then claim is directing your morality.

2) People who claim they get their morality from God can be easily shown to actually have a moral sense that exists independent of God. Indeed, they choose to follow THEIR God (as opposed to some other God) because their God fits best with the values that they already hold.

Every single god that has ever been worshiped by humanity was a human concept. Whether or not the concept was based on any empirical reality, the concept is what people worship. People invent the god-image, people evaluate it based on their internal values and context, and people choose whether or not to follow it based on how well it gels with what they want/need/feel. At no point in any of this is any external magical source providing anything greater than squat in terms of moral information.

And this would be an example of precisely the kind of person I was talking about.

Seriously, if YOU happen to lack an innate capacity for telling right from wrong, get yourself checked.

Perhaps Llewy was implying that humans are not born with a knowledge of right and wrongm in which case he may be correct. But he would still eb ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people have been so socialised by society that morality can practically be considered innate, regardless of its origins.

A divine source provides precisely squat.

1) You first have to define your "divine source" and distinguish it from all the other "divine sources" that other humans propose. This means you are personally selecting the very force which you then claim is directing your morality.

2) People who claim they get their morality from God can be easily shown to actually have a moral sense that exists independent of God. Indeed, they choose to follow THEIR God (as opposed to some other God) because their God fits best with the values that they already hold.

While this is true, it is more complicated than that. Many believers also see Jesus (or whoever is the embodiment of morality) as someone to emulate. By doing so, they present themselves to the constant challenge of being more moral than they are. These people are moral to begin with, and are using the Jesus myth to find ways to become more moral. So I wouldn't say that divinity provides precisely squat. It does not create moral people, but it does provide a moral compass for those who wish to take that from religion.

It's kinda fun posting stuff when General is down.

edit: 3000th post. AdminBots Boyfriend.

And this would be an example of precisely the kind of person I was talking about.

Seriously, if YOU happen to lack an innate capacity for telling right from wrong, get yourself checked.
So I'm mentally ill, now? Gee, thanks.
A divine source provides precisely squat.

1) You first have to define your "divine source" and distinguish it from all the other "divine sources" that other humans propose. This means you are personally selecting the very force which you then claim is directing your morality.
The question dealt with someone who was religious. This hurdle has been cleared, because the religios belief already exists.
2) People who claim they get their morality from God can be easily shown to actually have a moral sense that exists independent of God. Indeed, they choose to follow THEIR God (as opposed to some other God) because their God fits best with the values that they already hold.
That's not a credible reason to follow a religion.

It may well be a reason for a lot of people, but it doesn't make any sense.
Every single god that has ever been worshiped by humanity was a human concept. Whether or not the concept was based on any empirical reality, the concept is what people worship. People invent the god-image, people evaluate it based on their internal values and context, and people choose whether or not to follow it based on how well it gels with what they want/need/feel. At no point in any of this is any external magical source providing anything greater than squat in terms of moral information.
This is our disagreement.

You're asserting that people have this internal sense of right and wrong, but you're conflating with personal preferences regarding what people would rather do. If I have an innate sense of right and wrong, but it happens to conflict with the things I like to do, I have to have reason to care about that right-wrong distinction in order to stop doing those wrong things I enjoy.

I don't know about you, but I have incentive to care about what's going on in my own head. My own thoughts and/or feelings are pretty much central to how I choose to act. I don't really need somebody to convince me to give a shit about my own opinions.
As I just said. Is it somehow impossible for someone to enjoy doing something they know is wrong?

Yes, there is. There is human reason, and even if you don't accept the arguments there most human beings still pretty clearly possess a strong intuitive sense of right and wrong.
I don't dispute that people think they have such an intuitive sense, but I suspect it's more a consequence of social conditioning.
A divine source makes no sense whatsoever. God telling me to do something is not a reason to do it.
Then you'd know it was true. The morality of a given act would never be in dispute.
No, you don't. If you are rational, you recognize the binding force of "right": that in making a decision, in asking yourself what you should do, you can never rationally say that you should do what you know you should not (what is not right.)
You might prefer to act in a way you are aware is immoral, though. Everyone's ignoring that possibility.

You're asserting that people have this internal sense of right and wrong, but you're conflating with personal preferences regarding what people would rather do. If I have an innate sense of right and wrong, but it happens to conflict with the things I like to do, I have to have reason to care about that right-wrong distinction in order to stop doing those wrong things I enjoy.

Yet religion is about the worst possible reasoning to not do something. It may be a reason, but that in no way proves that you have to be religious to be moral.

In fact, needing a divine reason not to kill someone (let's say you enjoy that) is indeed a sign that you need to be checked up on by a psychologists. If, however, you can effectively see how it is wrong and why it shouldn't be done, even if you know you'll enjoy it, then you might still need to see a psychologist, but at least your world isn't founded on a shaky belief system that may crumble at any minute.

EDIT: Or are you honestly trying to say that if you truly enjoyed killing someone, then if not for a divine entity, you would do it?

You might prefer to act in a way you are aware is immoral, though. Everyone's ignoring that possibility.

How does religion stop this at all?

I'd like to point at all those Republicans who have been caught doing what, in their eyes, is wrong and immoral: Being homosexual and being with prostitutes.

Both wrong, according to their own moral compass, and they know it. They chose to ignore it, despite probably being somewhat religious (which is where the moral compass came from in the first place).

So religion still isn't necessary to keep a person moral, as it obviously isn't foolproof.

He had the best reason: because it's true.
Do you realise that you just asserted that the thuth of any statement is reason to believe that statement?

I invite you to apply that to historical scientists.

How does religion stop this at all?

I'd like to point at all those Republicans who have been caught doing what, in their eyes, is wrong and immoral: Being homosexual and being with prostitutes.

Both wrong, according to their own moral compass, and they know it. They chose to ignore it, despite probably being somewhat religious (which is where the moral compass came from in the first place).

So religion still isn't necessary to keep a person moral, as it obviously isn't foolproof.
No, you just proved it isn't sufficient (which no one was claiming). Whether it's necessary you did not address.

The question dealt with someone who was religious. This hurdle has been cleared, because the religios belief already exists.
The hurdle has not gone away, because what he believes for no particular reason he may stop believing tomorrow, or when it becomes inconvenient for him.

The hurdle has not gone away, because what he believes for no particular reason he may stop believing tomorrow, or when it becomes inconvenient for him.
But then he'd fall outside the scope of the question.

No, you just proved it isn't sufficient (which no one was claiming). Whether it's necessary you did not address.

You do realize all I have to do in this case is produce one counter-example?

By just showing one person who is moral and not religious, I have essentially proven that, no, you do not have to be religious to be moral.

I am fairly certain there is an abundance of proof in that direction. Furthermore, by proving that not all people who are religious are moral, I have proven that religion is not a means by which to insure morality.

Edit: Also, in the context of my argument, you seemed to have implied that only the non-religious can have morals that they ignore. I challenged that statement.

EDIT: Or are you honestly trying to say that if you truly enjoyed killing someone, then if not for a divine entity, you would do it?
Well, yes. If you enjoy doing something, then that enjoyment is an incentive to do it. Without a corresponding disincentive (like the threat of punishment, or the belief that it's wrong and a reason not to do wrong things), you'll do it.

Well, yes. If you enjoy doing something, then that enjoyment is an incentive to do it. Without a corresponding disincentive (like the threat of punishment, or the belief that it's wrong and a reason not to do wrong things), you'll do it.

And then you would, in fact, need a psychologist. Part of their work is dealing with psycho and sociopaths who do not understand the consequences of their actions.

You do realize all I have to do in this case is produce one counter-example?
Yes. But I don't think you can.
By just showing one person who is moral and not religious, I have essentially proven that, no, you do not have to be religious to be moral.
But you haven't done that, yet.
I am fairly certain there is an abundance of proof in that direction. Furthermore, by proving that not all people who are religious are moral, I have proven that religion is not a means by which to insure morality.
That wasn't part of the discussion at all until you brought it up.
[quoet]Edit: Also, in the context of my argument, you seemed to have implied that only the non-religious can have morals that they ignore. I challenged that statement.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring for the moment my broad denial that implication exists, that assertion would require that non-religious people can have morals, which is exactly the opposite of what I'm arguing.

Non-religious people can't have morals they can ignore, because non-religious people can't have morals.

And then you would, in fact, need a psychologist. Part of their work is dealing with psycho and sociopaths who do not understand the consequences of their actions.
My example deals iwth someone who does understand the consequences on his actions (though that wouldn't preclude him being a psychopath). He knows full well that his killing people means that paople die; he just doesn't care.

I believe that people who are immoral tend to be irreligious. I am led to believe that by the fact that 42% of NS said they would murder someone for $1,000,000; I doubt you would get those numbers on a Christian forum. Nevertheless, someone can certainly be moral, yet irreligious, and also the reverse. Religion can drive people to do terrible things.

I personally am irreligious, being a deist. I think morals are completely relative, and religion is merely one point-of-view.

Yes. But I don't think you can.

You don't think I have morals?

Or Bottle?

Or any number of people on NSG?

You don't think that, out of 6 billion people on earth, of which between 300-600 million are most likely atheists, I can't find a single non-religious moral person?

That's very presumptous of you.

But you haven't done that, yet.

I don't need to. There are so many people out in the world that if you haven't met someone who wasn't religious and yet still had morals, then obviously you need to get out more.

That wasn't part of the discussion at all until you brought it up.
[quoet]Edit: Also, in the context of my argument, you seemed to have implied that only the non-religious can have morals that they ignore. I challenged that statement.

I know.

Ignoring for the moment my broad denial that implication exists, that assertion would require that non-religious people can have morals, which is exactly the opposite of what I'm arguing.

Non-religious people can't have morals they can ignore, because non-religious people can't have morals.

Okay, why can they not have morals? Seriously?

My example deals iwth someone who does understand the consequences on his actions (though that wouldn't preclude him being a psychopath). He knows full well that his killing people means that paople die; he just doesn't care.

Yeah... but that has nothing to do with the discussion, as you pointed out yourself.

I believe that people who are criminals tend to be black. I am led to believe that by the fact that 'x'% of crimes in the US are committed by blacks. Nevertheless, someone can certainly be non-criminal, yet black, and also the reverse. Being non-black can drive people to do terrible things.

And stereotypes are a wonderful thing. You can get away with it by saying 'generally' or 'tend to' and then admiting there might be exceptions.

But then he'd fall outside the scope of the question.
How so? Religious beliefs provide no anchor for morality, because they have no inherent stability, being based on nothing.

I think people are misunderstanding what Llewdor is saying, I don't believe that he is actually arguing that atheists can't do what they think is right, due to intuitive or emotive/sympathetic reasons, or from social conditioning. I think rather, he is arguing that this isn't morality.

Non-religious people can't have morals they can ignore, because non-religious people can't have morals.
:rolleyes:

Right, because morals come ONLY from religion.

You are such a bizarre sack of illogical meat and fluids.

Why are people responding to Llewador anwyay? Not worth your time. Besides, we're all immoral heathens.


Empathy is a psychological condition, you know that right? And you know that you can base morality on empathy, right?

I think societies dictate what is considered moral, and that religions of the different societies influence what is considered moral or immoral. So my opinion would be that one need not be a member of any type of religion to be a moral person.

Why are people responding to Llewador anwyay? Not worth your time. Besides, we're all immoral heathens.


Empathy is a psychological condition, you know that right? And you know that you can base morality on empathy, right?
No, I don't think he does. I am not sure if it is solipsism (difficulty in believing that other people are actually "real") or true sociopathy (inability to care), but he does seem to have a problem.

I think people are misunderstanding what Llewdor is saying, I don't believe that he is actually arguing that atheists can't do what they think is right, due to intuitive or emotive/sympathetic reasons, or from social conditioning. I think rather, he is arguing that this isn't morality.
That might be a corollary to my point.

To be morality I think something needs to have prescriptive force. Otherwise, calling it morality makes morality kind of a meaningless concept. And I don't see how those internal sympathetic or intuitive motives can be said to have prescriptive force beyond that provided by personal preferences. And if that's a moral truth, then "I like pie" is a moral truth (assuming I like pie).

[QUOTE]I believe that people who are immoral tend to be irreligious. I am led to believe that by the fact that 42% of NS said they would murder someone for $1,000,000;

A confusion between causation and correlation, just because 42% of people on NS would murder someone for $1,000,000 does not mean they are immoral in everything. Some might have been joking, and if you get down to it i doubt many people have the psychology to murder another person just for money.
Also what makes you think they are not religious?

I doubt you would get those numbers on a Christian forum. Nevertheless, someone can certainly be moral, yet irreligious, and also the reverse. Religion can drive people to do terrible things.
Now you say people who are not religious can be moral.
Then you say Religion can drive people to do bad things.
You've made about three different arguments some of which contradict each other a little confusing for me.

I personally am irreligious, being a deist. I think morals are completely relative, and religion is merely one point-of-view.
Morals are relative?
So depending on your situation you'l react accordingly you mean?
Milosovic mass slaughered innocents in Serbia. Following your reasoning that morals are relative, this means we cannot say what he did was morally wrong.

Why are people responding to Llewador anwyay? Not worth your time. Besides, we're all immoral heathens.
We're probably all amoral heathens, by my reckoning.

And I'd include myself in that group. Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.
Empathy is a psychological condition, you know that right?
I probably dispute that. I'm not confident empathy is real.
And you know that you can base morality on empathy, right?And even if it were, I don't think preferences based on it should count as morality.

That might be a corollary to my point.

To be morality I think something needs to have prescriptive force. Otherwise, calling it morality makes morality kind of a meaningless concept. And I don't see how those internal sympathetic or intuitive motives can be said to have prescriptive force beyond that provided by personal preferences. And if that's a moral truth, then "I like pie" is a moral truth (assuming I like pie).

Religion doesn't exist outside of you. Oh, it, like any other system, can be give form and structure, but that does not create a prescriptive force that engenders morality. Communism under Mao was quite prescriptive. Religious? No. Moral? According to you yes.

Society can have prescriptive force, with or without religious aspects to it. Your claim would have proscriptive societies being inherently lacking in the capacity to engender morality.

Religion is inherently internal and intuitive. You can see this in the huge range of belief within the Christian faith alone. Not all religious people belong to a sect that is prescriptive. Some religious people belong to sects that are merely proscriptive. So is one more 'moral' than the other?

No, I don't think he does. I am not sure if it is solipsism (difficulty in believing that other people are actually "real") or true sociopathy (inability to care), but he does seem to have a problem.
I find that most other people (people who are not me) seem to assume that the minds of others act just like their own. So, if you think doing a particular thing in a particular circumstance is wrong, then all other people would identify that wrongness similarly.

And that's not a justifiable position.

But what that means is that just because you think doing a particular thing in a particular circumstance is wrong, you don't have any cause to believe that you are correct without some outside confirmation (like religion).

I don't think the rest of you are thinking this through enough.

It's clearly a fundamental disagreement that reaches down to the idea of "What is morality?" rather than "Are you moral?".

Great, I think your wrong and have a very narrow view of morality, and I believe that many of the "morals" that religions are actually highly immoral.

I also think that doing whats right out of fear of punishment (religions whole driving force) is the exact same as not having morality. Frankly, if you only are a decent person because you arer afraid your imaginary friend is going to send to the lake of Fire than I pity you and would say that you are the immoral one, rather than the guy who does whats right guided by empathy and the observation that humans feel the same things as he does, showing them to be his equals.

So I still disagree.
Llewdor actually aspires to become non-human. Morality = rules. Rules = certainty. Certainty = perfection. Eventually he will tire of his fleshy bagness, and will seek to turn himself into a robot to achieve that ultimate perfection.

Get a Psych degree, than we'll talk.
I couldn't pass a psych course to save my life (I tried - I needed a social science component for both my astrophysics and philosophy programs).

And I couldn't pass them because they didn't make any logical sense.

Religious= Organized Religion = Power = Corruption= Immorality =:mp5:

That might be a corollary to my point.

To be morality I think something needs to have prescriptive force. Otherwise, calling it morality makes morality kind of a meaningless concept. And I don't see how those internal sympathetic or intuitive motives can be said to have prescriptive force beyond that provided by personal preferences. And if that's a moral truth, then "I like pie" is a moral truth (assuming I like pie).


Great, I think your wrong and have a very narrow view of morality, and I believe that many of the "morals" that religions are actually highly immoral.

I also think that doing whats right out of fear of punishment (religions whole driving force) is the exact same as not having morality. Frankly, if you only are a decent person because you arer afraid your imaginary friend is going to send to the lake of Fire than I pity you and would say that you are the immoral one, rather than the guy who does whats right guided by empathy and the observation that humans feel the same things as he does, showing them to be his equals.

So I still disagree.

This is a defect in your own makeup. Whether or not it is treatable, at least you ought to learn that most other people are different from you in that respect.
Leave the Aspie alone. He is incapable of understanding certain norms, so the existence of those norms is therefore suspect.

I probably dispute that. I'm not confident empathy is real.




Get a Psych degree, than we'll talk.

But Im glad we agree on religion.

I probably dispute that. I'm not confident empathy is real.
This is a defect in your own makeup. Whether or not it is treatable, at least you ought to learn that most other people are different from you in that respect.
And even if it were, I don't think preferences based on it should count as morality.
It is what most of us DEFINE the word "morality" to mean.

Llewdor actually aspires to become non-human. Morality = rules. Rules = certainty. Certainty = perfection. Eventually he will tire of his fleshy bagness, and will seek to turn himself into a robot to achieve that ultimate perfection.
I've missed you.

I would accept "morality = rules" as an axiom. Is anyone here asserting that morality != rules?

Now that I've raged against organized religion, per James Joyce.

Morality is different for every person. Morality does not mean good or Christian or kind or Buddhist or etc. Morality is defined as the set of beliefs and values that guide a person's actions. Some one may have a morality that calls for the condemnation of those who do not believe the same way he does. That doesn't make him any less moral. Likewise, someone may have a morality that calls for killing those who stand in their way. Said person is extremely moral in his own moral code.

I've missed you.

I would accept "morality = rules" as an axiom. Is anyone here asserting that morality != rules?
Robots don't miss people :P

Morality = rules in the sense of being based on a set of principles that can be expressed (generally). However, knowing you, rules must be 'logical' and knowable and exactly the same for all people. Except that's not what morality is. Morality is rules, and the rules shift, change, evolve, devolve, and vary.

There is no objective, strict, inflexible morality.

Llewdor actually aspires to become non-human. Morality = rules. Rules = certainty. Certainty = perfection. Eventually he will tire of his fleshy bagness, and will seek to turn himself into a robot to achieve that ultimate perfection.
And shortly after that, he will become self-aware and be right back where he started.

Yes of course. Morals are religious concepts. So that sense one must be religious to have "morals". However someone can be ethical without any religious beliefs.

This is a defect in your own makeup. Whether or not it is treatable, at least you ought to learn that most other people are different from you in that respect.
I have no doubt that they think they have empathy, but I must allow for the possibility that they're wrong about that (and I think they should too).

As I said, I find most people think that everyone they meet behave relevantly similarly to how they behave. As such, they can project their emotions and reactions into others, not notice they've done it, and call that empathy. And they'll be right most of the time.

But if they truly had empathy, they'd be able to understand and perceive the reactions of people who behave differently. People like me. But they can't. I'm routinely misunderstood in face-to-face conversation. My emotions are regularly misread (about as often as I misread the emotions of others, which is just about every time I try).

Doesn't this demonstrate that these people don't actually have any idea how people around them feel, but are just projecting how they themselves would feel in that situation? Just because they're right most of the time doesn't mean they're getting the data from the source they think they are. It just means the source they're using (themselves) is relevantly similar to the source they think they're using (the other people). When the other people aren't relevantly similar, the system breaks.

I couldn't pass a psych course to save my life (I tried - I needed a social science component for both my astrophysics and philosophy programs).

And I couldn't pass them because they didn't make any logical sense.

So are you a scientologist?:p:p:p:p:p


:sniper::mp5::sniper:

;)

Morality = rules. However, knowing you, rules must be 'logical' and knowable and exactly the same for all people. Except that's not what morality is. Morality is rules, and the rules shift, change, evolve, devolve, and vary.

There is no objective morality.

If you say there is no objective morality, you cannot claim that other people e.g. mass murders acts were morally wrong because they were acting according to their subjective morality at the time, thier own beliefs.
I hope there is objective morality.

I've missed you.

I would accept "morality = rules" as an axiom. Is anyone here asserting that morality != rules?

I would. Rules are inflexible, and don't adapt well to the chaotic nature of reality and the moral dilemmas we face. I would prefer empathy, compassion, and imagination to something as ill-fitting as a set of arbitrary rules.

I would. Rules are inflexible, and don't adapt well to the chaotic nature of reality and the moral dilemmas we face. I would prefer empathy, compassion, and imagination to something as ill-fitting as a set of arbitrary rules.
Whether you would prefer it is immaterial. Do you need to like the set of moral rules that governs you?

Without those rules, how do you just new, morally relevant situations? By what standard can you determine what's right and what's wrong?

Whether you would prefer it is immaterial. Do you need to like the set of moral rules that governs you?

Without those rules, how do you just new, morally relevant situations? By what standard can you determine what's right and what's wrong?

The standards vary, that's the point. Two people, caught in a riptide, being dragged out to sea. You are a good swimmer, but you can save only one. You make a judgment, based on some set of personal beliefs. Someone else might choose the other person. Who is right, who is wrong, when only one life can be saved regardless? Does right or wrong even apply?

Non-religious people can't have morals they can ignore, because non-religious people can't have morals.

So my athiest best friend doesn't have morals and can't possibly be a good person?


By the way, the definition of morals is a set of beliefs and values that determine a person's actions. Murder can be a legitimate part of a person's moral code. Their moral code itself is bad, but they are loyal to their own moral code. The word moral is only associated with goodness by connotation.

The standards vary, that's the point. Two people, caught in a riptide, being dragged out to sea. You are a good swimmer, but you can save only one. You make a judgment, based on some set of personal beliefs. Someone else might choose the other person. Who is right, who is wrong, when only one life can be saved regardless? Does right or wrong even apply?

That's not really a clear example as;
Who is closer to the swimmer?
How well does the swimmer know these people?
You can't really be wrong for leaving out one person when you tried to save another, the swimmer would probably be rewarded for helping at least one.
And as you say the swimmer can only save one.

If you say there is no objective morality, you cannot claim that other people e.g. mass murders acts were morally wrong because they were acting according to their subjective morality at the time, thier own beliefs.
I hope there is objective morality.

This is why I don't claim that mass murders are morally wrong. I say that they are evil, horrific, a crime against humanity, etc. Calling something morally wrong is enforcing your subjective moral code on someone else. The correct wording is to say that a mass murderer has a malformed moral code.

Yes of course. Morals are religious concepts. So that sense one must be religious to have "morals". However someone can be ethical without any religious beliefs.

And we have another hair-splitter, for a totally different reason.

To Llewdor:
You're ignoring that religion doesn't have any prescriptive force, at least outside the believer's mind, which was the problem you had with nonreligious morality in the first place.
The believer would go along with his religion for one of two reasons:
1. He agrees with the morals of the religion personally. This obviously implies he has his own morals in the first place, which makes the whole argument moot.
2. He's afraid of hell. He has no proof for the existence of hell outside of the religion, which is entirely within his mind. Which means that, in the end, the religion has no more prescriptive force then anything anyone thinks.

Also, I have a question for you:
Do you think laws (as in laws of a nation as opposed to a religion) can be a source of morality?

Religious people believe their set of rules come from some place outside of them...which is fine,whatever...but those rules never simply stay in that outside place.

Which is why you find exceptions like Atomic Bomb Dropping Christians, World Trade Center Destroying Muslims, Jihad, Pro-Choice Christians, Crusaders, etc. If said religious people actually conformed to the rules that they believe were given to them by God, the world would be a better place.

If you say there is no objective morality, you cannot claim that other people e.g. mass murders acts were morally wrong because they were acting according to their subjective morality at the time, thier own beliefs.
I hope there is objective morality.

Of course we judge according to our own morality. Isn't that the entire point?

I think your better argument would be to say that I might judge mass murderers to be morally right, when that obviously seems repugnant, and against some idea of an objective morality.

Except there is no morality that exists outside of us. Morality is necessarily subjective. You can be influenced to believe certain things, or you can be coerced to behave a certain way, but there is nothing we can tap into outside of ourselves that will ensure that we will somehow, if we just try hard enough, ALL have the same moral precepts.

We can agree about right and wrong, we can even agree to be bound by certain rules that seem good and right...but we still have to internalise those rules to make them morality. Religious people believe their set of rules come from some place outside of them...which is fine,whatever...but those rules never simply stay in that outside place.

And shortly after that, he will become self-aware and be right back where he started.

Shhh! Don't ruin the stock ending!

How did I quote something you said after I posted?

That's not really a clear example as;
Who is closer to the swimmer?
How well does the swimmer know these people?
You can't really be wrong for leaving out one person when you tried to save another, the swimmer would probably be rewarded for helping at least one.
And as you say the swimmer can only save one.

What if I choose to save one because she's a woman, and I hate men?

What if I choose to save one because he's white, and I hate blacks?

What if I choose to save one only because I think I might get a reward...and if I didn't think that I'd let them both die?

Are any of these choices moral? Are any of them completely amoral?

Do we judge morality by intention, or by outcome?

Whether you would prefer it is immaterial. Do you need to like the set of moral rules that governs you?

I should have been more clear. I don't folow moral rules because they don't fit the dilemmas I face. I use compassion, empathy and imagination to make moral decisions in my day to day life. I never aplly rules, so it is immaterial whether or not I like those rules, as they do not exist and can't govern me.

Without those rules, how do you judge new, morally relevant situations? By what standard can you determine what's right and what's wrong?

By assuming I follow some sort of standard, you assume that I use rules, and therefore show that you can't comprehend a paradigm where there are no rules, i.e. reality. If you're asking me how I manage to make moral decisions without resorting to rules, I would say that I ask questions. If I were that person, what would I want? Is there reason to believe that that person might want something different? Who would be affected? How? You get the picture.

You get the picture.

Not Llewdor.

I should have been more clear. I don't folow moral rules because they don't fit the dilemmas I face. I use compassion, empathy and imagination to make moral decisions in my day to day life. I never aplly rules, so it is immaterial whether or not I like those rules, as they do not exist and can't govern me.

You don't use rules consciously, but you do have your own moral code- the set of beliefs and values by which you make decisions. Your moral code is that compassion, empathy, and imagination. It's not a really a structured system, but your compassion provides the parameters for your imagination.

You get the picture.
Can I have a hologram instead?

What if I choose to save one because she's a woman, and I hate men?

What if I choose to save one because he's white, and I hate blacks?

What if I choose to save one only because I think I might get a reward...and if I didn't think that I'd let them both die?

Are any of these choices moral? Are any of them completely amoral?

Do we judge morality by intention, or by outcome?

To start with it's a dangerous situation.
Ideally you judge morality by Intention and outcome, but it's hard to say which is more important.
In the case of you above examples they show poor intention, and immoral reasons not to save them, that does not show that objective morality does not exist, it's just clouded in certain situations. Where practicallity sometimes doesn't allow for you to make the morally better choice.
Sometimes yes your culture does affect your decision but that doesn't take away the point that morality can be objective, just as you are born with an intuit set of behaviours as a child, just as you can be born with higher IQ or lower IQ from inherited genes, you can be born with an intuitive sense of morality. At the very basic level most people know killing other people is bad.

I have no doubt that they think they have empathy, but I must allow for the possibility that they're wrong about that (and I think they should too).

As I said, I find most people think that everyone they meet behave relevantly similarly to how they behave. As such, they can project their emotions and reactions into others, not notice they've done it, and call that empathy. And they'll be right most of the time.

But if they truly had empathy, they'd be able to understand and perceive the reactions of people who behave differently. People like me. But they can't. I'm routinely misunderstood in face-to-face conversation. My emotions are regularly misread (about as often as I misread the emotions of others, which is just about every time I try).

Doesn't this demonstrate that these people don't actually have any idea how people around them feel, but are just projecting how they themselves would feel in that situation? Just because they're right most of the time doesn't mean they're getting the data from the source they think they are. It just means the source they're using (themselves) is relevantly similar to the source they think they're using (the other people). When the other people aren't relevantly similar, the system breaks.

Your definition of empathy is wrong.
It's true that people aren't very good at guessing other people's emotions. You are probably right that it's because they're projecting their own emotions onto others.
But they do care what the emotions are, or they wouldn't bother trying to guess them. They'd just plow ahead and do whatever they were going to do otherwise.
That's empathy.

To Llewdor:
You're ignoring that religion doesn't have any prescriptive force, at least outside the believer's mind, which was the problem you had with nonreligious morality in the first place.
But the believer believes they do, which is what matters. If you think your morality is only insuide your mind, you have no reason to care about it except as far as it makes you happy (or doesn't).
Do you think laws (as in laws of a nation as opposed to a religion) can be a source of morality?
If you thought the people making the laws had some knowledge of morality you lacked, and trusted them to enshrine that morality in law, yes.

That would be akin to religion.

What if I choose to save one because she's a woman, and I hate men?

What if I choose to save one because he's white, and I hate blacks?

What if I choose to save one only because I think I might get a reward...and if I didn't think that I'd let them both die?

Are any of these choices moral? Are any of them completely amoral?

Do we judge morality by intention, or by outcome?

I don't know if this will help answer your final question in any way, but several religions, i.e. Roman Catholic, teach that the second you make a decision to sin, you have sinned, whether or not you actually go on to commit the crime.

Your definition of empathy is wrong.
It's true that people aren't very good at guessing other people's emotions. You are probably right that it's because they're projecting their own emotions onto others.
But they do care what the emotions are, or they wouldn't bother trying to guess them. They'd just plow ahead and do whatever they were going to do otherwise.
That's empathy.
They care because other people's emotions have results; they affect behaviour.

I care about other people's emotions, too, but since I recognise that I have no idea what they are, I have no other option than to plow ahead and do what I was going to do anyway.

How did I quote something you said after I posted?

I am a time traveller.

You don't use rules consciously, but you do have your own moral code- the set of beliefs and values by which you make decisions. Your moral code is that compassion, empathy, and imagination. It's not a really a structured system, but your compassion provides the parameters for your imagination.

I find it interesting that you can believe that about me without knowing me or anything about me. That would be impressive if you were right....

By assuming I follow some sort of standard, you assume that I use rules, and therefore show that you can't comprehend a paradigm where there are no rules, i.e. reality. If you're asking me how I manage to make moral decisions without resorting to rules, I would say that I ask questions. If I were that person, what would I want? Is there reason to believe that that person might want something different? Who would be affected? How? You get the picture.
But then how do you decide what questions to ask? Either you have some standard you follow, or they appear randomly. There isn't another option.

I suppose you could be following a standard of which you were unaware, but then I don't know how you'd apply it.

I find it interesting that you can believe that about me without knowing me or anything about me. That would be impressive if you were right....

I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to imply that I knew you; My main point is to say that rules simply isn't the best way to refer to morality, even though the two stem from similar sources. As somebody, I have a horrible memory, said the "rules" that compose a person's morality can be flexible. It's my belief that they can even be subconscious.

I am a time traveller.

Could I borrow your time machine then?

I would accept "morality = rules" as an axiom. Is anyone here asserting that morality != rules?
Not just "anyone", practically EVERYONE here.

Impossible to prove. You would have to take a child outside of the family sphere, outside of society, and provide absolutely no stimulus that would possibly influence.

Would that even be possible? Children can't feed themselves after all.

To corroborate the rest of your point, actions and intentions cannot be judged together.

You must be this tall (http://www.holidayworld.com/holiblog/uploaded_images/statue2-714565.jpg).

It did it again! every time I quote you, my message appears above yours.

Impossible to prove. You would have to take a child outside of the family sphere, outside of society, and provide absolutely no stimulus that would possibly influence that child one way or another to know for sure.

We all have morals. Our morals don't all mesh. What does that tell you? That some people are 'objectively' moral and that others have rejected morality? Llewdor argues that morals must be rules that are adhered to, no matter what...that those rules must be logical, and knowable. He would reject emotion, because he mistrusts it. The rule says, 'you save one swimmer'. How you choose which is immaterial. You can let the one die because you hate him for any number of reasons, and your actions will still be moral, because you followed a rule. Your emotional reasons matter not.

I don't agree that letting saving one person based on your hatred of another somehow means you've made the moral choice, simply because in the end, at least one life is saved.
This is why you're so useful to have in these threads. You make a genuine effort to understand everyone's points, rather than acting like you're scoring points on a high school debate team.

you can be born with an intuitive sense of morality. At the very basic level most people know killing other people is bad.

Impossible to prove. You would have to take a child outside of the family sphere, outside of society, and provide absolutely no stimulus that would possibly influence that child one way or another to know for sure.

We all have morals. Our morals don't all mesh. What does that tell you? That some people are 'objectively' moral and that others have rejected morality? Llewdor argues that morals must be rules that are adhered to, no matter what...that those rules must be logical, and knowable. He would reject emotion, because he mistrusts it. The rule says, 'you save one swimmer'. How you choose which is immaterial. You can let the one die because you hate him for any number of reasons, and your actions will still be moral, because you followed a rule. Your emotional reasons matter not.

I don't agree that letting saving one person based on your hatred of another somehow means you've made the moral choice, simply because in the end, at least one life is saved.

You must be this tall (http://www.holidayworld.com/holiblog/uploaded_images/statue2-714565.jpg).

Exactly? Dang. I think I'm off by about half a foot.

Could I borrow your time machine then?

You must be this tall (http://www.holidayworld.com/holiblog/uploaded_images/statue2-714565.jpg).

It did it again! every time I quote you, my message appears above yours.

This one was four above the one I quoted? How is this happening!

But the believer believes they do, which is what matters. If you think your morality is only insuide your mind, you have no reason to care about it except as far as it makes you happy (or doesn't).

Wrong. I believe that my morality exists only in my head. My reason to care about it is because I see that it affects other people.

But then how do you decide what questions to ask? Either you have some standard you follow, or they appear randomly. There isn't another option.

I suppose you could be following a standard of which you were unaware, but then I don't know how you'd apply it.

Your inability to see beyond your two options does not mean that I am limited to those two options. I find solutions to moral dilemmas by thinking about things, imagining others, and generally applying my many experiences to find a solution. I can't help you if you can't even imagine a morality without rules.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to imply that I knew you; My main point is to say that rules simply isn't the best way to refer to morality, even though the two stem from similar sources. As somebody, I have a horrible memory, said the "rules" that compose a person's morality can be flexible. It's my belief that they can even be subconscious.

Don't worry about me. I rarely get offended. I'm just a bit prickly in my writing. It is possible that I am using subconscious rules, but it is just as possible that I am not. In either case, it would be pretty difficult to look in my subconscious and find it out. All we can really say is that I have no impression of following rules, and all my conscious processes do not refer to rules when I am resolving moral dilemmas.

This one was four above the one I quoted? How is this happening!

It's roughly because of this:

People from different locations access NSG through different servers, the clocks on the different servers are desynched. Because the server you are posting it on thinks the time is a minute or so slower then Neesika's, your posts might sometimes be recorded at an earlier time on the website, causing your post to appear above Neesika's.

Don't worry about me. I rarely get offended. I'm just a bit prickly in my writing. It is possible that I am using subconscious rules, but it is just as possible that I am not. In either case, it would be pretty difficult to look in my subconscious and find it out. All we can really say is that I have no impression of following rules, and all my conscious processes do not refer to rules when I am resolving moral dilemmas.

Ok Good. I understand what you mean. This is simply a very recalcitrant subject when it comes to wording. I have no impression of following rules either, but the definition of morality that I was taught along with the stuff about the subconscious I learned in Psych. led me to believe that I act according to a behavioral code that I can't consciously access, edit, and peruse. Rather it's formed by my beliefs, experiences, and interactions. Most moral decisions, decisions in general, actually, happen in a split second, the sheer amount of thinking our brain does without telling us is frankly astounding.

It's roughly because of this:

People from different locations access NSG through different servers, the clocks on the different servers are desynched. Because the server you are posting it on thinks the time is a minute or so slower then Neesika's, your posts might sometimes be recorded at an earlier time on the website, causing your post to appear above Neesika's.

Thanks, it makes reading this discussion really confusing sometimes.

No, you don't have to be religious to be moral.

And you certainly don't have to be moral to be religious.

Thanks, it makes reading this discussion really confusing sometimes.

Yeah, it's really annoying. I can't believe Jolt STILL hasn't fixed it yet!

No, that's not it. I am sorry for you.

Originally Posted by Llewdor
They care because other people's emotions have results; they affect behaviour.

You mean you don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when you do something nice for someone even when they don't react or respond to it? That sucks, dude.

They care because other people's emotions have results; they affect behaviour.
No, that's not it. I am sorry for you.

You know, the more I reread some of these, the more I understand where Llewlor is coming from. Its a very Nietzsche esc zone in some ways...in others its not.

I still disagree, but I find this debate interesting...as long as people keep away from personal attacks.

I am now reevaluating how to phrase what Im trying to say, as I dont think Ive articulated very well as of yet...

I shall lurk and watch...

And jump in and attack any Christian who comes on and says "Atheists are teh evil and are under my bed!!!";)

What does Nietzsche esc mean, bitte? And what about the Athiests who say "Christians are the evil hidingin the closet" ;D

How do I know there's not a rhinoceros in the room?

The room does not smell of rhinoceros, the room is to small to contain one, and they aren't exactly quiet animals.

Is anyone else tempted to be extremely cynical and go see how well everyone's nations match with the views expressed in this thread?

You know, the more I reread some of these, the more I understand where Llewlor is coming from. Its a very Nietzsche esc zone in some ways...in others its not.

I still disagree, but I find this debate interesting...as long as people keep away from personal attacks.

I am now reevaluating how to phrase what Im trying to say, as I dont think Ive articulated very well as of yet...

I shall lurk and watch...

And jump in and attack any Christian who comes on and says "Atheists are teh evil and are under my bed!!!";)

If you need an outside source to tell you that it's wrong to kill someone who is no threat to you or those under your protection, yes you are.


So, children are mentally ill now?

This is why you're so useful to have in these threads. You make a genuine effort to understand everyone's points, rather than acting like you're scoring points on a high school debate team.

I don't actually understand your point...I think it's crazy...I was even trying to flesh it out to show it as wacky...I mean...I try to imagine what it would be like to have the kind of morality you seem to support, to obey rules above all else, above intuition, emotion, etc...but I can't. It would, in my opinion, lead to absurd, and deeply wrong outcomes.

Server speed is driving me nuts!

So I'm mentally ill, now? Gee, thanks.


If you need an outside source to tell you that it's wrong to kill someone who is no threat to you or those under your protection, yes you are.

Then you'd know it was true. The morality of a given act would never be in dispute.

How?

Is anyone else tempted to be extremely cynical and go see how well everyone's nations match with the views expressed in this thread?



I do that all the time with almost every thread.

What does Nietzsche esc mean, bitte?
"Nietzche-esque" I'm sure was intended.
And what about the Athiests who say "Christians are the evil hidingin the closet" ;D
Christians never hide their evil in the closet; they're right out in the open.

I do that all the time with almost every thread.

Bah, I haven't played my nation since I started it...looking at it would tell you NADA.

Impossible to prove. You would have to take a child outside of the family sphere, outside of society, and provide absolutely no stimulus that would possibly influence that child one way or another to know for sure.

We all have morals. Our morals don't all mesh. What does that tell you? That some people are 'objectively' moral and that others have rejected morality? Llewdor argues that morals must be rules that are adhered to, no matter what...that those rules must be logical, and knowable. He would reject emotion, because he mistrusts it. The rule says, 'you save one swimmer'. How you choose which is immaterial. You can let the one die because you hate him for any number of reasons, and your actions will still be moral, because you followed a rule. Your emotional reasons matter not.

I don't agree that letting saving one person based on your hatred of another somehow means you've made the moral choice, simply because in the end, at least one life is saved.


Actually there are studies that support that children are born with innate ability to pick up language at a certain age (as long as they are in a normal social setting e.g. have a guardian who genuinely cares for them), to walk at a certain age, and discuss abstract concepts at a certain age, therefore objective morality can be intuitive.
No because that wouldn't happen normally to a child, also just because it can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean it's not true, it's just hard to prove.

Okay so if there is no objective morality, then how can we punish criminals?
What they did they could argue was right by them by their standards of living doesn't matter what other people who were affected by them think, because their morality doesn't come into it, as morality wouldn't be objective.
For society to function objective morality is better to have than subjective morality. As objective morality is always there, subjective morality can be twisted to whatever you so choose. Objective morality can be shown by your intuition.

So it's not to say that your intuition will immediately tell you what to do in any particular situation. Intuition can tell you what sorts of things are fundamentally good or bad.
For example, Moore thought that pleasure, virtue and knowledge were intrinsic goods revealed by intuition, while pain, vice and ignorance were intrinstic evils.(G.E. Moore 1873-1958 wrote Principa Ethica)

"Nietzche-esque" I'm sure was intended.

Christians never hide their evil in the closet; they're right out in the open.

I still don't know what it means.

The Catholic Church tried.

Okay so if there is no objective morality, then how can we punish criminals?
What they did they could argue was right by them by their standards of living doesn't matter what other people who were affected by them think, because their morality doesn't come into it, as morality wouldn't be objective.
For society to function objective morality is better to have than subjective morality. As objective morality is always there, subjective morality can be twisted to whatever you so choose. Objective morality can be shown by your intuition.



Morality and laws aren't the same thing. We punish criminals for breaking the law, right or wrong. The law, such as say, I don't know, the WWII Japanese Internment camps or segregation or aparthied, may be "wrong", but criminals are still punished for disobeying said law.

Hey! It looks like my server doesn't need the Last Rites after all.:D

Morality and laws aren't the same thing. We punish criminals for breaking the law, right or wrong. The law, such as say, I don't know, the WWII Japanese Internment camps may be "wrong", but criminals are still punished for disobeying said law.

But laws are built from a moral point of view, to say a criminal did something bad e.g.Kill someone for no reason from an objective point of view you can put them in prison and lock them up etc because you can argue that what they did was morally wrong.
Laws come from a moral standpoint, typically Rule Utilitarianism i think.
Yes some laws are made that aren't moral, but that's more a democracy thing than a moral issue.
Also trouble with Rule utilitarianism is it can slip into Act utilitarianism, or Kantian ethics if you're not careful, that and you need to carry a huge textbook around to judge people, which costs time and money.

Yes of course. Morals are religious concepts. So that sense one must be religious to have "morals". However someone can be ethical without any religious beliefs.

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

I don't really like the word morality at all, it is a rather broad and meaningless term. I prefer, *shudder*, 'humane' or 'inhumane'. As well as illogical, harmful, not in our best interests, violent etc...

But laws are built from a moral point of view, to say a criminal did something bad e.g.Kill someone for no reason from an objective point of view you can put them in prison and lock them up etc because you can argue that what they did was morally wrong.
Laws come from a moral standpoint, typically Rule Utilitarianism i think.
Yes some laws are made that aren't moral, but that's more a democracy thing than a moral issue.
Also trouble with Rule utilitarianism is it can slip into Act utilitarianism, or Kantian ethics if you're not careful, that and you need to carry a huge textbook around to judge people, which costs time and money.

What moral point of view did this hawaiian law come from?

It is illegal to put a penny in your ear.

Actually there are studies that support that children are born with innate ability to pick up language at a certain age (as long as they are in a normal social setting e.g. have a guardian who genuinely cares for them), to walk at a certain age, and discuss abstract concepts at a certain age, therefore objective morality can be intuitive.
False. The studies show that children actually become 'hardwired' according to the kind of stimulus they receive. On the extreme end, you have children like Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie), who because of lack of verbal stimulus became 'hardwired' and unable to gain verbal skills past a very limited point. In more common situations, children become attuned to the sounds of their mother tongue, and with age, less able to distinguish sounds that do not exist in that mother tongue (in Cree for example, there is no 'l' 'sh' or 'r' sound, and many elders were unable to form these sounds once they learned English).

Also key to physical and mental development is physical contact. It doesn't take much mind you, but being completely deprived can have devastating effects on children.

What this tells us is that, to a certain extent, our body will respond to stimulus by doing 'x'. It does not tell us that those things, language learning and so forth are intuitive. The innate ability to pick up language does not mean it would be possible to do so without the proper stimuli. Intuition means that you should be able to figure something out yourself. What you are talking about is physiology.

Children follow fairly predictable developmental stages. Children are incapable of empathy, for example, at certain ages. However, once they reach the age to begin critical thinking, there is no longer a 'step ladder' they can ascend that would lead them to an objective morality. Even at the stages of complete self-absorption, there is no 'objective morality'...there is simply an inability to think outside ones self.


Okay so if there is no objective morality, then how can we punish criminals?
What they did they could argue was right by them by their standards of living doesn't matter what other people who were affected by them think, because their morality doesn't come into it, as morality wouldn't be objective.
In our society, we choose a system of laws and restraints that we purportedly agree on, and agree to be bound by. We have decided in this system that there could not be social cohesion if we made everything dependent on the subjective morality of the individual. We have instead imposed a system of rules based on shared moral beliefs. Those rules do not form morality...the morality still exists within us.

We could, of course, chose to form our laws in another fashion, but it would be less likely to work. This is not proof of objective morality, only of our desire to survive.

it is a rather broad and meaningless term.

Exactly!

False. The studies show that children actually become 'hardwired' according to the kind of stimulus they receive. On the extreme end, you have children like Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie), who because of lack of verbal stimulus became 'hardwired' and unable to gain verbal skills past a very limited point. In more common situations, children become attuned to the sounds of their mother tongue, and with age, less able to distinguish sounds that do not exist in that mother tongue (in Cree for example, there is no 'l' 'sh' or 'r' sound, and many elders were unable to form these sounds once they learned English).

Also key to physical and mental development is physical contact. It doesn't take much mind you, but being completely deprived can have devastating effects on children.




Lack of human kindness kills babies. It was in the same Psych. video where I learned about Genie. Likewise, fear of heights, speech, and morality are learned behaviors.

Now my server's on life support.

Now my server's on life support.

In the address bar, what number is infront of forums, and before .jolt? Or is there no number?

In the address bar, what number is infront of forums, and before .jolt? Or is there no number?

no number

Bah, I haven't played my nation since I started it...looking at it would tell you NADA.

Why'd you make the nation then?

no number

Hmm, well I suggest that you (and me since I'm time warping as well), put a number in front of the 'forums', try 2.

Hmm, well I suggest that you (and me since I'm time warping as well), put a number in front of the 'forums', try 2.
It seems to be fixed now, and when I tried that, I got an error message. Did everyone else die?

What moral point of view did this hawaiian law come from?

It is illegal to put a penny in your ear.
I didn't say all laws are from a moral viewpoint, the important ones should be though.

Neesika. False. The studies show that children actually become 'hardwired' according to the kind of stimulus they receive. On the extreme end, you have children like Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie), who because of lack of verbal stimulus became 'hardwired' and unable to gain verbal skills past a very limited point. In more common situations, children become attuned to the sounds of their mother tongue, and with age, less able to distinguish sounds that do not exist in that mother tongue (in Cree for example, there is no 'l' 'sh' or 'r' sound, and many elders were unable to form these sounds once they learned English).

That may be true but it doesn't take away my idea that you're born with the ability to learn objective facts and morality, sure you can be taught how not to be moral, but Genie was one sad case, it doesn't necessarily follow that all people will suffer the same as she did.e.g. Koluchova (1976) studied identical twins in Czechoslovakia who had spent most of the first seven years of their lives locked in a cellar. The twins were barely able to talk and relied on hand gestures rather than speech to communicate. The twins were fostered at around age 9 by the age 14 their behaviour was essentially normal.(http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=223125).

Also key to physical and mental development is physical contact. It doesn't take much mind you, but being completely deprived can have devastating effects on children.
Agreed at can effect them but it wouldn't take away their ability to see, to sleep to eat and understand other people, therefore objective morality can persist through punishment

What this tells us is that, to a certain extent, our body will respond to stimulus by doing 'x'. It does not tell us that those things, language learning and so forth are intuitive. The innate ability to pick up language does not mean it would be possible to do so without the proper stimuli. Intuition means that you should be able to figure something out yourself. What you are talking about is physiology.
hmmm but being able to pick up stimuli is how you learn to be human, to learn from others and in the process at least understand that some things are just wrong.

Children follow fairly predictable developmental stages. Children are incapable of empathy, for example, at certain ages. However, once they reach the age to begin critical thinking, there is no longer a 'step ladder' they can ascend that would lead them to an objective morality. Even at the stages of complete self-absorption, there is no 'objective morality'...there is simply an inability to think outside ones self.
True but they retain the ability to feel pain and pleasure, why can't they understand what is good and bad.(not necessarily know what intuition means but still have a sense of empathy, as without empathy humans can struggle to socialise with other ones)

In our society, we choose a system of laws and restraints that we purportedly agree on, and agree to be bound by. We have decided in this system that there could not be social cohesion if we made everything dependent on the subjective morality of the individual. We have instead imposed a system of rules based on shared moral beliefs. Those rules do not form morality...the morality still exists within us.
Correct, rules do not form morality which is why they change so often, while it may not be accepted which form of morality is best, it does still exist in an objective manner

We could, of course, chose to form our laws in another fashion, but it would be less likely to work. This is not proof of objective morality, only of our desire to survive.
Not always, you could make laws in another fashion, but people would still know that intuitively if they were being harshly treated if they were being left out, if they were being unfairly treated or fairly treated, knowing that other people feel what is right or wrong as much as they do pain or pleasure which leads to objective morality.

Ok, you didn't die, you just went to do research. Interesting.

By the way, Hydesland, is your timezone right? that seems to have fixed the issue for me

I didn't say all laws are from a moral viewpoint, the important ones should be though.

Should be and are aren't synonyms. We don't judge criminals according to morality, we judge them according to legality. I'm not saying that the laws may not have ethical influences; I'm saying there's a distinct difference between ideal and real.

Should be and are aren't the synonyms. We don't judge criminals according to morality, we judge them according to legality. I'm not saying that the laws may not have ethical influences; I'm saying there's a distinct difference between ideal and real.

True. But the basis of laws comes from a framework of some form of morality.

It seems to be fixed now, and when I tried that, I got an error message. Did everyone else die?

I'm on forums2 without any error message.

True. But the basis of laws comes from a framework of some form of morality.

Yes, but those laws can come from a malformed morality as well as a healthy morality. Laws like the fugitive slave act came from a malformed morality. And I personally know judges who hold the precepts of the law higher than what their personal morality would call for. I.E. a pro-life judge who has to convict a demonstrater of trespassing because said demonstrater barricaded an abortion clinic

I'm on forums2 without any error message.

mine's fixed now anyway. I've decided Britain's got it out for me and moved on.

Yes, but those laws can come from a malformed morality as well as a healthy morality. Laws like the fugitive slave act came from a malformed morality. And I personally know judges who hold the precepts of the law higher than what their personal morality would call for. I.E. a pro-life judge who has to convict a demonstrater of trespassing because said demonstrater barricaded an abortion clinic

Hmmm i'm not very knowledgable about Judges. But they are open to bias like other people. I suppose that's another problem with rules is that you follow them and eventually you follow so many rules you fail to see why you follow them in the first place, and become fixated on doing your part and not breaking any rule.
Which is a problem with bureaucracy, but with no other effective way to manage large populations of people, all you can really do is try to make the bureaucratic practises people friendly.

mine's fixed now anyway. I've decided Britain's got it out for me and moved on.

I think it's fixed because no Americans are posting in this thread. The servers Britain go through are desynched with the American ones I think.

I think it's fixed because no Americans are posting in this thread. The servers Britain go through are desynched with the American ones I think.
I'm American!

I'm American!

Hmm, well then Jolt is officially the most nonsensical server ever.

I don't actually understand your point...I think it's crazy...I was even trying to flesh it out to show it as wacky...I mean...I try to imagine what it would be like to have the kind of morality you seem to support, to obey rules above all else, above intuition, emotion, etc...but I can't. It would, in my opinion, lead to absurd, and deeply wrong outcomes.
I would agree, but that's why I don't have morality. The entire concept seems absurd.

Though, since I discount intuition as fabrication, and emotion as subservient to rational thought, I might be approaching this from a slightly different angle.

So my athiest best friend doesn't have morals and can't possibly be a good person?
According to whom? I would argue that he cannot be a good person by his own measure. You might think he's a good person.

By assuming I follow some sort of standard, you assume that I use rules, and therefore show that you can't comprehend a paradigm where there are no rules, i.e. reality. If you're asking me how I manage to make moral decisions without resorting to rules, I would say that I ask questions.
But what questions do you ask? How do you decide?
If I were that person, what would I want? Is there reason to believe that that person might want something different?
Is there a reason to believe that person would want what you would want? You've adopted this relevant similarity I've been talking about as your default position, EXACTLY as I said you would.

And, in response to every one of your questions, why do you care?

Depends upon what you mean by religious. You have to be a deep person, and so somebody who is vacuous enough to not even consider the question cannot really be moral even if he behaves as hes supposed to, because he has no idea as to why. So while you don't necessarily have to believe in God to be moral and righteous, you do have to believe in something, see something in the world around you that is worth morality and making small sacrifices of yourself for strangers, see why you should care about something other then yourself, and what that thing is doesn't matter so much for this reason as it's presence.

This said, I do think it truly hurts a man to not believe in God, and the fact that Atheists even care is an expression of this anger, pain and fear. If it didn't affect you, you would devote no energy to it. Atheists wouldn't react violently to a "Happy Christmas," they wouldn't react violently to "Under God," and even if the government enforced belief, they would merely lie and treat them like speeders treat the traffic cops, and then it would go away. In other words, they'd be invincible and left to themselves, which is exactly what a genuine belief of that sort would want.

It depends upon your definition of moral, you certainly don't need to be religious to act ethically though.

Nope. I know plenty of people who are not religious and are perfectly moral.
I know some who claim to be religious and are amoral assholes.

:p

All of the religious people I know are complete jerks, so I tend towards the anti-religious.

This said, I do think it truly hurts a man to not believe in God,

Reason #2257 I'm glad I'm not a man.


and the fact that Atheists even care is an expression of this anger, pain and fear. If it didn't affect you, you would devote no energy to it.

What "it" are you talking about?

Are you talking about how atheists experience anger, pain, and fear as a result of being marginalized, attacked, and excluded from public life? How atheists are blatantly discriminated against by even the highest levels of government in many nations? How there are religious litmus tests for elected office, which intentionally and deliberately exclude the godless? How atheists are insulted and smeared with accusations that they aren't even moral beings? How it is routine and normal for atheists to be portrayed as evil, soulless, or otherwise deficient? How ignorant theists don't even bother to learn what atheism is before they presume to start telling atheists what they believe?

How atheists are constantly ordered to pay lip service to superstition, despite all of the above?

Wait, no, never mind. You weren't talking about any of that. You were making the dumbest argument ever made on this subject: atheists are mad at God!


Atheists wouldn't react violently to a "Happy Christmas," they wouldn't react violently to "Under God," and even if the government enforced belief, they would merely lie and treat them like speeders treat the traffic cops, and then it would go away.

Kind of like how genuine gay people wouldn't react to "faggot" or "no gay marriage," they'd just lie and pretend to be straight and then it would go away?


In other words, they'd be invincible and left to themselves, which is exactly what a genuine belief of that sort would want.
Dude, just a suggestion:

It appears that you wouldn't know genuine atheism if it came up and bit you. Next time, quit after the first paragraph.

But what questions do you ask? How do you decide?
The same way you do with any other area of thought.


Is there a reason to believe that person would want what you would want?

Absolutely. Personal experience.

Now, this does not mean that it is certain another person will want what I would want. Indeed, in some cases I know they don't. But experience has shown me that it's generally a good rule, and that the list of exceptions is relatively short.

Someone who doesn't rape or kill someone for fear that a god might punish them IS NOT moral

No, but lets hope god doesn't change his mind.

Someone who doesn't rape or kill someone for fear that a god might punish them IS NOT moral

The age old question...but what do you think? :D

Personally, yes, but not in the sense of conventional religion. Yes in the sense of the universal idea of common sense. Those who have no "common sense" are seen as immoral because the majority are against them.

Nevertheless, I would agree that it seems some people with absolutely no common sense are seen as moral. :p

No. Religion can, in a lot of cases, distort common sense.

No. Religion can, in a lot of cases, distort common sense.

It has been shown to do so, actually :

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html (scroll down to "Moral Fallout")

So my athiest best friend doesn't have morals and can't possibly be a good person?


By the way, the definition of morals is a set of beliefs and values that determine a person's actions. Murder can be a legitimate part of a person's moral code. Their moral code itself is bad, but they are loyal to their own moral code. The word moral is only associated with goodness by connotation.

This is why I don't claim that mass murders are morally wrong. I say that they are evil, horrific, a crime against humanity, etc. Calling something morally wrong is enforcing your subjective moral code on someone else. The correct wording is to say that a mass murderer has a malformed moral code.
Personally, I agree with these two statements.

I would add that the connotation of "goodness" is added to "moral" by the people purporting to define the beliefs and values that constitute morals. In other words, when people say morals = good, they are talking about their own morals only. Thus, the wildly varying concepts of what is moral and what is good that we see in the world and, in keeping with the topic, from religion to religion.

This extremely subjective and personal nature of morals is why I almost never use the words "moral" or "morality" and never use morals as a measure of right and wrong. I prefer to talk about "ethics." Ethics are also personal and vary very much from person to person, but they are far more externalized than morals. It is very hard to see by a person's actions whether they are moral persons or not -- and nearly impossible for different people to make the same judgments of another's morality. But it is very easy to judge whether a person's actions are ethical or not, and somewhat easier to get different people to agree about it. So I tend to judge a person's character by whether their actions are ethical or unethical, and I do not think about their morals.

I think there can be no question that both religious people and irreligious people can be unethical, so the whole "is religion necessary" question is moot, in my opinion.

I also maintain that even a murderer can have ethics. Ethics and morals may be linked, but they can be of any kind. There is not one kind of ethic that is associated with just one kind of morality.

No, but lets hope god doesn't change his mind.

lol. Thank Darwin there's no such thing as god

But then how do you decide what questions to ask? Either you have some standard you follow, or they appear randomly. There isn't another option.

I suppose you could be following a standard of which you were unaware, but then I don't know how you'd apply it.

The standard is yourself, Llewdor.

Read the questions Gift-of-god posted. They are all along the lines of "What would I want in this situation?" They begin with the self and then reach outward by comparing the other person to oneself and then including awareness of yet more others. But the foundational standard upon which to base questions is the self.



(Just as an aside, Llewdor. If you read posts to see what is actually in them, you may spend less time asking the same questions over and over. If you read posts only to see if they contain the specific things you want them to, your conversations will never be anything but repetitive loops. You asked a question that Gift-of-god had already answered in his original statement.)

If you read posts to see what is actually in them, you may spend less time asking the same questions over and over. If you read posts only to see if they contain the specific things you want them to, your conversations will never be anything but repetitive loops.
Can we please tattoo this across people's foreheads or something?

What Is "Morality"?
(multiple choice format)

A) The opposite of "fun".

B) Morality is the way everyone else thinks we should be

C) Morality is the way we think everyone else should be

Morals are different between each perosn. Even if they are "immoral" acording to our standards they are still strict to their morals. Therefore people like me wo are non-religous are moral

True. But the basis of laws comes from a framework of some form of morality.
But examples such as Mirajii's -- apartheid, segregation, also slavery (once upon a time in the US), etc -- are examples of how non-universal morality can be. Interestingly supporters of those legal systems often claimed religious support for them as well. Yet most of those same religions and their believers today would condemn those laws as immoral.

You may be right that people use their own morality as a foundation of most of their laws, but that in no way suggests that those laws will be right or useful or acceptable to all people, even if they claim to share the same morality. How subjective does a foundational framework have to be before we start questioning whether it really is a foundational framework?

No, but to me it helps.

No, but to me it helps.
??

Can we please tattoo this across people's foreheads or something?

Are you volunteering? :D

According to whom? I would argue that he cannot be a good person by his own measure. You might think he's a good person.
The bolded sentence is nonsense, and I mean that in the sense of:

1non·sense
Pronunciation:
\?nän-?sen(t)s, ?nän(t)-s?n(t)s\
Function:
noun
Date:
1614
1 a: words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1): language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2): an instance of absurd action

Source: Merriam-Webster online

Your sentence is like something Lewis Carroll would have written, except that he wrote things like that to parody and satirize public figures who talked nonsense but expected to be taken seriously.

Here is why your sentence is nonsense:

How can you possibly know this other person's "own measure"? How can you possibly know how this other person defines "good"? And finally, how can you possibly know what this other person thinks of himself?

It does not matter if YOU think that, as a general proposition, people cannot judge their own goodness. That in no way stops people from thinking they are good and from using their own measures (however wacky or non-wacky) to reach that conclusion.

So for you to "argue that he cannot be a good person by his own measure" is pure absurdity. No one in the world is more like to judge him as good than himself, and there is no measure he is more likely to use than his own. Therefore the only SURE way for him to be judged a good person will be by his own measure.

For the religious folks who are in here judging, shame. I seem to remember some passages in that book I hold dear too which say, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Since no human can know for a certainty what's in another human's heart, it's pretty arrogant to define them as moral or immoral based on whether or not you share religious beliefs with them... and beliefs which are often applied quite inconsistently, to be honest.

For you all judging the religious as being incapable of being moral without God to fear, shame. You should know that people are more complex than that... do you avoid doing harm to one another because you fear your parents are going to pop in out of the blue and beat your ass, or because you have learned the difference between right and wrong?

For you all judging the religious as being incapable of being moral without God to fear, shame. You should know that people are more complex than that... There is no indication for that in religious people.

There is no indication for that in religious people.
Unnecessary trollery.

Just pointing that out.

Unnecessary trollery.

Just pointing that out.

No need to. And his assumption is clearly flawed as well. Otherwise there would be more to his answer of my post than the expected and unsupported character attack.

According to whom? I would argue that he cannot be a good person by his own measure. You might think he's a good person.

So I can say he's a good person, but he can't say he's a good person- therefore he isn't allowed to have self-esteem. That's very kind of you.

I would agree, but that's why I don't have morality. The entire concept seems absurd.

I'm getting really sick of typing this: Morality is defined as the set of beliefs and values that determine a person's actions.

In your case, it would be your religious beliefs and your faith values. Whether or not you term it morality, you have it.

No need to. And his assumption is clearly flawed as well. Otherwise there would be more to his answer of my post than the expected and unsupported character attack.

Why is it that those who feel the need to question thoroughly everyone else's assumptions so often neglect to give their own the same level of scrutiny?

Depends upon what you mean by religious. You have to be a deep person, and so somebody who is vacuous enough to not even consider the question cannot really be moral even if he behaves as hes supposed to, because he has no idea as to why. So while you don't necessarily have to believe in God to be moral and righteous, you do have to believe in something, see something in the world around you that is worth morality and making small sacrifices of yourself for strangers, see why you should care about something other then yourself, and what that thing is doesn't matter so much for this reason as it's presence.

This said, I do think it truly hurts a man to not believe in God, and the fact that Atheists even care is an expression of this anger, pain and fear. If it didn't affect you, you would devote no energy to it. Atheists wouldn't react violently to a "Happy Christmas," they wouldn't react violently to "Under God," and even if the government enforced belief, they would merely lie and treat them like speeders treat the traffic cops, and then it would go away. In other words, they'd be invincible and left to themselves, which is exactly what a genuine belief of that sort would want.

Don't judge all Athiests by that psycho in California. My friend, an athiest, reacts to Merry Christmas and Under God the way you described- He doesn't care one way or the other. Actually, when people wish him Merry Christmas, he usually just looks at them sadly, and replies with, "If you say so." He's perfectly fine with wishing his Christian friends a Merry Christmas because that's what they believe. He doesn't believe in Christ, but he understands that we do and wishes us happiness in our own beliefs- because he's happy in his.

Can we please tattoo this across people's foreheads or something?
I've got needles!

No, but to me it helps. PRAISE THE LORD! Someone with a completely honest, sensible reply that can't be argued.

The bolded sentence is nonsense, and I mean that in the sense of:

1non·sense
Pronunciation:
\?nän-?sen(t)s, ?nän(t)-s?n(t)s\
Function:
noun
Date:
1614
1 a: words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1): language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2): an instance of absurd action

Source: Merriam-Webster online

Your sentence is like something Lewis Carroll would have written, except that he wrote things like that to parody and satirize public figures who talked nonsense but expected to be taken seriously.

Here is why your sentence is nonsense:

How can you possibly know this other person's "own measure"? How can you possibly know how this other person defines "good"? And finally, how can you possibly know what this other person thinks of himself?

It does not matter if YOU think that, as a general proposition, people cannot judge their own goodness. That in no way stops people from thinking they are good and from using their own measures (however wacky or non-wacky) to reach that conclusion.

So for you to "argue that he cannot be a good person by his own measure" is pure absurdity. No one in the world is more like to judge him as good than himself, and there is no measure he is more likely to use than his own. Therefore the only SURE way for him to be judged a good person will be by his own measure.


Thank you. And I do know he thinks of himself as a good person, because I asked! As my friend, he never hesitated to tell me that. We respect each other's vastly differing beliefs. I'm Catholic, he's athiest, another friend is Muslim, two more are Hindi, others are protestant, more catholics, another athiest, seven or so more agnostic, two buddhist, greek and russian orthodox, one a non-practicing agnostic (don't ask- her words, not mine), and we all think of ourselves and each as good people and have extremely healthy self-esteems.

There is no indication for that in religious people.


I RESENT THAT! I AM A TOLERANT DEVOUT PRACTICING CATHOLIC! JUST BECAUSE I AM RELIGIOUS DOESN"T MEAN I AM INCAPABLE OF TREATING MY FELLOW HUMANS WITH COMMON KINDNESS AND LOVE. I UNDERSTAND HOW COMPLEX PEOPLE ARE. IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS YOU WOULD SEE THAT I, AN AVOWED CATHOLIC, HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROPONENTS OF THE NO ARGUMENT.

Bottle, where did you put the tattoo ink again?

caring for one's fellow human beings, for the earth we all share, for all living creatures we share it with then atheists are the most moral.

Atheists realize that the life we are living now is all there is, there is no forgiveness, there is no afterlife or second chance. Atheists have to answer to their consciences which are unforgiving and have to weigh every action against that unforgiving conscience. Atheists try to do their part to help make this life better for everyone.

In the U.S. there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians, real bible-thumpers. These are the least moral people in the country as they have no personal consciences at all. If they can find something in the bible that tells them it is okay to beat their children, to mistreat animals or to pollute the planet then they feel justified in doing so. They have no remorse when thousands or tens of thousands of non-Christian people are slaughtered, will even cheer for the slaughter if it frees up what they consider their God-given right to control a piece of real estate they call 'holy'.

Is not intended to include Catholics.

:confused: What makes you think that?

I RESENT THAT! I AM A TOLERANT DEVOUT PRACTICING CATHOLIC! JUST BECAUSE I AM RELIGIOUS DOESN"T MEAN I AM INCAPABLE OF TREATING MY FELLOW HUMANS WITH COMMON KINDNESS AND LOVE. I UNDERSTAND HOW COMPLEX PEOPLE ARE. IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS YOU WOULD SEE THAT I, AN AVOWED CATHOLIC, HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROPONENTS OF THE NO ARGUMENT.

Bottle, where did you put the tattoo ink again?

Is not intended to include Catholics.

Is not intended to include Catholics.

The original post stated religious people, which, last time I checked, included Catholics.

caring for one's fellow human beings, for the earth we all share, for all living creatures we share it with then atheists are the most moral.

Atheists realize that the life we are living now is all there is, there is no forgiveness, there is no afterlife or second chance. Atheists have to answer to their consciences which are unforgiving and have to weigh every action against that unforgiving conscience. Atheists try to do their part to help make this life better for everyone.

In the U.S. there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians, real bible-thumpers. These are the least moral people in the country as they have no personal consciences at all. If they can find something in the bible that tells them it is okay to beat their children, to mistreat animals or to pollute the planet then they feel justified in doing so. They have no remorse when thousands or tens of thousands of non-Christian people are slaughtered, will even cheer for the slaughter if it frees up what they consider their God-given right to control a piece of real estate they call 'holy'.

As much as I sympathize with your blasting the hypocrisy of Bible-thumpers, I have to say that I've never seen any strong correlation between atheism and moral behavior any more than I've seen a strong correlation between Christianity and moral behavior or Buddhism and moral behavior or Hinduism and moral behavior or Islam and moral behavior.

The only strong correlation I've noticed is that people who make a genuine choice to live with integrity tend to exhibit moral behavior more frequently than others.

I think that morality is rather higher among religious communities, but one doesn't need to be religious to be moral. But hey, what is morality anyway?

Religious communities tend to confuse morality with hypocrisy.
:gundge:

:confused: What makes you think that?

Some of the more extreme fundamental Christians want to blow us Catholics up too.

Is not intended to include Catholics.

You didn't need to specify, I was only yelling at United Beleriand.

The only strong correlation I've noticed is that people who make a genuine choice to live with integrity tend to exhibit moral behavior more frequently than others.


Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Some of the more extreme fundamental Christians want to blow us Catholics up too.

Not that I'm saying we don't have our share of hypocrites and intolerants. We just don't get included in the category of bible-thumpers. I believe our official derogatory term is Papists, but that may be out of date.

Why is it that those who feel the need to question thoroughly everyone else's assumptions so often neglect to give their own the same level of scrutiny?

Because they have faith in their own beliefs, ergo everyone disagreeing with their beliefs is, in their eyes, an idiot?

Oh... I see... that was rhetorical, wasn't it? ;)

Not that I'm saying we don't have our share of hypocrites and intolerants. We just don't get included in the category of bible-thumpers. I believe our official derogatory term is Papists, but that may be out of date.

Romanists is the modern term, I think.

Romanists is the modern term, I think.

Thanks. I ought to know, being a catholic, but with my temper I find it better to walk away if I think there's so much as a smidgeon of a chance I'm going to be insulted to my face. My fist refuses to take orders from the logical part of my brain; I think my emotional response team hijacked it.

Thanks. I ought to know, being a catholic, but with my temper I find it better to walk away if I think there's so much as a smidgeon of a chance I'm going to be insulted to my face. My fist refuses to take orders from the logical part of my brain; I think my emotional response team hijacked it.

To be fair, it's not really commonly used where Catholics can hear. The only reason I've heard it is because I grew up in a very fundamentalistic Protestant family.

Were I you, I'd try not to let statements like UB's get to you. They only have power over you if you allow them to.

To be fair, it's not really commonly used where Catholics can hear. The only reason I've heard it is because I grew up in a very fundamentalistic Protestant family.

Were I you, I'd try not to let statements like UB's get to you. They only have power over you if you allow them to.

I figure that, but I know some very fundamentalistic Southern Baptists and sometimes they slip- they're not consciously intolerant, but well their 70+ and by that time, it's hard to help the way you're raised.

I try, but ya know- there's that temper thing.

"The irrationality of a thing is no argument against
its existence, rather a condition of it."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche So that's what Nietzsche-esque meant. I was wondering.

No, you don't.

Not all religious people are moral. Generally however, religious people tend to have morals, and try to live up to them.

Generally however, religious people tend to have morals, and try to live up to them.
What you find to be "generally" true depends on your environment, I guess. I generally find religious people worse than non-religious people, but your mileage may vary.

No, you do not have to be religious to be moral. That being said, religion properly understood is the most efficient way of teaching some level of morality; most people don't bother to study thinkers such as Kant and Aristotle to discover rational reasons to be virtuous and just, but they will often listen quite sympathetically to religious appeals to justice and virtue. The real kicker is that the religion actually has to preach justice and virtue, as many sadly do not.

Frankly I think it depends on your religion. Some religions, like Buddisim, or hinduisim(sorry if I spelled that wrong) are against fighting, to my knowledge. While Muslims and Jews are basicly fighting because they want each others land, and Christians are so stuck up and against Gays ect. Also Religion caused: Genocide, slavery, the haloucaust, witch hunts, the crusades, terrotisim, murders of homosexuals, the death of about every single Native American, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't think of right now, but they add up to about 5 billion deaths

Frankly I think it depends on your religion. Some religions, like Buddisim, or hinduisim(sorry if I spelled that wrong) are against fighting, to my knowledge. While Muslims and Jews are basicly fighting because they want each others land, and Christians are so stuck up and against Gays ect. Also Religion caused: Genocide, slavery, the haloucaust, witch hunts, the crusades, terrotisim, murders of homosexuals, the death of about every single Native American, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't think of right now, but they add up to about 5 billion deaths


Technically, Muslims, Jews, and Christians aren't supposed to fight either; fewer atrocities get committed in the name of Buddhism or Hinduism, though.
Religion didn't cause those; it was used to justify them. There is a difference.

So that's what Nietzsche-esque meant. I was wondering.

Nietzsche-esque can mean a few different things, depending on the context. Feel free to study him a bit more. I don't agree with a fairly large portion of his thought, but he's quite insightful in many areas, including religion and rationality.

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/niet.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

I may do just that. Thanks for the links.

Is it just me, or are many of the topics on forum here against conservitive Christians, such as myself?

I think that many non-religious people have morals. The question is: what type of morals do those people have. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of people that hide behind relgion, but are immoral.

Also, I'm fed up about the whole homosexuality thing. I personally bellieve marriage is betwen a man and a women, because the Bible says so. I don't hate them just because. Some people disagree with them for logical reasons. That dons't mean we should hate them. It means that we should act with kindness, but point out what their doing wrong.

Frankly I think it depends on your religion. Some religions, like Buddisim, or hinduisim(sorry if I spelled that wrong) are against fighting, to my knowledge. While Muslims and Jews are basicly fighting because they want each others land, and Christians are so stuck up and against Gays ect. Also Religion caused: Genocide, slavery, the haloucaust, witch hunts, the crusades, terrotisim, murders of homosexuals, the death of about every single Native American, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't think of right now, but they add up to about 5 billion deaths

You have confused religion with greed justified by religion, because in nearly every example you just gave, it was justification for one side to steal the goods, land, or the freedom of another.

Religion didn't cause those; it was used to justify them. There is a difference.
Not really, no.

I personally bellieve marriage is betwen a man and a women, because the Bible says so. I don't hate them just because. Some people disagree with them for logical reasons. That dons't mean we should hate them. It means that we should act with kindness, but point out what their doing wrong.

1) Are you saying you do hate them?

2) What logical reasons does anyone have for disagreeing with another's personal life?

3) We don't like it when people point out they think religion is stupid, why should we point out that we think homosexuality is sinful?

Not really, no.
Yes really. Greed caused the crusades just as much as religious beliefs. Religion was used to prop up slavery, but the religion itself didn't enslave people.

In essence what I'm saying is, Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. The religions in and of themselves are intrinsically good. The adherents of that religion are not. Religion was the excuse. Hatred, intolerance, ignorance, psychosis, and greed were the causes.

In essence what I'm saying is, Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. The religions in and of themselves are intrinsically good. The adherents of that religion are not. Religion was the excuse. Hatred, intolerance, ignorance, psychosis, and greed were the causes.
I completely disagree. What people learn from the religion is what the religion teaches, even if the founder of the religion intended to teach something else. The religions are not "intrinsically good" if evil, rather than good, is what comes from them. Many religions increase "hatred, intolerance, ignorance, psychosis, and greed" rather than lessening them.

Its out of love, and in the end, thats what morality should all be about, regardless of belief. Love your neighbor, love your family, love the guy who beat your face to a pulp.

No. I'd rather go out and beat his face to a pulp.

I'm not going to bother reading all 8000 responses to this topic,
I suspect you've got the posts and views stats mixed up.

I suspect you've got the posts and views stats mixed up.

No, I was exaggerating

The same way you do with any other area of thought.
Except there's no starting point for an empirical investigation, so the means I would use in other areas doesn't work.

If it matters, measure it.
Absolutely. Personal experience.

Now, this does not mean that it is certain another person will want what I would want. Indeed, in some cases I know they don't. But experience has shown me that it's generally a good rule, and that the list of exceptions is relatively short.
But what if the list of exceptions was quite long? The majority, even? Alternately, how do you identify exceptions?

The standard is yourself, Llewdor.

Read the questions Gift-of-god posted. They are all along the lines of "What would I want in this situation?" They begin with the self and then reach outward by comparing the other person to oneself and then including awareness of yet more others. But the foundational standard upon which to base questions is the self.
That only works if I assume I'm relevantly similar to other people, a baseless position.
(Just as an aside, Llewdor. If you read posts to see what is actually in them, you may spend less time asking the same questions over and over. If you read posts only to see if they contain the specific things you want them to, your conversations will never be anything but repetitive loops. You asked a question that Gift-of-god had already answered in his original statement.)
Empathy, compassion, and imagination are not a complete answer. Why those? How are they applied? Why are they applied in that way?

I'm trying to find a starting point, just as I was with you. It appears some people don't like to investigate their own opinions.